[music playing]

>> they are holding their third annual freedom today and the focus on what the framers including james madison would presidency, the congress, judiciary and media. mark thompson the ceo of the new york times, george will, jerry ornsteind also norm author of the room.

branch about congress. this should get underway shortly. here on c-span. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen welcome to freedom day. am jeffrey rosen, the president of this wonderful institution which is the only

institution in america that brings together citizens of different perspectives to unite around this beautiful document of human freedom, the u.s. constitution. [applause] is the highlight of our programming here at the national constitution center. it was launched on april 13, our inspiringr mission and to encourage citizens around the country to celebrate and educate themselves and debate the meaning of freedom. i mean to acknowledge the visiting area founder of freedom day the woman who conceived of this great celebration and has made it a permanent part of the constitution center, freedom live the. --freida libby. the first two years of freedom day brought together the leaders of america to debate the meaning

of issues ranging of the future of religious freedom to the future of free speech. today we are gathered for a meaningful event. the shares green day launches a new two-year initiative that is going to be a centerpiece of our work. it is a national commission called, a madisonian constitution for all. this important commission will have, what would james madison and the framers of the u.s. constitution make of our current presidency, congress, courts, and media and how can we resurrect madisonian values of the rule of law and limited government and constitutionalism today. this important commission is convened at a time when there is great debate in america and around the world about the tension between populism and constitutionalism.

james madison and the other framers were not populists. they studied failed to mock these like greece and rome they recognize that unchecked democracy can leave tomorrow rule.\ lead to mom in federalist 10 madison has two crucial stations. assaid in a republican opposed to democracy, citizenship never be able to directly instruct their representatives. representative would not have been a madisonian vision. the second thing he said is that we need to distinguish between .ough around the --referrenda decisions are delegated to the people's representatives rather than taken on one off floats.

idea that we designed a system with limited government and individual rights in order to promote liberation was crucial to the madisonian project. we know their new technology and forces, new social media technologies making it possible for citizens to rest themselves voices ratherike than through deliberation. citizenssorting of into filter bubbles and echo chambers are challenging the deliberation that madison was necessary for the deliberation of freedom. we have convened some of the greatest minds in america from all four branches of government

in order to address this national question. you have taken the time to come to philadelphia and many more watching us on c-span and other places. we will launch this commission and great use some of the greatest thinkers to ask this question. what would the framers think of our current fixations? for the next two years what will span across america holding podcasts and commissioning white papers and we will issue reports and in two years we will reconvene here in philadelphia and propose some solutions that we hope will cast light on one crucial questions. what is exciting about this importanceits civic is the remarkable bipartisan

support we receive. i am thrilled to report that our commission will be cochaired i add extra new group, includes our visiting scholars here at the constitutional's center senator mike lee and chris coons and representatives just in a mosh and -- in the house. is alsocommission cochaired by two women and we will have a conversation. liberman otis, and caroline fredrickson. it is important and we will have an incredible series of conversations. think want finally to

bill buser, from the road down foundation -- rosedale foundation he has provided seed money to start the foundation. are committed to preserving madisonian values and discourse. thank you very much. [applause] let's begin. please join me in welcoming the cochairs of the madisonian constitution for all commission, lee liberman otis and caroline fredrickson. [applause] welcome. it is such a thrill to have you both here in person. i really need to tell you about the collaboration between the under theciety

leadership of lee and caroline has been central to constitutional center has achieved in the past couple of years. with the interactive constitution which many of you have heard about. go to the app store and download the interactive constitution. go to constitution center.org and find this thrilling tool where caroline and lee of their great organizations have nominated legal scholars to write about every clause of the constitution describing what they agree and disagree about. you can learn so much about each part of the constitution, models the civil dialogue. i am thrilled to have enlightened every time i sign onto this amazing and free tool and learn from this great tool.

please join me in thanking lee and caroline. i am so glad we are off and running, this great madisonian commission. important for americans to study what madison thought about the constitution and why he is important today? >> i think the basic -- basically the constitution is premised on the notion that we can form a government. i think it was in federalist one basin reflection and not on set up but it also institutions decided to do that and adherence to its totitutions is central whether the experiment will be a

success, which hamilton notes at the beginning of federalist one is an open question. that this is a possibility, to create a reflectionbased on as opposed to tradition, hierarchy, or something else. a government based on reason and reflection. is devoted to the madisonian constitution. why do you think it is important for americans to study what madison thought today? >> i just want to thank you for having this event here in that daschle constitution center. the eventsportant, you put on and the exhibits that people can see here. at acs and that we

the federalist society, we don't agree on a lot in terms of the but we dould you stand shoulder to shoulder when it comes to the important work of educating the public about the constitution, ensuring that people are reading it, thinking ,bout how it came to be thatipating the challenges we face in the future and how the constitution will protect us and where it needs to change. importante salads are for the resilience -- these documents are important for the importance to understand our of history and the future we are walking into. what did your file to teach? >> american history.

>> all of us were blown away by the success of this constitution, which has gotten 10 million hits. have made it a centerpiece of the curriculum. it has been thrilling. it has been a model for so many collaborations including debates that have spanned across the country from d.c. in new york, to chicago where organizations nominate debaters and educate americans about the account institutions. why is this collaboration important? >> i should also add my thanks for thee to caroline's leadership you have been providing to this institution, and your tireless and energetic theses to organize

splendid debates. thank you very much for that. it turns out that questionsible -- one about the constitution is to what extent does it have a meaning whether it is possible to discern. one way to figure it out is by hearing both sides, about people's different views about what it provides. debates are a wonderful opportunity for people to do that. i think that everybody, including the debaters, say they learn things about the constitution, it enables them to make judgments not on the basis of what they would like the

constitution to mean, that on the basis of arguments about what it actually means. the constitution while work if work -- i think a civil, vigorous discussions about what it says is in a sense just central to , havinge enterprise constitutional government. >> that is beautiful, too. the importance of bringing people together for discussion to hear unfamiliar arguments and the importance of separating your politico from your constitutional views. caroline what do you think the virtue of the debates both in person and online has been?

>> the debates have been fabulous. you can watch them. of the most some important constitutional issues we face as a nation. is importantility in refining one's own viewpoint, and with this important document . we have had some interesting ones. the last one which dealt with the possibility of -- four supreme court justices. -- oneate was structured federalist society one american constitutional society person on each side of the debate facing off against each other. is not always so clear-cut about how ahead falls, liberal or conservative.

it's also not clear cut, you differences. the notion of end where people fall in the political spectrum. looking at the constitution and thinking about how should we read this document. how do we extract meaning from it and apply it as. seeing it applied to a current debate, something we are facing in our own lives and we think these are connected. the constitution has a deep and important to show substitute basis for so much that we do. why the work of the national constitution center is so important and the federalist society is we keep reminding people that the constitution has forced. it has meaning that is real as

it is applied to people's lives. >> that's beautiful to, the constitution is real. this is meaningful, ladies and gentlemen. we are told we live in a society where liberals and conservatives cannot have discussions. lawyers we have to the importance of the constitution and converging about the fact that it the collaboration is the most important thing we are doing. we will do beautiful things for constitution in america. please join me in thanking lee and caroline. >> thank you for including us. jump intonow going to

the first panel involving the media. ladies and gentlemen, this is an extraordinary group you will hear from. journalism, wef -- thompson the ceo of the new york times, gary rosen, entry of the saturday review of the wall street journal and author of a brilliant book about james madison and death. linzer the head of politics at msnbc. the centeron came to a few months ago to discuss his brilliant new book called" and said.t -- enough it has a way of taming the ashes of the crowd, it is a tour de

force. i asked mark to join the commission and he agreed. but they are discussing what the most urgent questions our time, how can we preserve madisonian values? please join me in welcoming our guests. [applause] mark, you started all this off. the epilogue me that you drafted for the new addition which powerfully takes on the question of populism versus the rule of law posed brexit and post the 2016 election. if you could try to distill the

audience your argument about how these populist forces that we are seeing are threatening the values and why. my day jobt thing is of being the chief executive of the new york times and the subject of a project began four , whenago about brexit donald comes to lunch at the new york times are in -- --. obvious, we are seeing now two of the important of publicpillars life, which support democracy. and the judicial system in both britain and

.merica in america both of them coming under attack. i think that's not an accident. with populist regard with a string media, and to some extent the legal system in our problematic.being therefore worthy of attack and that the phrase enemies of the people use by president trump and other media in this country, same phrase used by one of the the u.k.,wspapers in but daily mail to describe judges who have the temerity to suggest that parliament should thede whether or not article which begins the process of the u.k. leaving the eu,

whether article 50 should be triggered, that should be discussed in parliament. the reaction to the newspaper was to accuse the judges of being enemies of the people. naked attackmore on some of the structures in both our countries, but my understanding the weakest on the stage of james madison, are central to madison's conception of how you think about government, which is of the people, but not pray to sudden and extreme passionate gestures by that people. some of these structures it --.s to me any elitist institution like the times and judiciary is an

enemy of the people and that the seven passion of the people should be tamed was a madisonian ideal. you have risen a good book about his thought. to mark'sur response framing of the problem of the tension between populism and constitutionalism and what would madison make of the -- of it tonight? >> madison would look at our media world today and consider it a nightmare for constitutional democracy because whole project was to figure out ways to tame and direct passion, extreme expressions of interest. allfederalist papers is about the institutions that are meant to channel and refine all of these wild ideas and notions floating around our political lives.

co wroten were two today, we have all of the incredible tech knowledge he which all of us use and appreciate but which are so brilliant and magnifying and transmitting ideology, and passion points of view of riling up people in ways that have nothing to do with deliberation, sincees -- what we happy -- incredible schools what madison called faction, the self interested parties of one it idea or another. he would not like it. anthe same time, there's is -- important as well. he would see our media, our quality press, as an important

check on the excesses in our government. he, himself was a participant of that in his own day to the federalist was not written as madison himself in the early days of the republic, especially when the federalist party was in his mind, they -- gathering power in this way -- he took to the press to rally people up. what a lot of what the press is doing today as serving an important constitutional function. apart from different policy immigrationwe think should be handled this way are that way, what's to think about taxes? i have been impressed over the of what the months better segments of the press are doing to highlight what our

system of government is about. to have anns authority and mandate, what the responsibilities with the legislature are, what the .resident's authority is like how far does the president have authority, what are his limits? that has been a very constructive role. the question is, however we are thinking in a madisonian way of reform and building institutions, how we might do more of that to make the press and even more substantive part in a way of this whiter system of deserving constitutional government. >> we want to think about reform . msnbc's ratings are through the roof. you are doing such important journalism. before and after the latest election. if to kerry and mark, are you in cable news, subject to some of these populist pressures, they

are lamenting to get biggest ratings among -- could you imagine an msnbc audience making it through a federalist pen, with answered some questions -- are you concerned that the cost of these high ratings -- what can we do about it? i am amazed a little bit at the ratings and you ship and audience. ends andelection cycle the public was engaged in this usually after an election, the audience goes away a little bit. they are tired, they want a break. -- theyew cycle returns are not wholly focused on politics. the selection for a long time just because of the

,ircumstances of the results 54% of people who voted did not vote for the president, they funded for someone else. roomast time i was in this , msnbc host to the town hall with hillary clinton and bernie sanders. that was in april ahead of the pennsylvania primary. i think the audience -- won a city audience i mean voters -- they are truly engaged, and want this happening. they won't understand what this presidency is about, what it means to have one party in power in washington. this is the first time since the 1960's the democrats have been out of power everywhere.

knownk they really want to -- i say this, truly ever see politics for nbc news and msnbc they want great reporting. i symbolically do as well, which is why you are here. they want great journalism and reporting, and they don't want punditry or screaming, which is why i think actually for a place of folksc, the kind they have on in primetime hours, that is what they are looking for. it has been a surprise to see people more interested than ever before. >> that is a heartening, optimistic observation. our experience at a smaller scale here is that people are hungry for constitutional -- kilis and the podcasts about

technical issues, the fact that you are all here under such loyal, lifelong educators, suggest that people do want to educate themselves and develop their faculties. on,, your last chapter ends not a terribly optimistic note. using these phenomenon are not passing, but may become more entrenched. and yet, you identify some reforms, the needed to shore up institutions among them. , given thee seriousness of these populist forces, but what can be done. >> my thought is that some of the underlying drivers of automation, loss of jobs to automation, globalization, global migration, are likely to become more intense in the coming decades. democratic we need

systems, ways to debate and discuss how to deal with these issues, which are going to come up -- the more pressure than they are now. is, the levelrry of disruption in 2016, 2017, was enough to reduce something of consequence. what will it be like in 2026, 20 36, 2046 if we do not do something? it's about -- listening. it seems to be right at the aart of the idea of representative system of government, republicans government. its video of residents who are effective at listening to and understanding the people. gesture byonger mainstream politicians and the to theo listen intently

public at large and to reflect public concerns, and in a way to press them in the case if the media so the people can see that their concerns have been expressed. also by expressing them to some extent, to give them a channel which means they don't build up in attention in negative ways, is part of what we have to do. byough my book, i am struck the role of emotion. that she thinks about reason, persuasion, pathos and and the weights, of the way we persuade each other. if you can't find an outlet and andy of understanding teshnding to emotion, most almost any system of democratic

government will eventually come under acute pressure. it seems to me that we need a greater response within our institutions. once again, a way of integrating tesh concerns of reason, evidence and argument, i think of my concerns with enough empathy that we bring enough of the people along with us. populism is a warning sign to elites about the need to listen. there's talk about the art of i wouldg, speaking, -- say about our institutions commit the recapturing and --lity to profoundly listening doesn't mean compromising, but profoundly listen to and trying to understand a whole range of perspectives and making in a reasonablele's emotional responses to the events part of the way we

develop policy and the way we think about how we cover the world, and a way which i think you could argue in recent years, institutions have been less good at doing. >> mark brings up a madisonian question. how can institutions, in particular the media, listen to and reflect popular concerns without me were ring them and may -- and the near ring them in a demagogic way? madison is worried about media technology and is concerned that the press may not be able to unite concerns of merchants and farmers and different classes in a way that will promote public .eason now of course technologies are so much more democratic. >> i think one way to think about it is the proper and of real scale democratic politics, deliberation, peoples feeling as

if there are institutions in some way reflect their wants and needs. in the media -- this goes back to what i was saying before -- we could do a better job of reminding people of this haveicated, republic we with different levels of government, different responsibilities. i think in a way, going back , those different levels of politics and governance for people's session people to express themselves is a positive thing. we have are now a republican congress, the controversial and popular republican president and we have seen all of these interesting reversals among people who were opposed to this administration on basic issues of local and state control. dynamic.d the usual

these democrats and progressives are saying, we are tired of being bullied by washington, but of scudder -- govern california as we want to or let us have our century cities, to have our own immigration policy. that's a very positive turn in our politics. be that that wouldn't just be a way of saying, we disagree with you and immigration and will fight you with any tool we have got. i would hope instead it might lead to a discussion about hey, maybe one of the problems we have in this country is to try at the national level -- we try at the national level to do everything comprehensively which leaves people in the counties and states feeling disempowered, bullied, pushed around, and ready for some kind of populist upheaval. i would love to see a principal discussion about the proper boundaries of levels of government. look, that will cut both ways for everyone. if you think a city should be able to shelter and shield

undocumented immigrants, the location of that might be that those same localities might be able to have their own policies ontransgender bathrooms, and questions having to do with gay rights, things that will not make liberals feel very comfortable. but we need to step back from -- substantives disputes and think about structure. >> the states as laboratories of democracy, many of you like i or brent -- you talked about small-scale communities and government. are you now or have you ever been a brent icm? [laughter] an overwhelming minority. [laughter] read that riveting book, luigi brandeis, i will convert the rest of you.

like gary's is that only an small-scale communities and businesses and governments can people master the facts necessary for personal and professional government. large-scale institutions are too big for anyone to understand, therefore they take reckless risks and often fail. our media environment is not conducive to small scale laboratories of democracy. ,e have a world wide web worldwide speech, and they needed to get worldwide ratings. so if their danger -- all three if you have been optimistic about how this might be promoted on a small scale of responsible listening, the structure of the media environment will lead it to demagogues and mobs. no.hat, will take it on a couple levels. one is -- i will push back on one notion that i think people

about ratings. they'll work for businesses. times, wall street journal's, and be seen as are all businesses. it's pretty obvious when you watch or read it, for people who are involved in institutional tesh the news, it's the number one thing we feel we are rewarded for. play in sensationalist that regard. certainly not now. if you like the public is so completely engaged and rewarding in institutions, but honestly i worry of the bit about, in terms efforts -- iicial think from the white house, to be candid in sowing doubt institutions. wants toat the public safeguard those institutions. of the wide open

democratic said to get from being able to access information on the web, or how that would play out for people, i still believe that they are looking much more to sort of a bigger picture of things best they can trust. say on thought i want to kerry's smart ideas and solutions, and what the cost is of the localized sense of empowerment, but some of these organizations and movements are looking for. even at the state level, those bubble up. there's a sanctuary city in california, that there are movements that are all over the country and find their homes everywhere. , andnk that that is

one-way way, where they would unify. and look for joint solutions that would take them across the board. >> please respond to everything you've heard. up this to wrap discussion. some concrete proposed solution so we can take on the road for the next few years, then we will reconvene and address them. reporting is always local and specific. of all three of our organizations, is to report what is happening in different parts of this country cover the world. then, share that with everyone. i think one of the great media, that classic you have professional masses, empirical research board is

happening in states and cities. one of the contributions they can make is that texture. there is to be a great national debate about what is int decided that what level the country, the media can play a role with that. elsehat takes on something which we won't have time for now, which is, how we try to work towards sustainable journalistic institutions at every level of this country. buffett recently spoke about american newspapers, only two newspapers, the wall street journal and new york times, have at the moment, economic models likely to be sustainable. havinguntry depends on

an effective journalistic resource in every state, city. that is under immense threat at the moment. what a reviving healthy rejuvenating democratic system for this country would look like to how we have regard assure more journalistic institutions can continue to what isnd share happening in every part of this country. crucial point, we need facts and journalistic institutions to play a crucial role in supplying these facts. we need to support them. some have described this is a post-fact society, which means we cannot agree on what facts are. you described, do we live in a post-fact society, the madisonian dystopia?

the idea that medicine had some robust notion of public reason i have to quarrel with a little bit. pessimistic about the possibility of popular reasoning, peoples permitting some sort of dispassionate disinterested point of view. he had this famous wonderful line in the federalist where he athenian citizen had been socrates, every anthony and assembly would still have been a mob. [laughter] he was realistic about this. was im, the question think, in what way can citizens different interests and capacities participate meaningfully in government? some of it has to do with information available.

--on't have a big solution we are old media. even cable news is old media to read new or mediate -- you are newer media than we are. this basic media reality defined -- ourle and by facebook ceo robert thompson had this peace in our paper the other day that was pretty tough on google and facebook and said, this is a duopoly that is not only ruining our businesses, quality press, but that is more than anything else responsible for the prominent destructive to -- in fact of fake news. the to throw things out indiscriminately and have a business model that depends on not discriminating among kinds of news. i knowel in some way -- they started these different experiments with fact checking -- in the end, this is my naive hope, they might realize that

editorials are important. [laughter] are importn -- editors are important. [laughter] to impose standards of their own. this is against what they have been about from this -- from the start. i don't see how given our limited role contribute to a same politics is possible until something important changes in how these new ways of channeling and spreading information test burning work. >> another great takeaway. last word, the question is obvious. is it facebook's fault, and what can we do to address this problem with fake news? >> it's all their fault. [laughter] obviously, i second

everything that gary said. are sort of in the business -- the ratings model is not being fake news for all of us right now. that's a big part of what we are doing. the fact checking and rigor -- i some ofk and looked up the president's tweets about fake news where he uses that term, when does he use it? duke university did a great study looking back at every single time he has used it. he always uses it -- almost always, there were a few exceptions -- nearly always uses it when talking in the context of reporting on the russian story that a lot of us are following. that his what he uses that whether- it's not about he -- other news organizations like nbc certainly. to me, that's a big part of what

we are trying to push against, that notion -- to me it's not is a google or facebook or who is responsible for fake news? the president pushes fake news. is an a great -- he incredible publisher on his own of that, that that isn't something as a society we need -- we all need to grapple with. that's what's happening with all of us. saidr an incredibly also -- auspicious beginning of great national conversation about the future of idiot, thank you for joining just join me in thanking our guests. [applause] now my great pleasure to introduce our next panel, which is a treat and an honor.

the future of judicial independence is a topic you have heard about, mark thompson theioned that headline in daily mail, choosing -- accusing judges of being enemy of the people when they ruled against theresa may after the brexit vote. chairo honored that the of the judicial track of our national commission, honor to have judge jeremy fogel. judge fogel is a great judicial educator, he is the head of the federal judicial center which is responsible for continuing judicial education. has led this incredible series over the past three years, where federal judges have converged to what about the future of the administrative state, race and the criminal justice system, the future of religious liberties. he is a distinguished judge in and the national convener who is deeply committed to judicial independence. i'm excited he has agreed to

share this track of our commission. he will interview two of our most distinguished federal appellate judges. he will introduce them more fully. they are judge timothy tempora veg, chief judge of the united dates court of appeals for the judge lindsaynd guy cole junior, chief judge of the u.s. court of appeals for the sixth circuit. please join me in welcoming them. [applause] >> think you very much. one thing i have learned working with jeffers is as i will never match is busy as a. [laughter] that doesn't mean i don't feel it, it just means when you are a duck -- judge you and to modulate those things. [laughter] it's really an honor to be here.

such a great program. i hope that part of it is edifying -- the first two -- i will say more about my colleagues. they are both terrific leaders. terrific judges. they lead very different circuits. is theole's circuit sixth circuit, michigan, ohio, and kentucky and tennessee. think about that. michigan, ohio, kentucky, tennessee. .hat is judge cole's circuit he will talk about the challenges of being the chief judge in that circuit and how he has worked to honor the values of -- of recent discourse and working things through in a respectful way. judge to give it is the chief judge of the 10th circuit, headquartered in denver it's the

mountain west. plus oklahoma and kansas. i have worked with both of these .entlemen a lot i'm delighted there here and very happy. they were appointed by different presidents, judge cole is appointed by president clinton. judge fitch was appointed by george w. bush. one of the things we will try to demonstrate in the next half-hour is despite philosophical differences, different hip -- histories we all have, we are committed to a common process, set of values. i want to start with judge to give it. the 10th circuit has had several -- i want out our new supreme court justice is from the 10th circuit, judge gorsuch is a veteran. a -- all of the

tough issues. the have a hobby lobby case, talked about the role of religious choice in relation to the affordable care act. dave same-sex marriage in sixth circuit. they have had other of issues -- issues and club -- involving class, religion, and government. tell us a little bit about how your court has approached these passionately divisive issues. i appreciate the invitation and opportunity to be here. i used to be introduced as coming from the high mountain .est with legalized marijuana to things have dropped. [laughter] sunshine,ys of laid-back western part -- and five, maybe that has contributed to the culture. you think of the third branch as the branch that does not have the problems of nationalism,

maybe you see in other parts. to a large extent that's true. we've had 200 plus years of within thea culture judiciary, particularly at my level, the circuit court. but based on results in deciding cases. respectfully of course. that's not easy is judge full mentioned. we had three or four of the toughest, most divisive, controversial cases over the last 10 years. in aseen my court engage way that i would like to think is the model for other branches, other institutions, the way the engagement is -- a persuasive written product. to display different points of view and defense point of view. that is what makes the third branch different.

we have a reputation which we have worked hard to create ended her. there's reasons for that. judges has been very heial andcommitted to collegiad and it is not a mistake, it is earned. it takes time and trust he. we have great leadership from our chief judges. three of the four happen to be women. i don't know if that matters, but they were very end of bringing people together. you mentioned two things. one is the need to make things right. it's not just any writing, it is legal writing. a particular type of reasoning where you are trying to be her slices. you cannot do that by tweeting.

it is a deliberative process going to i have seen a lot of different ways. from the entry-level clerk to the chief judges, a couple of layers of management. i think that fosters a certain esprit de corps. if you come into our court passes you will see the people who work for us believe in the mission. it is true, a lot of us are active politically before we come onto the bench and once we put on our roads and have a chance to work with judges from

every perspective and background, there really is a shared purpose about deciding cases in the most optimal way. >> it doesn't mean you agree about things. you could have divided decisions. you could have a fairly vigorous sense, but it's not personal. the hobby lobby case was a 6-3 case on our court. there were strong positions on both sides, but it was all about the law and the reasoning and not about personalities. sometimes it is tempting to write that extra edge to in. most of us don't do that. >> i always told my clerks, not in the draft.

the six circuit also has very difficult challenges. they also had a same sex marriage case. the sixth was the circuit that was at odds with the other circuit prior to the supreme court deciding the case. the six has had a tremendous amount of capital litigation, ohio being a very active death penalty case -- state. these are things that divide people. i would like to start by -- my aestions to you not as positive place. , the supremes court decided the affirmative action case coming out of the university of michigan. there was some fairly significant division that occurred in the six circuit, to the point where judges were not speaking to each other and

things were quite bad. when you became chief, there were still some fallout from that. i am interested in how you have approached it in the time you have been chief judge. to thank the center and jeff rosen as well for having us. judge three years my new i approached role, i have been on the court as setting the tone for the first circuit. based on the constitution and precedents upon the record that is before us.

we were functioning impartially, they have been supportive ever since. that was one thing that helped. withxt goal was to meet each and every judge on the circuit. i wanted to make sure that we had an atmosphere where we could

have reasonable discourse. i heard earlier speakers talk about that. i thought that the way to get to that was for me to hear from the judges in terms of their concerns, their complaints and criticisms you may have. thoughts that had about my leadership or the circuit overall, and i have continued to solicit their input. i think that has helped a lot. the fact that i went in and i met with each and every one of my colleagues. there were several colleagues who had very strong opinions. hard to believe that judges would have strong opinions about one thing or another, but they did, and they wanted to be heard. important in very the course of the aspect of society, that we listen to one another. that sounds so simple but it is difficult. andtalk about the cases

death penalty cases, those are cases that the judges have very strong views. they are important cases, and we have passionate views about how we interpret the constitution. statutes andret the rule of law. the goal in my view is to be able to have confidential discussions about these cases following the oral arguments --.e every view is my opinion is no better or worse and other judges abuse. that was really my goal. we have a large court. our court spans four states, 36, , that's aon people lot of different people to be

accommodated. it was very helpful to me and i think couple to the court overall for me to meet with them and to set the tone for an atmosphere where everyone's view would be respected. there are two things in there that job out at me. intentionally as the leader of the court made this an important value, it was important to you to let people know what was important to you, and you took the time to make that a personal thing, it was part of your relationship with your colleagues. the chief judges don't have any more power. to ask ave ever tried judge to do anything, --. it is hard. you have to do it by persuasion. is that youyou said

made an intentional effort. but you also appealed to something that apparently everybody was ready to buy into, which was that discourse is part of the way we do things. as the judges said, i think all judges want to get the issues right. we want to come to the right decision. we have different views on what that decision is or the pathway to get there. the important thing is that the judges are able to have this where they can develop trust in one another that the other judges are listening, that they are paying attention and giving some degree of legitimacy to others opinions. >> you don't have to hide how you feel? you don't have to fear that you

are going to get personally attacked if you take a view that is different from that of a colleague. >> and you don't have to agree. more often than not, there are matters with which you have disagreements, but you hope it will be a principled agreement. >> i am going to try to ask this question without employing any political view of my own. just was a chief justice made a statement and gave a speech about judicial selection. he was commenting on the supreme court confirmation process. what he was saying was that he worries that the way the process is presented to people makes it look like it is all a political fight. it looks like every other political fight that we have. some sense it is,

looking at it from a congressional point of view. ,ut the concern that he had was was that the courts don't internally work that way and somehow it was giving an inaccurate impression about how thets go about processing work. what do you think of that? chancesh people have the to be a fly on the wall after we we have 12rguments, thees on our court, but important cases like the three .ou mentioned, we got together the opportunity for people to see the nature of the discussion ithe level of preparation think would be a real example to other branches and institutions about how we do business.

alone, weecide issues have to persuade one other judge , we will be with our colleagues of usfe, means that a lot will be together for a long time. having said that, our courts are .ery dynamic it is a very dynamic organization. court seems more stable and unchanging. i think that this at the circuit my observation is that judges work really hard to not project that attitude. my experience with many colleagues around the country is i think that is true across the circuit. >> there are tens of thousands of cases that go to the circuit court of appeals. the supreme court hear 75 or 80 cases a year.

>> these are the courts of last resort also a tie. how much oftion is this is exportable to the rest of society? we have all been lawyers, we have all been judges and go through a very severe vetting process most of the time. the good news is, i think we all agree that we live up to the most of the time. a what extent can that be model for others, or what extent is it unique to us as judges? >> a fair amount of it is exportable. caseside our confidentially.

the public doesn't get to see that part of our work. hear oral can askednt and judges questions from the bench. but you do not have the benefit of seeing our discussions in conference. productive are very discussions. we spent a lot of time getting prepared for oral argument. i think that helps the deliberative process. the topic that can be exported is the knowledge that you can bring together judges of many different backgrounds who come from different parts of the country. at one point different political parties whose ideology spans from one end of the spectrum to the other end of the spectrum.

and the ability for those judges to talk about very difficult matters, and reach some sort of decision. the appellate court, the decision-making process, every judge has to discuss the matter with two other colleagues. woulds the thing that i think would be comparable to other parts of society, the tolingness and ability entertain very different yet give them your consideration. i think we do a very good job on the courts in doing that. i think it circuit courts across the country, the courts are

unanimous around 95% of decisions. public hears a lot about the dissenting opinions. but most opinions are unanimous by virtue of the level of preparations that the judges put into the cases, the oral argument process and that the deliberations. there are systemic checks, three-judge panels, do your homework before you express your opinion. the need to try to bring other people along. >> i concur with that. this notion of judicial independence also gives us the sense that we are going to be around tomorrow and we have the freedom to jump into an issue .nd speak our mind without fear i think because of that, we work hard to get to the right answer.

on my court, we sit with every on a, every term of court rotating basis over three-year. i will sit with every single judge on my court. i think that level of familiarity brings a level of respect and understanding of their judicial method reality -- methodology. and the way they arrive at an answer. i think it leads to the nature of civil discourse that at least we can be an example. interesting -- the independents, the thing that madison fought hard for, most of the state courts around the country elects some or all of their judges. if you have this conversation with them, it is a little bit different. if you have organized sometimes

late on one side or the other note to get judges to one side -- these are used as political statements to a greater degree. this is one of the reasons why the framers were so interested in candidates for federal judges. the other thing just so you don't get the idea that we are people, in fact, i remember after one of the same-sex marriage cases, i just happened to to have conversations with two of the judges on the three-judge panel, ,e decided one of those cases neither was very happy with the other in terms of what they shared with me. they were frustrated and disappointed. it's not like we are human. but it is like something else

comes into play when you are speaking in your official capacity. it is important for the public to appreciate that the judges go about their business in a very impartial way. they try to be completely free of partisanship, we are really just trying our best to get to the right answer based on each and every appeal that is presented to us. day it is of the important that the public has of federalr system courts -- all courts in actuality, and note that we are pushing these thorny issues that bring about a great deal of passion in a deliberative, impartial manner. >> i think we are just about out

of time. i would like to thank my colleagues were doing exactly what i thought they would do. thank you. applause] bright -- a 10-minute break? great. thank you so much for being here. >> you are watching the national

constitution center's third annual freedom day celebration, and annual symposium featuring america's fault leaders from the left and right, it's flooring areas of agreement and disagreement about how the constitution is crucial to the freedom. be 15s scheduled to minutes. live coverage will continue when we return. all that we are featuring our in c-span video competition for middle and high school students for this year students told us the most urgent issue for the new president and congress. our second prize middle school winners are eight graders from silver spring maryland eleanor -- charles the russian alexander hair, they believe the when opioid epidemic as an urgent issue.

in huntington west virginia 28 people over diced in the hours.in just over four then i started getting more interesting in huntington and the opioid epidemic. december and we worked until middle of march -- middle of february. we were working every day in months.r two and a half it took us a while. it was a long time editing. out,d to plan everything what we wanted, where we wanted it. >> going to huntington back in november after the election that

took three days overall, talking to people. , ii didn't know this existed was like well, we can do that. we had to each write our own individual pitch. we kind of combined them. huntington, west virginia a city standing upon the edge of rural appalachia. be one of thed to most successful frontier towns in the country. now it is one of the most depressing industrial failures and the entire u.s..

huntington is the city has been a bridge between the midwest and the east. the railroad and adhere which allowed for industry to flourish. steel and transportation trades begin to blossom in huntington. soon after huntington things began to get worse. >> huntington is like a lot of cities in america today at one time produce a lot of products, whether it be railroad cars or glass. a lot of that industry went away. >> as interest 31 the number of jobs also went away and sadly, these depressions or smack dab in the middle of the opioid crisis. there is no question that big pharma plays a role. when you look at how many

addictive substances were marketed and push into west virginia. our population is one of the smallest in the united states. >> people began to get addicted to these miracle drugs. people became so dependent they did horrible things to obtain them. i ex-husband -- iran over his so it looked like he got hurt so we could get painkillers. >> they took away drugs like oxycontin. the elimination of the drugs did not help to solve the struggle. people just looked into the next cheapest option, heroin.

marketingrnment and lady huge role in the epidemic poverty and dear -- deterioration also heavily affected the current heroin crisis. economy and a an person i goes from making $80,000 a year as a co-minor all of a sudden loses his job, his income is gone. >> recreational or experimental use of drugs can also cause of action. >> i think it started out with and i'm sure a lot of people can use marijuana and they can stop. from there it went to pills. then the physical back pain and that was callous for an addiction.

>> i couldn't get to quit no matter what i could do. >> it was a pretty disposition to addiction. >> this runs in my family. some folks are genetically predisposed to have dependency issues. to it hit a 15 2006 staggering peak. 28 people overdosed on heroin in just over four hours. luckily, there were only two deaths as first responders helped. most expert believed this is not a normal batch of hair one. normally these are attributed to the additional batch being spiked with additional drugs. addiction does not discriminate. >> i live across is true from a heroin addict.

i have lost every one of my friends. it has deteriorated huntington itself. poverty is rapid rate on nearly every block not only can you see the effects physically but you can see the depression it has left on huntington economically. organization recovery point west virginia takes struggling drug addicts from across the state into a 6-9-month program to we people away from drugs and alcohol. many believe this sort of treatment deserves much more funding that it currently has. >> we need funding for treatment, we need funding for people when they get out of treatment because a lot of them have been in trouble with the police and the law. lacks sadly, this sort of waitingt leaves people for over five months.

another possible way to alleviate the crisis is a lack of many of those who take drugs. >> we know what to do with people that are addicted. they belong in the criminal justice system. ,f we did have a drug problem they would be stealing rolexes or cars or whatever. >> it is a well-known fact that the use has the highest incarcerated population in the world. >> we don't want people to do this so we will have an extreme penalty if they get caught. , if yout penalty is boil it down to the simplest terms is putting someone in a cage. -- there is one thing that they agreed on. for thest be funding alleviation of the crisis. huntington is beginning to put money into treatment and the mitigation of addiction. >> finally our state is coming together. we have a lot of different

organizations and people that are working together to fight this epidemic. we have law enforcement, the we have a lot of people working together that we have not had before. if we all come together come help fund these programs, we can possibly cure addiction. enough of an outcry against this epidemic, we can get the attention of our president, donald trump come and upcoming legislature. ♪ >> to ask the prize-winning documentaries and this year's studentcam competition, visit studentcam.org. ♪ they live shot of the national constitution center in philadelphia.

they're hosting the third annual freedom they were american leaders from the left and right have been exploring areas of agreement and disagreement about how the constitution is crucial to the future of freedom. we expect them to return from their break shortly, but in the meantime, we will show you some of c-span's programming from this weekend and will return life when they resume their discussion. [chatter[ ] >> here are some of the programs on c-span. :00 -- :00 eight eastern, a nasa briefing on the discovery of seven earthlike planets. >> we are using the hubble space telescope to study the planets to determine if they have hydrogen-helium dominated atmospheres. >> followed by a discussion on genetic modified food in los angeles. >> those of us who do this, we think all plants are gmo's, because there is nothing you buy in any of your grocery stores, organic or conventional, that

has not been genetically modified. >> easter sunday at 10:30am eastern, what has easter egg offense the last four presidents. the new visited -- visit to the african-american history museum in washington. >> i knew that the nation was thirsting for this museum but i have to confess, i did not know that the reaction would be this positive and strong. pm, a panel of federal judges discussing the history of the bill of rights. >> it's part of the whole constitution, hugely important designation, divisive -- division of power. >> a conversation with david's gorton, the librarian of congress carla hayden, and the archivist of the united states david terrio. hundred 56ection is million objects, including a hundred 54 million other things.

pm eastern, historians. they discuss presidential leadership. >> it's interesting that the greatest american president, abraham lincoln, is bracketed by the least successful american president. >> this holiday weekend on c-span. >> this weekend, c-span cities tour the help of comcast cable partners with a literary scene and history of charlottesville, virginia. saturday at noon eastern on book tv, we does the university of regina to see there to on william faulkner, nobel prize winter -- nobel prize winner. >> we have a lot of wonderful artifacts from falconers time at uva. many that come from uva sources. we have the typewriter he was issued by the university. it has the property stamp on the back. we have a jacket he wore.

when you look at the jacket, external and ratty. for a long close time. he left this hanging and his office when he went on his last trip to oxford, mississippi, when he passed away. >> sunday 2:00 eastern on american history tv, we will travel with thomas jefferson's monticello. >> he visited monticello 20 years ago -- he would've come up and just seen jeffersons beautiful neoclassical villa. what we wanted to do was change that. we wanted to restore the landscape of slavery because if you would come up this mountaintop in jefferson's time, first thing you would have seen would be enslaved people. there would have been no place on this mountaintop that slavery was not visible. , maket to restore that that known to visitors who come here today. >> we will visit the university

theirginia to learn about first year project, which explores challenges u.s. presidents face on the first year on the job. >> as lyndon johnson said when he became president, helping your majority you get one year -- the congress stop thinking about you the president and starts thinking about themselves, their reelections. yearnuary of your second after you have done your first year, all the members of congress are thinking about their midterm elections. they're cautious about taking any risks to help you get your mandate and agenda through. >> sixpence did it -- cities tour of charles koch, virginia, saturday at noon eastern on c-span twos book tv. sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. the-span's life coverage of

third annual freedom day at the national constitution center in philadelphia which will be resuming shortly. american have included leaders, discussing how the constitution is crucial to the future of freedom. [chatter]

>> ladies and gentlemen welcome back to freedom day! a round of applause for the next phase of this incredible discussion. [applause] media, thecussed the

judiciary, now it's time to discuss congress set up by article one of the constitution. america's are two of leading scholars of congress, mickey edwards vice president and director of the rebel fellowship and public leadership at the aspen institute, a former congressman from oklahoma, author of the party versus the people, how did -- turn republicans and democrats into americans. and norm feinstein, resident scholar at the american enterprise institute, co-author of a book which will set up the tone of our next discussion. if you thought the early ones were too optimistic, the broken branches the title of norm's book -- how congress is failing america and how to get back on track. please join me in welcoming mickey edwards and norm squirms team. [applause]

>> thank you. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> welcome. >> thank you. norm, you have a striking atle of a book that was quite runaway hit when it came out, the broken bridge. our topic is, what would madison have thought of our current congress and what can we do? madison feared congress is the most dangerous branch. 48, their federalist department is extending the spirits -- activity and drying power into its impetuous vortex. what was it that madison feared about congress, how did he define congress to olivier? >> every day we worry about the impetuous vortex. [laughter] >> i certainly do. >> some way to set the tone, i would refer to the title of the book that follows, even worse than it looks. [laughter]

its successor, it is even worse than it was. that was last year. >> the next one will really get down. [laughter] before we are done and will plug the next book, out in september. >> you ain't seen nothing yet. [laughter] go lie down, it will run over your life. [laughter] >> the next book, which is j dionne and tom manned, it's called, one nation after trump, a guide for the perplexed, disillusioned, the desperate and not yet supported. [laughter] on a non-partisan basis. madison did think a lot about what to do with congress, absolutely. before we had a congress, he wanted to have a stronger congress with the legislative

branch under the articles of confederation -- then he saw under the articles of confederation. there is worry that you could have a small chamber that would seize power and put half its tentacles everywhere, a bit like in the movies canada reads where they are constantly seeking to do damage, they would take a listen the executive and judicial branch, and that it could bring about the tyranny of the majority, smoker. youanted to be sure that have not just a separation of tower, but check on the of the legislative branch, checks and balances. a lot of discussion over how you do that within the institution countroadly and within -- opposing a house against the senate. quick mickey, tell us more about

those madisonian checks that he instituted to constrained congressional tyranny -- tyranny , and where was medicine confident that we could have a constrained congress? believedn first of all the people who had to some degree the power positioned, keep have impotence to that strength, that they were going to be the director representatives on the people themselves, one of the most important parts of the constitution being at every senator and representative must be an actual inhabitants of the state in which they are elected. they are to be the voice of the people, though he thinks they should just obey the people. he was a burkey him, but he didn't know it. people ind that congress would be jealous of their pride of their prerogative, that they would understand them and be a check

against -- checks and balances was his key thing, separation of powers. he thought there be a check, the executive. happened is you have members of congress today, norm talked about how it was worse than it could be -- the problem is you have members of congress who don't understand without authority is. i once gavea cop -- a talk about the oversight -- i was speaking to a group of top level staffers who were complaining because, trying to get information from the executive branch, friday -- freedom of information act. john dingell's never would've filed the request, was get the -- get your tail down here. athink madison envisioned congress that was familiar with the constitutional obligation that they had to make sure the

people were left in charge of their governments decision. we saw in the previous discussions, you've been asking, what would madison think about this? madison would look at the congress today and i think he would be appalled by how wrong he was in trying to imagine what people would be like this far in the future. >> norm -- >> want to dig into dysfunctions of congress today. take us through the constitutional instructional changes of congress's madison rose. the couple big lots, the original first amendment of the constitution which you can see out -- there should be one representative of congress for every 30,000 inhabitants is passed before 1000 congress people today. he thought the kind of representation was important. mind withe have in

that, then talked of the other change including office once -- direct elections of senators, ringing up to the decline of the filibuster from last week. >> think it's important to remember, madison had a whole set of balances in his mind. he wanted to have a congress that would check potentially an executive, who might become a dictator. he wanted to make sure that congress didn't move in and run everything. he wanted to make sure congress was close to the people. on thelly he talked right house of representatives, not just about having a small group that -- members were present. the talk about having a one here turn. madison also wanted to have a recall just in case. we know how obsessed they were about tyrant -- tyranny and the majority as well. is to createalance a senate that would not be

directly elected, that would be the overusedw -- discussion of where jefferson talked about the saucer cooling of the hot passions of the people. something that was a little bit removed, that would be there to -- i would mention a few things. i find these troubling as we look for the time that has passed. rumor this was not simply madison's vision, it was this whole set of compromises, large and small states, and trying to get enough support so you could get the constitution vests support in the convention, than have support with the public as a whole. together.ping states now you not only have a congress were people represent well over

600,000 or 700,000 people, sometimes as many as one million people. have a vision of when the constitution was created. the difference in population between the small estate and the large estate was a tiny fraction of what we have now. were going toou have more power there that could go to smaller states. ,here you would get to senators the same as larger states. gapif you have a population that is 60-70 to one, the electoral college in balance aside, you are getting a senate where more power goes to smaller states. what we see in the modern era is those smaller states are more homogeneous and white. .nd rural in a country that is becoming more diverse, more have her header -- heterogeneous, and

oriented towards urban areas. you are out of sync in many ways from the population as a whole. how do you deal with out without a significant constitutional change? i'm not sure. at the same time, if you start to make the house larger, which would bring members presumably closer to people, you take away that ist i see fundamental of our system compared to a parliamentary system. the word congress was chosen deliberately from parliament. congress coming from the meeting of latin, to come together, parliament from the french word meaning to speak. in that system you have a government which makes policy, in the parliament through its majority party passes the policy. ,hen the parties argue question. you have all seen. they talk.

ours was supposed to be bringing people together face to face where they would debate and deliberate and organically develop a larger sense of what might be good for the country. reasons, whole set of including airplane travel, campaign finance, and so many other areas, they are not debating and the liberating. now that money would have a because of the redistricting processes, where echo chambersnt in homogeneous areas. what i see in the house, the larger problems make use talked about so eloquently that we will get to decide, people talking past one another. there is not debate. even in the senate which is supposed to be a great chamber of deliberation, that's gone. a lot of what i think madison has not worked

quite the way we wanted it to. we have to think seriously if there are ways to bring it back. the questions of whether the congress is acting as an aside.dent branch >> that discussion of the importance of deliberation of debate plays off of beautifully, that eloquent discussion of the last panel or the judges talked about the importance of sitting down respectfully and the riberating with each othe making, your program which brings together state and local elected officials around a common table, begins with a serious readings about the difference between populism and constitutionalism. we read federalist -- federalist 10, and for reducing cardio -- forensic aria. .> local people say it's better

why is it better from a state -- when youvel, and think this has eroded -- a written? >> one of the things that has happened in the last couple is that members of congress don't have personal relationships anymore. the work in washington is very short, you go back to district constantly sick and raise money and raise money for other people who belong to your political club which saw the parties are. because of that, it's hard to -- then with the judges judges know each other for a long time. what member of congress knows about another member of congress is that person belongs to the other enemy team. that has a big bearing on what has changed in the interrupt. today, most members of congress are so driven by the

systems we have put in place about how you get elected -- and my book i talk about sore loser, most people don't know about. mean thatnd 46 states the hard-core -- most ideological, partisan, can control who is access to the ballot. as nor mentioned, redistricting is not as big a problem as some people think it is because it does not affect the senate. i have not noticed the united states senate to be any great improvement over the house. we'll is considered the senate the lower house anyway. [laughter] happened is that -- you could see this right now with judge gorsuch becoming justice gorsuch. programs will for the merrick garland being confirmed. believe it, you know this very well.

william of douglas was confirmed unanimously, because you were looking at what his temperament, what is reasoning, education, experience. not, what -- now it is which club do belong to? we are so driven now bipartisanship and little disagreement with what they said before. msnbc, theox news, way the primaries are. we have -- we of driven -- we have become a divided nation. this is not just members of congress who are divided who won't talk to people on the other side of the aisle. it's the nation. it's much worse -- it's partisanship. that is something much worse and madison would've ever anticipated. 's partisanship is the

problem, is great for medicine to be surprised? the outgoing federalists reduced the size of the supreme court to deny incoming jeffersonian republicans the right to make appointments. isn't that much worse, and if it do people geographically segregate themselves and to echo chambers, or are there other causes? many.re are making calls it partisanship, i call it partisan tribalism. is, tribalism has not been unknown to america through its history. it was there in many ways at the beginning. this sense of publishing -- punishing enemies and petting one side against the other was there. mostly that was when we didn't have rules and we were establishing them. think of madison had time to study where we have gone and where we are, would have hoped

that we would transcend some of those things. he didn't think there were be political parties but he knew there would be factions and he that theymake sure could control ambitions -- those ambitions and factions. the debate of deliberation was supposed to be where you could see people coming from different spentounds, and after -- time talking back and forth, you can appreciate where they were coming from. after a. of extended debate, if you had an outcome which would be a broad leadership consensus -- this is where the wonderful daniel patrick moynihan was on target talking about how, we don't make social policy without broad leadership consensus and by persons consensus. if you lost, you would still say, i have a chance to get my view point across. now that is policy, let's try to

make it better. athink he would be appalled laterct that, 240 years we were more immature that a lot of people were at the beginning, worrying how we get out of it. big is a significant problem. it's not the only problem. mickey's right, redistricting to supply apply to the senate. the fact is, you've got a lot of quite that are heterogeneous and diverse. and you do have a difference in the senate -- the immigration bill back during the obama term the past the senate with a broad bipartisan vote that couldn't even come up in the house of representatives. the tribalism has taken over in the senate. think what madison also knew was , aou can set up a system constitution with glaucoma rules

, but norms drive it. they're like the endoskeleton of resistance. if you don't have the norms, the whole process begins to erode and fall apart. what i she is a combination of trouble media and social media magnifying all of it, and leaders who have lost sight of the larger purpose of what they are doing, who allow those norms to disappear. and broken branch, tom and i , the about that phrase regular order. that is an important part of what congress does. nikki was a champion of the regular order. that's when he -- when he was in , for whatever set of reasons, it was mostly because of his reverence for the system and institutions. that has gone by the boards now.

we have seen it over many years. role wasuster -- the in place from 1975-2013. the institution didn't fall apart from 35 years. in fact, the norms that operated were such that, you could argue that having the threat of a was incentiveld for leaders to work across party lines. when you have a leader who says never mind that i will use him for everything as a weapon of mass destruction, then it falls apart. madisonhat would leave quite distressed. >> mickey, i hear norm saying that the problem is partisan tribalism, the symptoms are in tobility of congress deliberate and function. as a result it is not exercising its constitutional role. it is refusing to declare war -- or invest war powers resolution. some critics and its delegated

-- announced a 30 to the executive branch annoy some has clamps unconstitutional. is that diagnosis right? you recently expressed sympathy for the freedom caucus for at least trying to check the president. is that what congress is supposed to do and shouldn't do more of that? >> i was not endorsing their position on the legislation. freedom saying is, caucus is saying to the president what i wish what he -- paul ryan would say, you are not the boss. we are a separate branch. that didn't happen. i want to address one thing about factions. there were parties and factions during madison's time but they were not the same. they would come together on the shoe or that -- this issue or that issue. he have mercantile's, the people andfor tariffs, whatever, they will be together -- but it wasn't all the time. you have now and you can see it,

whether it is supreme court nominations are a health care bill or whatever -- all the democrats are supposed to be on one side, republicans on the other. nancy pelosi was not speaker of the house she was the speaker of the democratic party. paul ryan is not speaker of the house, he's the speaker of the republican party. that has become a large part of the problem. there is very little, looking at the substance, the merits of the issue on the table, as much as you are looking at which party is bringing it forward. say,u try to stand up and i have to on the merits -- i happen on the merits to agree with the position that the other parties brought up, you will get killed in a primary to reduce a much of the problem we have is systemic. it's the election system we have created, it's all the other -- it's the incentive system, reward system. what you punish is what you don't get. we have created a system, we, we freeed a system, in which

quote -- we reward those people who stand firm on principle, never compromise. we punish those who say, i will sit down and try to work out a common solution. that's why we have the problem we have got. >> respond to norman. this commission you have agreed to join -- we're all here to launch, is cochaired by these bipartisan coalition, mike lee and chris coons, the disgraced wrongly but politics but are united by their devotion to constitutional checks on executive authority and congress are -- exercising its constitutional role. to identify this -- the solutions that could respond to the big story and resurrect madisonian -- >> i sure hope so. i wish i could be more optimistic. thank you for creating this opportunity, this is important. congress over a long. of time was built -- the late

bill frenzel from minnesota. bill for many years, when he was in congress -- and after he left congress he stated hero because he was one of the first members of the independent office of congressional ethics, and thankless task -- he did it because he loved and cared for the institution and constitution. bill and his wife used to address the incoming freshman classes for a couple of decades. was, this ism bill the greatest experience and honor you could ever have. the number of people who have actually been elected to the house of representatives over american history is a tiny fraction of all the people in this country. you are going to be a part of this great institution. a part of it was, bring their families to washington so they can be a part of this great experience. , franklyit faded away after to became speaker and

basically told his members, this is a leprechaun a, you are here to clean up the leper colony but don't get leprosy and don't have your children get it either. keep them away from here. it created a sense of antipathy towards the institution. members came in not believing there were part of something bigger than themselves. anything bigger than themselves -- it was the crusade to bloat government as we know it. that has moved now to an even higher level. i have been around washington for 48 years, i have known a lot of members congress. the first 20-25 years i was there, who cared about the institution. devoted themselves to making it better, and on that the late -- don matthews called, institutional maintenance or patriotism. the number of members now who

care about their own institution is a tiny tiny fraction of all who are there. they are there because it is a vehicle to a cop with other things, within it is their own personal ambitions or a narrow set of ideological goals. have, thewhat you notion that you will do oversight of legislative accomplishments to make sure there are carried out by the executive the way they're supposed to, that you will monitor your own internal ethics -- we saw an effortless time to blow up that independent ethics process -- that you will be a check on the president and his people, including for the nomination and confirmation process in the senate. or if you have evidence of a hypocrisy developing in the white house or executive branch, or if you have misdeeds conducted by an executive reform policy or elsewhere -- there is concern about those things.

troubling.lly it got at least a few people, some of them former members, some of them -- just in a match who is been heroic in terms of his willingness to take on his own party's president is an outlier within his own party, a real outlier. where we going to find others? >> mickey, last word to you. is it the constitution that will unite both sides? we have downstairs this proclamation of war from james polk about mexico. polk says, mexican troops have crossed the border, therefore he is allowed to respond without congressional authorization. abraham lincoln said, show me the spot where mexican troops crossed the border, because without that spot you have no constitutional authority to act. people -- congress

what institutional changes would you suggest that would allow the constitutionalism in the congress? >> what your fellow brits bernard crick wrote a book called, in defense of politics, where he argued that politics is the way of free people govern themselves. politics is aa of great calling has disappeared. foxle who watch msnbc and -- ec politics now, it's about outcomes. it is not about process. what james madison was about was process, the constitution is about that too. it's a deliberative way in which we solve our problems together as a people. more and more in our society now, we have a sense that -- this came up earlier when we -- the left about

now is suddenly against big government, they want states to make their own decisions. it's about what outcome are you trying to get? nor mentioned it, regular order, the way the congress could do about -- you have to go back to a system where you make your decisions not from the top down, not based on your party ideology, but let's sit down, look at what the arguments are coming to vote passionate and dispassionate interests and this interests, and talk together about what is the problem, what are the solutions, which ones make sense. you have to have public support for that. the more the public is demanding the outcome they want what -- rather than a thoughtful response of reasoning system of government, we are not to get it. >> i know we are over jeff, but a couple points. the first is -- it's worse than it looks.

we have parliamentary parties thatperating in a fashion does not fit our constitution. it is better enough when you have one party having control of all the machinery. if you have things with one party alone, have the country will see the outcomes as diligent -- illegitimate. when you have divided government you could end up with an inability to act. the second point which will make our last speaker, george will, , if you go back 30 it's a cliche but it's true -- you have people in a community who have done important things. they were lawyers, cheap -- teachers, people who worked in different aspects of the community. community leaders michael and say, have watched you for a while, you have a great reputation. now it's time for public service and we will help you get into congress.

you have people who were there for the right reasons. imagine doing that now, you'll say, ismebody and watched you do these incredible things, you have been an important teacher in the community. we want you to run for congress. here's what's going to happen. [laughter] from the day you agree to do this, he will be spending 70% of the time raising money so you can use it to run against your reputationhred the that your opponent has developed which is why he is running, and your campaign advisers will dance a jig if your opponents children's come home from school crying saying, i didn't know daddy or mommy was so awful and i can't go back to school again. in thisyou are lucky course and culture, you will get elected. once you get elected, he will be spending 70% of your time running off the campus of the

capital to go to designated places where you can do call time to raise money for yourself and for your tribe trade also now because you have to get insurance and some anonymous outside group decides to parachute and to the last weeks of the campaign with $10 million against you, you had better raise that money, find a sugar a bank to make it work. 50% of the time when you're not doing that or running to the airport to go back home, you won't be doing anything to solve policy problems anyhow. >> this is discouraging. [laughter] i want to take an aspirin. >> we have a number of fine people who are in it for the right reasons, but these are also things that i believe would have medicine saying, oh my god what happened? >> mickey, give us hope. [laughter] norm reminding us that it's 10 times worse than you thought it was before.

educating us and giving us a great agenda for the next two years. please join our get -- think our guests. [applause] very depressing. one more panel than an incredible keynote address. i have a sneak -- i got in a sneak preview of it. it's time to talk about the presidency. tohave a remarkable group talk about the presidency. we will begin our discussion. i can do this without notes. they are susan herman the president of the aclu, john malcolm of the heritage foundation, and john harrison -- john harrison of the university of virginia law school. each of them will bring an extraordinary perspective to this crucial discussion. these welcome them. [applause]

welcome. great to see you. john, you are a preeminent scholar of james madison who we just learned on the last panel, steered congress -- spirit congress more than the presidency. an american powers. why was madison -- what was his vision of what the presidency would achieve? >> one of the problems in is bothwith anyone who a theorist and politician, and trying to both, is sort out the theoretical reasons he gave and political considerations he had in mind. it's true that -- that a federal convention madison was strongly in favor of a powerful the sense of

having more power in the presidency than in the senate. to behe senate was going elected from states, small states would be overrepresented. did madison theoretically believe that single individuals should be in charge of foreign ,ffairs, military affairs because one person can make decisions more quickly and rationally than a collective body cam? or did he support presidential power because he figured, virginia was likely to dominate the electoral college and a lot of presidents would be from virginia starting with president washington question mark his theoretical position both at the convention and the thet congress was, unity in executive is extremely important, that's why he was a supporter of presidential control executive branch and the first congress. favor ofnly spoke in

presidential control over the executive branch, which is different from having a position of health -- broad power of the government in general. would today be called the support of the unitary presidency. again, the theoretical reason was, you cannot have an executive branch run by committee. again, how much or was he motivated by the theoretical consideration rather than practical politics? >> john, take us up on the conception ofes the madisonian -- madison's presidency. my next presidency is on taft in the election of 1912. cap said, the president can only do what the constitution supposedly offers -- authorizes him. roosevelt said the president can do anything the constitution does not explicitly prohibit. without a turning point that took us away from maddy sony and conceptions? >> at the time of the constitutional convention the country was in trouble.

it had the articles of confederation with all -- for 11 years and it proved to be an abject failure. i had to do something, they were surrounded by hostile forces engaging and protection -- protectionists measures. they needed an executive. but they tried to limit that power. but, there has always been this tangent. even george washington didn't consult with congress before issuing the neutrality cop -- proclamation, kept us out of a war between france and the british. thomas jefferson did not consult congress before testing -- before doubling the size of the united states with the louisiana purchase. he had abraham lincoln, refer to forhe new dictator suspending habeas corpus, issuing the emancipation proclamation, spending unauthorized funds to increase the size of the army and navy.

other presidents have paid more attention to constraint. for the most part, the general public tends to applaud president to test those boundaries and hold -- our leaders. if they don't act they are accused of being lame ducks, with the exception of richard nixon. though, wheree, you go. >> as john just said it is as inflows. the public is in favor of figures president to test boundaries. for a long time, progressives applauded franklin roosevelt and barack obama, who used executive orders to do some big things they couldn't do through congress. conservatives and republicans did things under george w. bush. now we are seeing both concerned, asking whether we

have too much presidential power , executive orders being dangerous, and whether we need to rein in the presidency. is that accurate -- accurate, opportunistic? >> that's correct. i think the whole idea -- it would depend on who the is.ident says -- where we are is a neutral principles, a lot of the things in the constitution -- john harrison was describing the congress is a greater threat to liberty. maximin exceptional for powers, -- he said he was that war powers of the darkness of the executive -- he

says he's reacting. what he meant by that is that, congress has to identify who the enemy is and set with the objectives are, then the president gets to decide on the strategy. we know it's been a long time since congress has declared war. sometimes congress has authorized the use of force, on many occasions there have been presidents with used force without waiting for congress to acquiesce. accustomed -- congress has relegated itself to a backseat. structurally that's harmful. as president madison was the first president to ask congress for permission for a declaration of four for the war of 1812. we aclu is nonpartisan, so can legitimately claim that we are not only coming to this principle because of who is president now, we do think that president trump should be consulting with congress before invading syria.

i think this is enormously important. at a think there's anything new, they were there since the beginning. think -- thanks the aclu for their consistency, which is impressive. thank's for mining us of these phrases, darkness, impetuous vortex. [laughter] john, the constitutionality of .yria -- syrian intervention both parties have engaged in military actions without congressional authorization. we just did a great podcast on monday at columbia law school about the constitutionality of the syrian invasion. how did the president fact within his authority or not? >> the reason i think that is a one ofestion, is because

the large questions about the allocation of four powers between the president and is, to what extent can congress give the president standing authorization to use force? as opposed to authorization with the one madison requested the start was called, the war of 1812. to some, congress can extent, authorize the president to use force and circumstances -- in circumstances without requiring a specific declaration of war. the next question is, to what did the statute that created the military, especially in light of decades of practice by presidents, of using armed forces to advance what they think is for policy and, to what extent do the statutes

constitute standing authorizations for the use of force? that's a difficult question. i'm not sure about this but i will propose one thing that is consistent with american history going back long way -- with the president is authorized to do is use military force without an episodic authorization, provided it is consistent with international law. that would explain why it was ok for president mckinley to say the united states will participate in the boxer rebellion which was consistent with international law at the time. the hard question about the use of force against syria -- provided it is consistent with international law, was that consistent with international law? but possibly know. emphasize the number of steps necessary to get

to that conclusion. i'm a law professor so i will be legalistic here. of analysishat kind is necessary. and onces an elegant answer, it's a hard question. to turn to this broader question. you suggested that the imperial populist presidency has been supported by the people. you have heard all these discussions about new media technologies and a decline in institutions that have increased his populist pressures. do you believe the modern presidency has become too strong in light of these pressures? if so what can we do about it/ >> all start talking about war powers. this may be enough -- a constitutional argument there -- it's late in the day. originally congress was given the power to make war.

they changed that to declare war . that was significant, the ability to declare war. ever since harry truman had a police action in korea, we have cambodia, granada, serbia. now syria. up, theymust stand want to avoid political risks for monetary or security action. been on the public doesn't look .o the to keep us safe they would do is being hyper polarized, totally dysfunction -- dysfunctional. they now look to the president to do this. has seated a lot of its

power. so they will make these national security decisions. the no longer think about institutional integrity. if the president is somebody up there partying, they will support the president, even if there encroaches on the constitutional prerogatives, the body in which they serve. they have created a bureaucracy, all sorts of executive branch agencies. they have ceded warmaking authority to all those executive branch agencies without pushing back. their oversight hearings which are totally insufficient, to get the job done. back to madisonian fission, he wanted people who would be -- there have to have the constitutional tools to resort those sorts of challenges.

over time, congress has been asleep at the switch. the president certainly has an awful lot of power, maybe that's good maybe that's bad but they have to flex their muscle -- muscles to bring it back. >> we are getting to the solution space. we have this populist presidency. americans due to rain in a presidency that seems to be more constrained? >> the principles, structures are there in the constitution. we don't have to make them up. i agree congress has been asleep at the switch. therefore any presidents have taken advantage of the idea that it's now their decision. the fact that congress has been abdicating for years doesn't -- madison has a lot to say about the problem of giving decisions

important as were powers, with who will make war against, assad, isis, what are our goals, for how long? you have a lot to say about the dangers, the unilateral decision. doing, we have talked to congress. i don't know how you get congress to shoulder that responsibility. they don't want to because they think it is unpopular. and have thecourts courts either try to get congress do what they're supposed to be doing, or tell the president that they've gone violatednd have rights, structures, etc.. the problem we've had come up we bring a lot of lawsuits since 9/11. what we have run into is the thets have abdicated -- court's opinions about things like extraordinary rendition and other kinds of places where we try to sue federal agents for involvement -- or credible

allegations of american involvement in torture and rendition. the courts read opinions that run hundred pages going on and on. -- can't possibly think local question states, secret published standing, immunities, actions -- to me it is as if the courts are doing this barricade so they don't even have to pay attention. seriousy think is a question is, to what extent do we think there should be judicial review? in another area, the supreme court's texas asserted president obama about whether or not the duck order was constitutional, the supreme court added whether president obama had been taking care, that the laws be faithfully executed. i wonder hypothetically, we don't have the present -- we hope obama -- president trump will report to congress about what is happening in syria.

if he were not too, would we want to see the courts ticket -- take your challenge to say, you have to enforce the war powers resolution even if you don't agree. the constitutional structures there, we have divided war powers. congress declares war, the president as commander-in-chief. we also have the worst -- war powers resolution. this john, there's important question on the table. have courts been too deferential to executive power, and could you imagine them becoming less so? he saw the response over the travel ban, which seemed not consistent with some of the old doctrine suggesting the president gets a huge amount of leeway when it comes to immigration. descriptively and as a scholar, can you imagine courts today checking presidential authority proceeding is constitutional -- and should they? i think for them to do that would require that they

understand better some of the things that might be misleading. the political question doctrine is a principle that there are certain decisions to be made by a political branches respected by the courts. to some extent that is the case. the much harder question is, what limits does that impose on the situations in which courts can get involved, whether issues of private rights at stake? some of the lower courts have in my view, taken the political question principle to far and have forgotten that the point of the courts is in large measure to protect private rights. something that at the time of the framing was understood to be their function. think what disturbs the courts,

the possibility that if they are called upon to protect private rights -- in the context of -- they will be making national security and military policy. quite correctly they do not want to do that. it seems to me that the solutions of fat is to try to distinguish -- this will depend on it remedy the court asks for. whether it is a raw junction, as opposed to damages for somebody who has been actually injured, which is in the 18th and 19th century, the court stated national security cases. think there is a role for them, they may have pulled back too far. but again, details matter. exactly how they did this, the kind of remedies they give, whether they are able to find a way to protect individual rights without themselves making policy, is a difficult but

crucial question for them to get. >> john, that was great -- as john said, national security is a tricky area. can and should the courts check the president domestically? there've been verizon they've done so, clinton index and impeachment traumas were one. now that we are seeing this new debate about excessive executive orders, power, can you imagine the courts checking the president and should that? >> i should. courts are supposed to be the people who are separated -- primary instrument to protect all of our liberties. i am skeptical as to whether they will. has the smacknow -- massive bureaucracy, the executive office of the president. they have the office of business budget, of information, regulatory affairs.

they have this entire national security apparatus. it's a huge powerful thing that the president has. the couple have stricken back against the president, recess point of case -- the nixon tapes case. they also suited the decisionial power -- a which they upheld president roosevelt's executive order that deterred 120,000 people -- that pressure during the new deal with the president's court mind, to access or at any meeting of the commerce clause in terms of limitation on congress and the president. there's much discussion during the gorsuch hearing. of course, the chevron doctrine chosen a credible on to difference to the interpretation of executive branch -- to my mind the job of justice -- judges, it's their duty to interpret the law as best they can.

can they? yes. should they? yes. will that wiley? [laughter] i don't know. >> there many orders downstairs from earlier. susan, we are beginning to ramp up trade you put on the table the possibility of judicial checks. are there other ones?\ congress passed several laws -- there's a call for congress to constrain surveillance. understanding dysfunctions pointed out, jubilee believe congress should reject the president question mark >> yes. it's not likely that congress will do the. say two things.

there's important case tomorrow being heard enough in california challengesrts, which the threat of the administration to be sanctuary jurisdictions. with think there's a serious issue under the 10th amendment, the federal government trying to pressure states into being federal enforcement agents greenwood on have time to get into details but i want to point out the james madison bedrock -- medicine believed the vertical checks and balances -- at least as important to check and balance. he was of course the author of the virginia resolution working -- the state of virginia adopted this to protest the alien and sedition act of 1798. we shouldn't only think about the federal government, we should think about the states that we check as well. has over one million new members since the election. they want to do something. [applause]

they want to know what can they do. we started organization call people power. people -- ifg of you want to protest, here are your rights and responsibilities. --'re concerned about this there are other places of abuse and -- we are trying to use we the people. if i were going to propose revolutions to the checks will come from and where nonpartisanship come from, we need more of the people, and exactly what the constitution center does is give education. there's not enough of that going on in schools. we should not be starting from results -- not everything is a political war. we need to start with, what is a neutral principle we can agree on? and as john said, argue but the gray areas. if we don't agree on what these neutral fundamental principles of the constitution -- and if more people do not learn them, i don't see any way out. [applause]

that wonderfulr plug for the constitution center. congratulations on your great success. new acluome of those members during the next out -- national constitution center. [laughter] art,onstitution center dot go to website. reason thise conversation has been so important, you need to educate yourself about the constitution. unless you understand what we're talking about, federalism, separation of powers, administrative state, vertical checks and balances, constitutional democracy defined as limited government and individual rights and the rule of law will not survive, and freedom, the purpose of the state celebrate -- apathy. this has been a superb panel. i want you to join me now and thanking them. [laughter] [applause]

ladies and gentlemen it's not time for our keynote address. our speaker needs a little introduction, except to say that george well is one of the leading public intellectuals of histime, who has shown by writing and scholarship such a principal devotion to the principles of constitution liberty -- the great personal inconvenience he has supported the wishes of partisans on both sides of the aisle, and has steadfastly defended the principles of constitutional liberty. i can't think of anyone in america that's able to encapsulate -- that we have gathered today to examine. the difference between populism in madisonian deliberation.

like all of the speakers in today's symposium, mr. wilkins donate his time, because he is so devoted to this cause that he thinks is important to educate americans about the crucial tensions, the future of democracy. i am honored he has accepted our invitation. george f wells. [laughter] >> think you so much. thank you jeffrey, for that overly kind introduction. not all forms of inflation are painful. [laughter] thank you for arranging to have meetingticularly timely about this important subject. spring has sprung, baseball has begun.

the sap is rising, love is in the air, two words are millions of americans lips, chevron deference. [laughter] i exaggerate only somewhat. it is notable and i would argue healthy, that the language of the law particularly of constitutional law and aspects of the administrative state that are constitutionally problematic , is such a large part of today's political vocabulary. which,ter an election in according to one important principle -- 20% of voters, one in five, cited the composition of the supreme court is a foremost concern. of such chevron deference reflects rising anxiety among our madisonian institutions.

and the presidency rises this -- and executive agencies, and the dereliction of judicial duty policing the boundaries of separation of powers. we are meeting this evening the national constitution center. to consider the intersection of something old with something new. what is old is in madisonian constitution, created in this space. what is new is populism is a fighting faith, it is inimical to the madisonian project and to cut -- constitutionalism generally. distilled to his essence is political philosophy's -- distilled to simple majoritarianism. majorities are inherently

,irtuous, and virtuous or not they should encounter minimal institutional impediments to the swift translation of majority desires into public policies. the premise of the madisonian project is diametrically opposed to that. majority rule is inevitable, but not inevitably reasonable or equitable. there must be an institutional architecture to refine the public will buy multiple filtrations to prevent impulse of politics. that combined with a grotesquely swollen nature of the modern presidency, expression and watery anti-institutional caesar is in. proclaims, ividual alone can fix it.

quote, said and i although the will of the majority, that will to be rightful must be reasonable. i will commit the impertinence of amending the great madison. he should have said the following, because the will of the majority is to prevail in all cases where the government scopefor that reason the of government action should be strictly circumscribed. againstmy argument is majoritarianism, prevent me grief part -- brief merchant autobiographical digression. i turned to journalism, or as my father and professor of philosophy said, before i sank to journalism... [laughter] i compared to be and briefly was, a public -- political philosophy professor. after studying it -- in england i've applied it to it established law school and to

princeton's philosophy program. you can measure my seriousness by the fact that i chose is midwaybecause it between two national -- national league cities. [laughter] one of which we are in. [laughter] were it not for baseball i would not be a lawyer. [laughter] wither, lawyers dealing constitutional law are doing political philosophy. it's an american paradox that our nation, which is philosophically disposed to , theess about government elaboration and application of the founders -- political philosophy is primarily done through and by a government institution -- the supreme court. time of my princeton doctoral dissertation was beyond reach of majorities -- the title was beyond reach of majorities. some of you may recognize the language from justice jim robert

jackson's 1943 opinion in west virginia versus burnett, the second of the great flexibly cases. wrote, the very purpose of a bill of rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitude of the folk -- political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. once right to life liberty and property, free speech or free press, freedom of four ship, and assembly and other fundamental to as may not be submitted vote. they depend on the outcome of no elections. jackson was being faithful to the founders natural rights, pre-existing government. -- the mostxists to

important declaration of independence word, to secure those rights. toernment does not exist give maximum scope to majorities. such is the one that connected west virginia's law, mandating flag salutes. i came by my wariness of majoritarianism growing up in central illinois, lincoln country. i lived in the twin cities of champagne and urbana, which are contiguous. champagne was essentially created by the illinois central railroad that did not like it's treatment by urbana. seat, andthe county in the red sandstone courthouse, a prosperous railroad attorney from springfield did some business. lincoln,ney, abraham was in the courthouse when he learned of the and that meant of

the kansas-nebraska act. it was lincoln's recoil against this act that ignited his ascent to greatness. the act introduced by stephen a douglas, the illinois democrat, empowered the residents of those territories, kansas and nebraska, to decide by voting whether or not to have the institution of slavery. the acts premise was that the principle of popular sovereignty is the essence of democracy. and, democracy is the essence of the american project. so, majority rule should be given maximum scope. when can disagreed. candy patience and implacable vehemence. luminous career in the history of american democracy to his bearings from the principle that there is more to the american purpose and to justice

than majorities. if justice is what copernicus bestit was and faculty socrates in book one of plato's republic, if justice is in the interest of the strong, then two things follow. first, lincoln was wrong. douglas was right in arguing that justice regarding slavery in the territories was whatever majorities in the territories wanted. the second conclusion that follows, and democracy the essential machinery of justice is the adding machine. justice is known when the votes are tabulated,. we do know better. majoritarianism finds its purest expression in the theory of a possible -- a pleasant to tory presidency. in randolph was not wrong in

discerning the office of the presidency, defeatist of monarchy. this, you know the constitution's revenue -- reticent about presidential duties be on conducting diplomacy, making appointments and nominations, commanding military forces as commerce creates, and taking care that was her faithfully executed. if george washington had not been waiting in the wings, the constitutional convention might have devised a different presidential office. and as for genius ratifying convention has subject of the constitution as it nearly did, softworks of the presidential office would not have received washington's stamp, because he would not have been a citizen to the united states. jefferson discontinued the practice of presidents delivered in person, state of union addresses to congress.

the scenered monarchical, therefore offensive. today's spectacle state of the with the twoes, parties congressional delegations bringing a poor rush approval or pouting, we owe significantly to woodrow wilson who restarted the tradition of presidents delivering the state of the union addresses in person to congress. madison was so wary of presidential power and so committed to congressional heremacy and sovereignty, discontinued the practice of his previous president, jefferson, of lobbying legislators over dinner. monroees successor james -- munro totally subscribe to the doctrine of congressional supremacy, and to the idea that presidents existed to execute the will of -- he was utterly

silent as president on the burning issue of his day, the admission of maturity -- missouri to the union and the status of slavery in louisiana territory. in his 1933 inaugural address, franklin roosevelt called for a temporary departure from the normal balance between executive and legislative authority. 84 years later, the temporary departure has produced the following reality. visitors to utah, senator mckinley's office, see displayed to piles of paper. tall, itfew inches contains about 800 pages. some a lost congress passed a bill a particular year. the other pile is 11 feet tall. it contains 80,000 pages.

those contain all the regulations proposed and adopted in one year by executive agencies. logically, executive power is secondary. having as its defining duty, the execution of the results of legislature's primary power. until the late 1920's, the election of the president was doubly and direct. presidentiald by electors, who in turn were elected by the state legislators. federalist 10d in , enlightened statesmen will not always be of the helm, but hamilton in federalist 60 it predicted the constant probability that the presidency being occupied the characters preeminent for ability and virtue. assuming that

people would have the virtue to appreciate virtue. [laughter] that assumption is to say no more, complicated by modern communications technologies, which have served the inflation of the presidency. in the summer of 1901, president mckinley of his canton ohio home was approached by a photographer. saying, wecigar, must not let the amount of this country see their president smoking. good grief. [laughter] this was defeatist of the pernicious idea that presidents are and should be our moral tutors. theodore roosevelt, whose presidency was the fittest of the modern presidency, was the first president filmed by a movie camera. his cousin used radio to make the presidency intimate with the public.

television is enslaved to cameras. they are superficial newsgathering instruments, television needs something to point cameras that. television therefore needs presidents to simplify this need. inventedight have been for a who became president because he can say everything he knows about everything and 140 characters. [laughter] [applause] ofsident grant had a staff three. president cleveland answered the white house doorbell himself. race,here was an arms that the executive was bound to win. the political questions james q wilson noticed institution in rivalrous relationships with each other, to resemble each other. wilson's dear friend and mine, pat moynihan -- part 2 --

postulated the iron law of emulation. he noted that in 1902, theodore roosevelt built the west wing of the white house. presidential staffs consisted of 3-4 people. they were in the white house living room. in 19 of three, the house of representatives built its cell phone office building. the senate followed suit next year. thrive as acy would rhetorical presidency. presidents would eclipse congress by being leaders. appears 12 times in the federalist papers. 11 times disparagingly. the founders believe that presidential appeals to the manipulation of public opinion, would be an and stock -- anti-constitutional preemption of deliberately -- delivering processes.

there wasn't a list century, and law of presidential rhetoric. president spoke infrequently. washington averaged three public speeches here. adams, one. jefferson, five. medicine, president during a war the burn down his house, give none. until the 20th century, presidents communicated early , not thelegislature people, and communicated in written messages suitable for deliberative reasoning. then, modern technologies have -- of transportation and indication give presidency capacities. woodrow wilson supplied a theory progressive and populist for using those capacities. presidents, he said, should engage in what he called, interpretation, meaning the discovery of what is in the hearts of the masses or what

would be in their hearts if the masses were sensible. [laughter] presidents were everywhere, moving about bike where road and airplane. they were on the air the radio and television. america was on its way to today's notion of the president as, tribune of the people. constant auditory of the nations psyche, mulder of public opinion. progressives was by making it popular, even charismatic president, the focus of the nation's political consciousness, the public would be content to be governed by detached, disinterested, and anonymous experts, who because they were obedient to presidents, would be cloaked in derivative jenna -- democratic legitimacy. i thought the most

important 20th-century decision was about where to locate princeton's graduate college. college is located where it is, away from the main campus, rather than on the main campus come over the university's president, woodrow wilson, wanted to be. wilson, disappointed, had one of his tantrums, resigned from princeton, went into politics, and ruined the 20th century. [laughter] again, i simplify and exaggerate. president the first to criticize the american founding, she did thoroughly. he rejected the essence of the founders philosophy, the doctrine of metro rights, and rejected the crux of the constitutional provision for protecting those rights. separation of powers. regarding natural rights, he urged americans not to read the declaration of independence

first two paragraphs. dismisses fourth of july. he understood that the natural rights doctrine entailed limited government. he considered this an 18th-century anachronism. he considered the separation of and tolerable to modern conditions, which he thought demanded a large and nimble government responses to the presidents will. antonin scalia wrote, if you want aspirations you can read the declaration of independence. there is no such philosophizing in the constitution. pragmaticractical and charter of government. i respectfully dissent. thate to conclude philosophy is impractical and on

pragmatic? granted there is no philosophizing in the constitution until we put it there. but construing the constitution is a charter of government for a nation whose purpose is defined by the declaration. said, the whole theory of democracy is that majority rules. that's the whole theory of it. , if that is the whole theory of democracy, democratic theories that. tristan. what then is interesting, is what should begin after this theory is accepted. what should begin his reflection about the institutional and cultural measures necessary to increase the likelihood that majorities will be reasonable. and about what things should be protected by a judiciary is beyond the reach of majorities.

populism seeks to reverse this, given majority world priority over liberty. and overwrites. when theue process think -- when these conflict -- when these things conflict as they do. democracy in mistrust should always be graded. american constitutional lesson and judicial review amount to institutionalize distrust. the temperature of american politics today in part because of the stakes are high. we are not just arguing about the scope and competence of government and we are also arguing about which of two visions will prevail. ort is james madison of 1771 woodrow wilson in 1879.

the essential drama of democracy derives from the inherent tension between the natural rights of the individual and the constructed rights of the community to make such laws as the majority deems necessary. affirmed byts are the constitution. majority rule circumscribed and modulated is constructed by the constitution. a declaration is not just chronological, it is logically prior. sandefur has written, the declaration is the constitution's conscience. the declaration sets the framework for reading the constitution. as abraham lincoln said, the constitution is the frame of silver for the apple of gold

which is the declaration. silver is valuable and frames serve an important function but gold is more valuable. therefore a matter of constitutionally important symbolism that the constitutional convention met in the room in which the declaration of independence was debated. the constitution affected a course correction from the articles of confederation but did not effect a rupture with the nation's fundamental destiny. the constitution continues what the declaration began. that the majority is always wrong. it is true that the majority often is wrong and that the

majority often has a right to get its way even when wrong. the challenge which is especially difficult when populist fevers are raging is to determine the borders of that right and to have those borders policed by a non-majority in jefferson's first inaugural address he said, though the will of the majority prevail, itses to must be reasonable that the minority possess their equal rights which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression. two years later, the cousin john marshall buttressed this principle. in marbury v madison, he

established judicial review. this practice exercised with against theillboard essence of populism, the believe that the majority should have their way. beckel preoccupied with the county majoritarian dilemma called the supreme court a deviant institution because with judicial review it circumscribes the right of majorities to have their way. -- has a when it better understanding. he correctly says that the u.s. constitution is irrefutably , ited in prescription declares an emphatic no. government undertakings even if majorities desire them. judicial review should annoy because it needs

preventing any contemporary majority from overturning yesterday super majority, the one that ratified the constitution. federal judges are accountable butnow current constituency when construing the constitution they are about to be faithful to the constituency of those who ratified it. this is how the constitution constitutes a polity. madison was born a subject of george the second. he died of citizen of the republic during the presidency of the first important populist andrew jackson. his only complaint against big government is that it is not throwing his weight around on their behalf should heed the words of jackson as he wrote in his greatest paper.

his message explaining the veto of the reauthorization of if bank, he wrote, government would confine itself to equal protection and as heaven does the reins shower its favor alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. it is to be regretted that the rich and powerful band the acts of government to their selfish purposes. needs to have a jacksonian epiphany. they need to realize that big , meaning the administrative state that micromanagers american life, is inherently regressive. that is, it inevitably redistributes wealth upward. it is the wealthy, the

confident, the articulate, and the well-lawyered who can understand the administrations, the administrative states are came processes and can work its theycures and pulleys as pursue their rent-seeking. ofre is a reason why five america's 10 richest counties surround washington like piglets surrounding a lactating sow. [laughter] sent in this lists gender insist that its inadequacies result because voters views are sensible but ignored. unfortunateoduces results because voters are foolish but honored. often the problem is not that government is unresponsive but that it is too responsive. responds not to

majorities in any meaningful sense but too small, compact, intense factions. in my two gloomy? the philosopher michael oakeshott said it is characteristic of political -- that they take a somber view of the human condition. they deal in darkness. madison certainly did. populists do not. the language of populism flatters its adherents. they are virtuous because they are many. all social problems are the results of elite failures or contrivances. madison knew that the question is never with a release shall govern, it is, which even needs shall govern? he do that their problem was to get consent to government by where the elites.

progressives and today's populists have more in common than either covert can comfortably acknowledge. to understand their similarities and their shared aversion to madisonian principles, consider professor barnett's distinction between the republican constitution and the democratic constitution. the debate between the meaning three words of the constitution's preamble. .e the people those who embrace the democratic constitution believe that we the .eople is a collective entity those who embrace the republican constitution think of it as individuals. the democratic constitution is a device for giving power and priority to the will of a collective, the majority of .eople

any principal or practice such as judicial review that impedes the unmediated transmission of the will of the majority into policy is presumptively illegitimate. individual rights that are legally enforceable are rights affirmed by the majority explicitly. , thearp contrast republican constitution is a device for limiting government. this includes limiting government's translation of majority desires into laws and policies who went there is conflict with the government's primary business of securing the natural rights of individuals. that, today'ses pits lockianss it against --

those who favor the democratic constitution take their bearings , givingmas hobbes highest priority to government having sufficient power -- social ends the majority desires , even if the rights of the .ndividual must be abridged progressives in populists think america's fundamental dedication is to reprocess, majoritarian decision-making. madisonian's think america's fundamental dedication is to a condition, liberty. progressives in populists rally around the right of the majority to have its way. today's madisonian's stress rigorous judicial protection of individual rights. especially those of other property in the freedom of protect to design and the zone of sovereignty within which people are free to do as

they please. inaugural link in addressing himself to my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, expressed a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people. .ote the nuances confidence must be patient because the justice of the people can be counted on only ultimately. populism does not deal in nuances. do.son did and madisonian's they know what happens only ultimately leaves a lot of time for institutions to refine and if necessary to stymie the will of the majority. said, in republican government the majority however composed ultimately gives the law and the language strikingly similar to that which justice

jackson used in the 20th century, along with the principles of liberty, the constitution embodies the principle of self-restraint, the people have resolved to put surgeon rules out of the reach of temporary impulses springing from passion or caprice in to make the rules a permanent expression of their con thought and deliberate purpose. believe that madison properly understood as the founder of american conservative -- conservatism. and that populism is everything conservatism is not. but, you have heard quite enough from me. i am standing between you and a reception where they will be adult beverages. conversation, perhaps about, among other things, the interesting contemporary topic, chevron deference.

thank you very much. [applause] >> you have just heard from a profit of constitutionalism. thank you so much, george, for so beautifully encapsulating the tension that this commission has been created to discuss between populist majoritarianism and constitutionalism and george will quoted from thomas jefferson who said that to be rightful, majority rule must be reasonable. today is thomas jefferson's birthday. freedom day, it is so

important to remember jeffersons galvanizing words, we are all republicans, we are all federalists. that is what we have learned during this commission that people of different parties are uniting around this commitment to constitutionalism which is a cause for hope but we have much important work to do over the thistwo years together and is my call to action to all of you -- you have to educate yourselves about these complicated historical precedents is. we have to learn about the constitutional text and history in you need to go to the interactive constitution and read it and learned the debates on both sides because there is much to learn. i am a law professor and i do not know these clauses as i should. then you need to go and you need to read books about history. you need to listen to podcasts. you need to think hard about the

cultural and institutional changes that are undermining the foundations of our constitutional democracy and then we will reconvene through the course of the next years and we will continue to debate and then we will publish our findings and we will together preserve the beautiful document that unites us. is sosuch -- it meaningful -- it is such an honor that this extraordinary group of thought leaders has united here today for this serious afternoon and evening of conversation could it does show us that civil dialogue for people who disagree discussing constitutional values face-to-face is the essence of what unites us as americans and thether we can preserve beautiful constitution of the united states of america. thank you so much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: earlier, president drop au.s. mission to non-nuclear bomb a successful job and he was proud of the u.s. military. the president delivered these remarks at a meeting with a group of first responders from last months bridge collapsed in atlanta. >> hello, everybody. congratulations. thank you, everybody. up with your everybody. i heard about this. on behalf of the men and women in our department, we have

a token of our appreciation. >> that is beautiful. >> thank you, sir. >> i didn't know i was going to get such a nice -- [indiscernible] that is fantastic. thank you. i'm going to go around and introduce ourselves. you know these folks back here. they are married faintest -- --n -- they are very famous the media. they are very honorable people. i am honored to be here with you today and will commute to the white house. the heroes who responded to the terrible bridge collapse on i-85 two weeks ago in atlanta. that was something. the whole road was watching that one. we are joined by members of the georgia state patrol, the

atlanta fire rescue department, and the atlanta police department. great people. on that day, george state police confessed action to get motorists away from danger. battlede firefighters flames which was incredible -- what was the reason for those flames? it was something underneath that was just very combustible. those flames were amazing. they pulled back and just minutes before the bridge collapsed and everybody was safe -- an amazing thing. and everybody was watching. your skill and courage saved many lives and represented true strength and the true strength of america. really great job. great job. affectedple of georgia by the collapse, my administration stands with you. we have already made a $10

million emergency relief fund available. i called your governor who i know very well and is a terrific guy and i approved it literally the day that it happened. i would have a feeling you would need a little money because that looked like a big-money deal. alain took care of it and we gave fast action. atlanta is a in painful reminder of the critical importance of infrastructure. we are going to be doing a lot with infrastructure. i am committed to funding a massive nationwide infrastructure program to rebuild and reconstruct the roads and bridges of the future of this country. this is necessary as a matter of safety and economic growth and it is necessary to improve our quality of life as americans. we will also continue to seek proper funding for law enforcement and public safety in

our country. on behalf of the entire nation i salute you, really amazing people. and i honor your service. i pledge that you will have the support of our country, the police, firefighters, first responding -- he will always have the support of president trump. i thank you for the great job in the fast action -- really fantastic -- a lot of bravery -- maybe we could just go around introduce yourself and it would knows maybe you will become a movie star after -- after all of this -- if you like the way you look or sound, you will become a star. how tall are you? that is all? i think you are taller than that. thank you very much. >> james macklemore.

>> [inaudible] >> anthony campell. >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> thank you very much. who is the bravest person in this room? raise your hand. huh? i thought so. >> [inaudible]

>> would you like to say something? the people as i do and around you are heroes. they demonstrate what courage, steadfastness, commitment to their growth to serve our community means. at 6:12e was reported in the middle of rush hour on march 30. by 6:20, this team was addressing the issue. governor nathan deal deserves some credit because he has as a matter of policy pre-position state troopers around i-85 to move any traffic incident out of the way so that helped. bridge collapsed. by 8:00, these brave men

basically had the fire under control. the u.s. department of transportation was on site and we worked hand-in-hand with these great heroes and as you , $10 million from your administration went out within one hour of the government making this request. the good story following this is also that the repair and recovery of the whole thing will occur very quickly. it will come in under budget and on time. >> i love to hear the words under budget. that will be great. me as this did call was happening. ready?, could you be

we are to need emergency money fast. we got him the money immediately we want to thank everybody in the room very much. congratulations. >> i told them you were really approachable. they were a little bit apprehensive about meeting you. they both said what an honor it is to be at the white house to theith you you have done first responder community a tremendous honor by honoring them and they want to nature because they are saying that you are sending a message to all the first responders that you value them. why don't you say that? >> i was sharing that this is

-- it is a great day for all of the public safety personnel throughout the country. we appreciate the opportunity that you are recognizing public safety members of the public. >> i have great respect for the people. speed is incredible. when we are finished here, we will talk. we will have some pictures in the oval office. believe me. i have been in a lot of good offices. and we go over there will take some pictures. thank you all very much. proud.ry

another successful job. we are very very proud of our military just like we are proud of the folks in this room -- we are so proud of our military. everybody knows exactly what happened, so, and, what i do is i authorize my military. so, we have given an total authorization and that is what they are doing and, frankly, that is why they have been so successful lately. if you compare that to, really, what has happened over the last eight years, you will see that there is a tremendous difference -- tremendous difference. andave incredible military we are very proud of them and this was another very, very mission.l i don't know if this sense of

message. it doesn't make any difference if it does or not. north korea is a problem. i think china has really been working very hard. i have really gotten to like and respect precedent -- president xi --we spent a lot of time together in florida and he is a very special man. i think he is going to try very hard. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] feelar is a look at what i

is the new form of warfare that is emerging in the 21st century. i have cover national security affairs for over 30 years all thesehe world covering issues. it is a reflection of the information age that we are now looking at this new form of warfare which i call information warfare and i do find that as cyber we haveical seen as much as cyber attacks as well as the content influence thing which really emerged in the last presidential election with what has been called the cyber enabled influence operation. so these two things are going to be the dominant form of warfare. announcer: 9:00 eastern on book tv. ♪ c-span, where history

unfolds daily. in 1970 nine, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. tonight, the rise of prescription drug addiction in the united states. then, a hearing on the opioid epidemic and the federal response to fentanyl. later, mike pompeo speaks about wikileaks. announcer: next, a discussion on the rise of prescription drug addiction. include two filmmakers who examine the relationships between politicians, joe companies, and the media. usc hosted this