was arrested in new orleans for taking a seat on the train reserved for whites. the supreme court's 7-1 decision established the separate but equal doctrine that allowed segregation through much of the 20th century. this narrow interpretation wasn't overturned until the brown vs. board of education. examine this case and the high court's ruling with ted shaw, law professor at the university of north carolina. and former director, counsel and president of the naacp legal defense and educational fund. and michael, legal historian and constitutional law professor at harvard law school and author of the 2004 book "from jim crow to civil rights." watch "landmark cases" live tonight on c-span, c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. for background on each case, order your copy of the "landmark cases" companion book available for $8.95 plus shipping and handling at

c-span.org/landmarkcases. and explore the interactive constitution. there is lang on our website. -- there is a lincoln our website. >> well, joining us next from new york city is princeton university history professor julian who has written, the presidency of barack obama, a first hoice torecal assessment. -- a first historical assessment. book that he edited with other writers and it has just come out. we are inviting him this morning and thank you for being with us. we want to ask you about the product -- the project. the first assessment of the obama presidency. what originally got it going on the book and help to bring together the various writers involved in this? a book like done this about george w. bush and his presidency when it came to an end.

and i wanted to continue doing this. moveally the idea was to beyond the presidential rankings that we already have when a presidency ends and instead, bring some of the brightest , who were not obama specialists but specializing on other issues, foreign policy and having them write the chapter that puts this presidency into perspective. so they all wrote their first draft and presented it at a meeting we had in princeton the week after november elections. and that was the idea, to generate a first discussion how this fits into the long history of our presidents. to open the conversation. host: your book is broken down into a dozen or so chapters. you wrote a couple of those chapters. tell us how you came upon how to divide up the topic area?

it is difficult to do. inevitably, some issues get left out. but i took a look back at some of the major themes that move beyond the day to day politics in the obama administration. seems that shaped all eight years. problems that the administration continued to go back to. immigration which was on the table since day one. and he dealt with that right the way through the end of his presidency. his relationship with the conservative movement. congress, republicans in congress, and again, this is not a theme that was important for one day or two days but it impacted everything he could or could not do. another is counterterrorism. -- how did he face

he fair compared to president bush. so all of the shaped the entirety of the eight years rather than just a short idiopathic the -- rather than just a short time. r were the takeaways from that in terms of what you should and shouldn't do in this new analyze and write about the obama administration? useful when it was the first book was finished, there were heated feelings in and in the room of contributors about the president. so i learned how to push back against the immediate feeling that historians have as citizens see theet them to presidency in relationship to the work they do on american history. .nd that was difficult although i think we were able to do it.

and it was very helpful. this one was a little different. there was a certain amount of shock and all at the outcome of the election. most people were not predicting that trump would be the victor. even amongst trump supporters. this was important. the ending really changed dramatically and forced authors to rethink some of the storylines. host: we are joined by julian zelizer, a history professor at the editor in "the historical assessment of barack obama." ." join the conversation. (202) 748-8000, democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ll others, (202) 748-8002 send us a tweet if you would like to. pullingyou end up

together the writers for this and avoid the pitfalls of talking about the obama administration legacy? or getting into analyzing what the quote "legacy" may be? it has partially how i picked people. when i pick authors i picked the brightest people i know. want historiaho necessarily think about the presidency that way -- meaning, primarily focused on what the legacy will be more narrowly focused on what is unprecedented and precedent it. but really they come at the presidency through the lens of a bigger issue. a true historian does that. it gets you out of that context. by a of a great chapter race relations. on has been a a story on black power and how racism works

and she tackled the question of what the obama administration try to do and was able to a college and was not able to accomplish on the issues of institutional racism. and a story like that won't necessarily come with the question of, what is the legacy? host: you mention the challenges of the obama administration and a conservative congress. and in the chapter "tea party" about the party, the book reads that obama could never figure out a way around the conservative forces in congress. beenegislative branch had the base of power for conservative republicans since the 1994 elections when the gop, led by newt gingrich, won majority. he couldn't figure out a way around that. how do you think obama's efforts in having relations with

republicans in congress, how does that compare to george w. bush? bush: well, george w. obviously was a republican. so we live in an era of polarization where both parties workvery little ability to with the other side. and that also means that within there is a pretty good coherence and consistency in what the president and the party members will do. this presidency has turned out a little bit different but obama was dealing with division after 2010, first in the house and then in the senate. and i think he was dealing with a republican party that was not really going to find much common ground. the kind of common ground that obama dreamt about in 2004, it to happen.t going

so he was dealing with a big institutional problem. he could play golf with speaker boehner and he could schmooze but it really wasn't going to move the congress. so a lot of the presidency from 2010 forward is taking place in the context of a very weak and intense executive congressional relations. host: we are talking with julian zelizer, and editor from a new book. we go to michigan first to hear from brian on the independent line. caller: can you hear me? host: you are on air. have been trying to find out information going back to 2009 and i'm hoping you could be helpful. mueller at the fbi, the iranian deal going down.

in for the first time history, obama could not appoint an inspector general at the state department. that is alarming to me, knowing hillary in place with all of these conflicts. and the clinton foundation. and it is really appalling when you have a state department that has over 300 under the inspector general's purview, you have mueller in charge of the a ei -- of the fbi and none of this makes sense. information so i am hoping you could help us out and find out why there was no inspector general at the state department that was confirmed? it lasted for over four years. with all of the information we

can get to, the only information -- on a channels like c-span. host: we will get a response. guest: this is part of the story frequently while president obama and hillary clinton and various scandals surrounding curb were front and center. the deal has discredited many of the accusations that have been made. i would urge you to do more reading. but this is not really a scandal that has any legs. and the original story about the ainton foundation, from political perspective, and

supported by conservative outlets. so i just don't think that is central. host: let's hear from don. caller: i have a couple of short things. if you read the book that obama wrote i-4 he ran -- wrote before he ran for president, it will tell you more than anything you could read. historian,y, the does he think that bush could have gotten the approval -- that would have forced saddam hussein to follow the weapons inspection program? i'm not quite sure on the question there. know if you think there was an alternative in the bush

presidency to the use of force? in terms of getting more authorization for the inspection programs but in the bush presidency there were many people who agree that is -- that was the mature. the sanctions were working and the evidence after the war is not one where there were huge cachet's of weapons of mass distraction. that definedissue the 2008 election. and was very much at the heart of why there was so much support for barack obama at the time. he had the greatest clarity , whereas future secretary hillary clinton, when she was senator, was one of the democrats with presidential aspirations who was to supportive of the president. weapons inspections. she did not want force as a first resort.

she still became part of the political moment where that war was launched. she and obama had this very interesting political relationship that unfolds right through the 2008 primaries. this book, it is worth reading, but it gives you a flavor of a global citizen, who, again, was part of the attraction of this presidency in 2008. host: what is your book's assessment of the president's indling of morsi inherited iraq and afghanistan, morsi initially opposed? ,y the end of his second term where was the administration? guest: it is mixed. one of the things in the book that i like is not everyone agrees on these issues. there is one chapter by jeremy surry, who while admitting

mistakes the president made, overall it is a pretty positive assessment of how he was able to draw down the wars even with the surge in afghanistan, and certainly the withdrawal in iraq. arguessame time, surry he reestablish some of the basic tenets of liberal internationalism -- the rule of international law, diplomacy, not using force as a first resort -- and says he was pretty successful both at drawing down the wars, even more importantly, re-creating support for this cold idea from the early war that had been lost. there is another historian, homestead,lston -- who looked at counterterrorism policy. where were we after eight years of the war on terrorism? more continuity than break. a lot of the programs put into place under president bush remain intact.

president obama in some ways accelerates some of the wars, the drone warfare. she is more critical of what he did, despite the promises of 2008. there are differences in the book on that issue. host: let's go to chicago and hear from john on the independent line. caller: good morning. i am sort of confused. during the obama administration, is a always told he constitution scholar, and this and that. at the same time, several instances during his administration, he violated the constitution. out, he madee came changes himself, not the legislature. he is executive branch. -- i amone things confused. is he ignorant, or just lawless? to be the two has answer. both of you have a great day. thank you. host: go ahead with your response. guest: i don't think either is the answer.

challenged in court repeatedly, including on aca, and the court did not ever reach that conclusion. both the daca program and other programs were constitutionally sound. what you see with him is what you see with many presidents in this era, that they -- that there is an aggressive use of executive power, and this is particularly important when he found trouble finding any kind of response from a republican that was against him. with aca, it is a really important story. usually after legislation passes, there is a period where it sticks. congress will often amend the program to make sure everything is working. did not havema that. congress was not going to do .nything other than challenge

he does employ executive power, but not in unconstitutional ways, nor is it out of ignorance. he knows what he is doing. he is working within the constraints he faces to try to make the program work. chapter by meg jacobs on the fight against global warming, the paris climate agreement, the keystone pipeline, one of the sections --s, sub she writes that obama was preparing to unsheathe his most powerful weapon, a dramatic use of executive action in his 2013 state of the union address. the president revealed his -- his intention to have the epa move forward on regulating climate change and carbon. efforts we are now seeing overturned by executive decision and by the trump administration. guest: that is absolutely right. for her chapter, it starts with the cap and trade legislation, where like with health care, obama tried to employ

conservative ideas, which is where cap and trade started, but cannot get legislation through , and in the senate, the bill is stifled. in his second term, he turns to executive power and executive action in his final years, as well as entering into this pattern -- this accord. one of the arguments that she some of hisis made legacy very vulnerable. executive power, as you see in the climate, is very effective. it allows the president to move forward even with this kind of congressional opposition you saw on climate change. but it is vulnerable. usingt president executive power is not succeeded and sympathetic president, if that president does not create a political coalition that will outlast him, some of

those executive actions are vulnerable. they could easily be taken apart. that is exactly what she argues and what we are seeing happened under president trump. it has been one of his most aggressive and most successful areas of policy. he has systematically dismantled much of what the president achieved on climate change. is in lynchburg, virginia -- republican line. you are on the air. go ahead. youer: i have to tell [indiscernible] administration. because they got her into office with the money and [indiscernible] i want to know if she had to do with the legislature and all. host: did you hear that, her question? guest: i heard most of it. valerie jarrett was a very important minder.

on a lotresident's ear of strategy in terms of how he should position himself, taking what issues to move on first and what issues to wait on, and simply the broader political strategy. he did not win because of her or her money. that is simply not the case. in large part because of the sheer frustration that had built with the gop and the status quo toward the end of the bush presidency, and because of the excitement he generated for many, many democrats and independents, who saw him as a new voice, a different kind of voice in american politics. he raised a lot of money, like all our presidential candidates. it did not come from her. was she responsible for obtaining it? i think that is the reason his presidency took place. she was an important advisor to him. part of a small circle all

presidents bring to the white house -- people they have worked for before they became president, and people who try to guide them through the difficulties of washington. host: let's go to john next, democrats line, inclined, new york. i am confused. i vote democrat all the time. on this confused district 18 in pennsylvania. wrong.e we have this young fellow who basically is a republican, as far as i can see, with a d next to his name. i understand that they want to fill seats in congress, but if you are against -- we have the parkland movement, where we have young children against assault weapons and bump stocks, and school shootings. one minute on your channels here

-- "morning joe," they are all behind this. all of a sudden, they switch gears and are for this fellow who pulled off this upset, that basically as far as i can see, he is -- he voted republican. you know, he is a young republican fellow. it is confusing. i am an independent, and i generally vote democrat. but i am kind of confused on the message that they are sending. about an me ask you article in "the washington post" obamat, tying in the administration. this is a piece in "the washington post." a obama history lesson that trump may be doomed to repeat. he said barack obama and donald trump have one thing in common. they both build unique coalitions that are proving difficult to replicate when they are not on the ballot. presidential campaigns by relatively

comfortable margins. as he watched helplessly democrats sustained big losses in the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, talking about the loss yesterday of the republican seat in pennsylvania. guest: it is something that actually is quite important throughout this book. part of what the book ends up talking about -- this came through in many chapters -- is this discrepancy. on one hand, president obama was extraordinarily successful at making policy and achieving success on major policy areas that had really been pretty dormant or deadlocked for years, such as health care, financial regulation. but politically, his party really suffers. politically, during his presidency. it culminated in the 2016 election. there are a lot of moments in the presidency where he is not

able to transfer his own coalition to the rest of the where and even moments that is not his primary concern. many congressional democrats are often worried about this. they are saying he is not doing enough to help with email lists and potential contributors are campaigning while he was handing them very controversial issues. so in the end, there is one story of the obama presidency where a lot of public policy is remade, and you have a two-term president, but you also have 2016, with a republican congress, a republican president, and president trump, who for many, it is pretty extreme to have him in the white house. the you are seeing a little bit of this today. i still think president obama was more sympathetic to the idea of trying to build a stronger party than president trump is.

i am not sure he is really concerned with that. on the other hand, the flip side is, there is a positive argument about conor lamb and what the democrats are doing. one of the things republicans do and president trump is in office and they don't have the white house is, they focus on local races, state races, and they try to rebuild the party from the bottom -- from the bottom up. they are very successful, as we see with the tea party. i think that is a little bit of what democrats are doing now. really trying to find what candidates will work in different areas. i think the intention will be there, especially as you have to talk about votes on issues like gun control. host: let's go to baldwinsville, massachusetts. caller: good morning. how are you doing today? host: doing fine, thank you. good morning. caller: jimmy it sounds as if

you are writing a book that is like a cnn interview. it is a softball. it does not handle any of the miscalculations and the very poor judgment that president obama had over his eight years -- benghazi. i mean, he pulled all the troops out of iraq, and millions of people got murdered by these people in isis. he does not take any responsibility for that, none. if you had left a group of soldiers there, that group would never have been born and would not have run down the streets. i have watched it on youtube, and it is horrific had a murder babies, kids driving down the road in cars. it is incredible. everything he did was a disaster. he knocked our race relationships back 50 years. he was the divider in chief. everybody can talk about the greatest thing since coffee. i have no idea. the chinese did not even roll up the carpet for him. he had to get out the back of

the airplane. he was the most disrespected president everybody has seen. donald trump is not the greatest human being on the planet, but he is better than any of the presidents we have had recently. all of his numbers of deportation were turned around at the border. no other president counted numbers that way. host: pick up on his comments about race relationships. where were they when the president came in, first african-american president? in your book, where do you find it? guest: well, race relations do not improve during his presidency. i think we went backwards. there is a lot of excitement when he is elected. the fact the country had elected an african-american was a sign of progress. it was not a defining issue about him, which in many ways was great. that was not how we saw politics. that was not the prism. that was some hope. over the next eight years, those

hopes vanished. part of what the story is about is the limits of what president obama can really do on this issue. he makes some important moves through the department of justice, for example, with juvenile prisoners and trying to have a better policy toward them, toward incorporating x ex-offenders back into communities, and prison sentences that were punitive toward african-americans -- but his presidency ends with americans watching all these confrontations with police and african-americans, and great frustration over how race was often built into our criminal justice institutions, and there were limits of what he could do. rselher essay by gary goer talks about the ferocity of the

backlash. to argue that president obama is responsible for the deterioration in race relations really does not get the story right. i do think we see a pretty ferocious light backlash by the end of his presidency, which shapes a lot of the 2016 election. but, you know, i think this is an area to be faulted not simply from the right, but the left as well. we will leave this now. the house gaveling back in. . sp the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives messages in writing. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20rks the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule 20. the house will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. for what purpose does