who knocked these buildings down are in ruins. "thespan's newest book president's," noted historians rank the americans best and worst chief executives, provides insight into the lives of the 44 american presidents through stories gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. just for the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced and the legacies they left behind. published by public affairs, c-span's "the presidents will be on shelves april 23, but you can preorder your copy is a hardcover or e-book today. c-span.org/"the presidents," or wherever books are sold. >> jim ansell of the american conservative serves as editor of that publication joining us. the editor of the american conservative. he joins us this morning. your most recent column for the

magazine, how paul ryan turned the president into jeb bush. what's the argument? guest: he ran for president on some themes that differentiated him from the 2016 republican field. and he really deferred a lot to republican congressional leadership during the first two years in office, and sometime in december, after losing the midterm elections he said wait a minute, i made these campaign promises and they are not fulfilled. it will be hard to get them fulfilled now that democrats control the house. that's when you saw the president call for getting out ouryria, winding down presence in afghanistan, when you saw him get more hard-core about getting funding for a border wall. but he does not have unified control of the federal government anymore, democrats control the house, they control the purse strings, constitutionally speaking, and they don't have much incentive to hand to many legislative

victories ahead of the 2020 election. so when he's looking to do things like build a wall, or end the endless wars, as he put it in the state of the union, that's tougher to do now that the opposition is in control of at least half of congress. host: he doesn't have paul ryan, he has mitch mcconnell, is that a value? guest: certainly mitch mcconnell is a value in terms of getting judges confirmed and getting his cabinet picks, since he does have turnover there. mitch mcconnell is a good legislator, but one thing he has in common with paul ryan is that he is not necessarily committed to some of the agenda items that were uniquely president trump during the primary campaign. host: so it's a difference of philosophy? guest: i think it's somewhat a difference of philosophy and a difference in strategy and tactics. president trump is the president because he won pennsylvania and

michigan. i don't think some of the standard republican agenda items were the reason he was able to pull out narrow victories in that space. to thent trump's path electoral college majority really relies heavily on being able to satisfy and turn out these working-class -- white working-class voters. it's not clear that a corporate tax cut will get the job done in that department. host: this is jim antle, if you want to ask him questions for republicans (202) 748-8001, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for independents (202) 748-8002. front and center of the presidents agendas the national emergency, what do you think about that route versus going to congress? guest: certainly there are constitutional questions, yes there is a national emergency statute, which is what the president is invoking as his way of getting this done.

that was not necessarily intended to be an end run around the normal appropriations process where you can declare an emergency anytime you cannot persuade congress to go along with your priorities on a practical level because of those questions. it does complicate the building of the wall and getting that started because that means that process, since it was not funded by congress, it will be tied up in the courts, there will be lawsuits. there are already states suing to block the president under using his emergency powers in this fashion. there is a statute that president obama signed that does allow some money to be directed towards border fencing. the president has said that he is going to use that statute as well, and they might try to spend that money first. there i think he is on stronger legal ground, and it will be less likely that that will be tied up in the courts. if he does that first they might

be able to get some of what he wants to do done. but the emergency powers is going to be a contentious issue, as the president said when he announced it on friday, he expect did that he would have some unfavorable court rulings, particularly in the ninth circuit and it would end up at the supreme court and see what happens. host: when it comes to congressional republicans, how much support do you think he will get from them, considering the route he is taking? guest: it's going to create problems, congressional republicans are afraid of the president -- of the precedent it will set, they don't want to democratic president to come in and say climate change is a national emergency so i'm going to spend money that you didn't authorize me to spend. gun violence is a going to do all kinds of executive action on that. i think those scenarios are more far-fetched, this is about reprioritizing money that the federal government had already there are definitely

questions tied up in that. that's easier to do than to suddenly declare an emergency and grab $42 trillion that you don't have and have not raised. which is what they estimate the green new deal would cost. republicans are concerned about that. i think you will get more support on that, particularly with mitch mcconnell because i think republicans were happy they had averted a second government shut down. they didn't feel like they had anything to show for the government being partially shut -- close for 35 days, it was politically not advantageous for them. it allowed the president to declare the national emergency didn't -- given that he didn't get much of what he wanted and the spending bill he reluctantly signed. that's a face-saving way out for the president, i think some republicans in congress, even if they're not wild about this approach, will give him the face-saving approach. host: will this bog down the rest of the issues the president will want to focus on before the

election? guest: it certainly creates a scenario where a lot of this is going to be about framing the 2020 election, and setting up a contrast with democrats ahead of that election. it's going to be difficult for him to get things done, but he's going to be able to paint democrats as obstructionist and radical in immigration policy and border security. he will paint them as being opposed to even very basic enforcement positions. whether that works, it didn't work well in the midterm election, at least on the house side. it worked all right in the red state senate races but that remains to be seen. a lot of those chances for 2020 do hinge not only on what he does but what the democrats do with the power the voters gave them in the midterm election. what is the american conservative for those not familiar with that?

-- a bimonthlynk print magazine and website where news on on news and -- traditional conservative issues and political philosophies. host: you serve as the editor in the first call comes from washington, d.c. on the democrats line, jeremy, you are on. go ahead. caller: good morning. good morning to you and good morning to your guest. thank you for taking my call, i really appreciate this show. keep up the good work. i feel like this is no longer about politics, this is a clear and present danger to freedom and democracy. the president's speech seems like typical lies, distortions. and it marks something more , a dissenting to tierney. i think president trump's

declaration is a usurpation of the constitution, congress, and the american people. the fact that a national emergency is now whatever the president says, what more emergencies will come next? perhaps the next emergency is the result of the next rigged election, or holding an election at all, or traders in congress intraders --traitors congress, if he can circumvent the law why would he stop there? guest: that is an argument people are using against the indication of emergency powers. what he is invoking is much more limited than say overturning a law, or challenging election results, or imprisoning your political opponents. it's really about whether certain money that the government already has is going to be spent in the military

budget, whether he can reprioritize that outside of the normal appropriations process. there is an argument that that is a usurpation of powers that are legitimately congresses -- congress's under the constitution. there's also an argument that passing statutes like the national emergencies act, congress tried to delegate and giveaway some of its legislative powers to the executive branch. it is constitutionally illegitimate to do that, but congress has institutionally played a role in its own marginalization of some of these processes. it did not want to take politically risky votes, even giving war powers to the executive branch, a lot of oversight powers and regulatory powers to the executive branch as well. i think this is another area where i'm not necessarily sure that the people who pass this law in the 70's -- past of this law in the 70's envisioned that

it would be used in the way it's being used now. but we are seeing a shift towards congress being yes -- less the preeminent branch of the federal government and the federal branch -- an executive branch gaining more power. carolina, from north on the republican line. hello. caller: good morning. a fussts are having such over this wall, saying it's not needed. and california is a sanctuary state, nancy pelosi did not want to give one dollar for the wall. i'm wondering why trump does not relocate the walls in california somewhere else, that would save him money from building another wall. caller,rry about that go ahead. guest: that's going to be a big issue heading into 2020, the democrats said that the -- said the border wall is immoral,

nancy pelosi used that word. there is a lot of bipartisan support, maybe not for the wall concept as the president envisions it, but for the idea that there could be some barriers along the border. and resolving the government shutdown, it always seemed like a possible path out, a possible compromise would be fussing with what the rhetorical distinction is, the semantics between fencing, which many democrats do support, and the wall which they are almost uniformly opposed to. i think a lot of the next election is going to be framed on not only do you like border barriers in your own state and sectors of the border, but look at these rich and powerful people who live in gated communities and have fencing that protects their own homes. if walls are immoral in the context of the border why are you living behind one? i think the president will generate some political hay about that. host: bernie sanders has decided

that he wants to take another run, initial thoughts? guest: it's interesting, he certainly did better than most people expected in 2016. he really highlighted that there was some progressive discontent that was not readily america -- apparent when she stepped into the race. it also illustrated how much the democratic party has shifted. shifted -- it certainly less on economics, and somewhere else on social issues. beyond where bernie sanders was really prepared to go, he faced some backlash over immigration and not being is motivated by those issues as other democrats were. i think this time around the challenges going to be not only his age, but the fact that he does not have that call to himself. he is going to have to share that territory with other candidates. how does he handle that? some of these candidates do

better with voters of caller than bernie sanders did. and that was really his weakness -- voters of color than bernie sanders did. he's from vermont, one of the whitest states in the country. his inability to connect with those voters prevented him from seriously threatening hillary clinton's chances. so how does he deal with the fact that he's going to have to compete for the progressive vote, he won't have it all for himself. can he make inroads with minority voters? host: aside from bernie sanders, who is the most progressive in the current field? guest: i think he has to compete with elizabeth warren for those beens, and she might have an even stronger contender in 2016. the question for warren and sanders, by not doing it at that time, did she let her time pass? is she going to have to deal with the fact that there are multiple progressives in the

race? cory booker and kamala harris, despite the fact that their past records might not be totally reflective of this, but they are certainly making a play for these voters now. trying to get some enthusiasm among that part of the base. certainly there are people waiting in the wings like beto o'rourke, who connected with some of these voters on a visceral level. , to some -- amy klobuchar to some extent will compete for those voters but i think she will have a gentler temperament than some of these other democrats to win over some central -- centrist voters. i think there will be a lot of competition on the left and the question becomes does that pave the way for someone more in the center in the democratic party? some buddy more representative of the establishment? representativee of the establishment?

to be moving in an alexandria because you cortez direction overall. host: on the independent line, from philadelphia. caller: good morning, i wanted to ask about what came to light about infanticide, the hippocratic oath has been optional, which forbade abortion and assisting in suicide. there is a new one that adds financial consideration. states have assisted suicide and i wanted to ask, with unlimited immigration and 30 million illegal immigrants in going tory, are they be encouraged to be good sports and be encouraged to commit

suicide, i think that would be an excellent subject for conservatives to bring up and i want to add to this discretion. discussion. clearly abortion legislation in new york and virginia will be a major issue going forward. when you look at the swing voters, when you look at the states, they are actually economically liberal and socially conservative, they are not your typical centrist voters in d.c., who are usually in the reverse. there are a lot of voters in michigan and pennsylvania who may be don't care as much about tax cuts and deregulation that are going to be bothered by the democratic party going as far as it has on the abortion issue. if you look at a state like virginia, which in recent memory was a red state became purple and prior to the problems with ralph northam and the rest of the democratic leadership of the state it looked like it was

turning into a pale blue. it the abortion issue really alter that? clearly that's a popular position in the d.c. suburbs in northern virginia, but the rest of the state, i don't know if that resonates quite as well. match, in new york, on the republican line. in new york, on their public in line. guest: i've been checking out your publications, i want to say that i support the president's measure. the left abandoned any intellectual honesty with regards to the immigration debate a long time ago. they've never had an honest immigration debate. they are not interested in cooperating or negotiating with the president. they don't face reality. when they are in office they talk about border security, but you can't talk about border security when you are in favor

of sanctuary cities. they should all be asked what about sanctuary cities, how can you square supporting sanctuary cities and say that you are tough on the border and you want border security. you cannot occupy two spaces at once like that. as far as them saying what about when there is a democratic president and that they could do an emergency measure for something like climate change. they've always done stuff like that. when obama was in office he authority andve he admitted to it as he did it and the media applauded him for doing it and blames the republicans for being obstructionist. host: we will leave it caller thank you. guest: as much as people talk about how the trump republicans have become more hardline on immigration we've seen a comparable shift among democrats, where they have really moved to the left on the issue and seem to be raising moral questions about the legitimacy of certain basic

border security functions. of certain basic rights in the country to restrict immigration into western and affluent countries. there has been some political backlash against that. i think that will be part of the framing of the 2020 race. as the late george w. bush administration and the early barack obama administration, if you were among those who wanted to pass comprehensive immigration reform you need to show some toughness on border security and immigration enforcement to tilde the credibility needed to pass something like that. -- and credibility needed to pass something like that. obama moved away from that because he was not getting republican support for the legislation he wanted and his base was becoming increasingly disaffected with obama as the to porter in chief, some were calling him. -- do porter -- the port --

deporter in chief, as some were calling in. a lot of the democratic base did not like the deportations and it was because of that that executive actions on immigration such as daca flowed out of that political environment. tina, from long beach, california on the republican line. caller: my name is tina, thank you for taking my call. i'm an 80-year-old woman who was still working and still paying taxes. nowconfused as to who is protecting the american taxpayer who is paying for all of this. i am pointing out specifically the border and the people who overstay their visas.