book, how to read the constitution and why. take your we will calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. washington journal is next. ♪ host: this is "the washington journal," for july the seventh. the democratic national committee is considering pulling a separate debate or four on the .opic of climate change some of the last round of debates discussed the topic as well. in the next hour we want to hear from you about climate change. if you think it is an important campaign issue. you can call to let us know about that. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 you can post on our twitter .eed, @cspanwj

about 500 of you posting on her facebook page this morning on this topic. you can add your thoughts at .acebook.com/cspan the gallup poll did a recent survey of americans and their thoughts about climate change is an issue leading up to the down bynd breaking it party. when asked about the seriousness of global warming, if it's serious or generally exaggerated, in 2018 it was 69% of republican saying it was the case and only 4% of democrats weighing in on that. if they believe that the effects of global warming had already begun, 34% of republicans saying they believe that. .0% of independents 82% of democrats saying that. and when it comes to the topic and if theyrming worry a great deal or a fair amount about it. republicans, 33%, 62% for independence, 91% of those

democrats being cold saying that it was a great deal or a fair amount of worry for them. when it comes to the campaign issue itself it was during the last round of the two debates where climate change came up as a topic. jones,"rding to "mother most candidates now saying that when it comes to the topic it should be further debated, saying that 20 of the 25 candidates have gone on the record of holding a debate devoted to climate change policy. days five more candidates told mother jones that they support a climate change debate, raising the stakes for the democratic national committee, which has so far resisted allowing it to take place. when it comes to "the washington post," a recent story they're saying that leaders of the democratic national committee are possibly considering a debate strictly looking at this topic. again, when it comes to a campaign issue, do you think it is an important one? (202) 748-8000 for democrats,

(202) 748-8001 four republicans, and independents, (202) 748-8002 . the climate of change debate and if it is going future,future in maranda green joins us from the hill, their energy and environment reporter, good morning. guest: good morning. it,: "the post" hinted at but where is the dnc in making this a possible reality? found they are split into two camps. a group of individuals pushing for what you just talked about, having a primary debates focused specifically on climate change the can really get to the heat of the issue and be able to talk to all of the candidates about the specifics of how they would address climate change and climate action if they were to be elected. then there is the other candidates, largely pushed by -- dnctic emc chair chair which believes there

should not be a single issue democratic debate topic and instead believe in pushing forward a resolution that would address it in a forum style. this would be similar to what we saw in june down in south carolina for the planned parenthood forum. host: how much influence, now that we have had many of the field on the democratic side calling for such an event, how much will that influenced dnc decision-making do you think? guest: as you can imagine i'm sure it's putting a lot of pressure on the dnc, considering that we have had fault that calls for a climate focused debate going back to april. the governor of washington, jay inslee, has changed his campaign largely on global warming issues and has been calling for this debate and we have had other candidates come forward saying they would also like to see a debate specifically focused on climate change. to have this many candidates come forward and back the idea of having this debate puts a lot of pressure on the dnc to

reconsider. previous comments that they were firmly opposed to having any single issue topic, this is not something that they have done issue, having a single democratic primary debate, but it would be a first if they were to agree to that. clearly there are members of the dnc camp back to by christine pelosi, the daughter of house speaker nancy pelosi, who has been pushing to have a debate specifically on climate change. she is the first person to come forward that brought the resolution earlier this month acting for the dnc to vote on this issue in august. inslee, hows jay many others of the candidates have laid out specifics when it comes to the topic of climate change? quite a few candidates have laid out specifics. we have seen that o'rourke come out with a climate change focus.

we have seen elizabeth warren come out with a couple of climate change linked policies having to do with the economics of infrastructure and public lands issues. we have seen other candidates like steve buttigieg out from talk at length about wanting to see carbon capture as an issue and other candidates that talk about smaller policy issues. not everyone has laid out specific policy platform styles, leading to what i believe those who are interested in the climate issue would like to see debated. it's one thing for candidates to say that it is their top issue in something where they will strike first if elected. it's another thing to have the really debate and discuss the nitty-gritty issues of how they ,ill actually june -- do this especially with the united states putting itself against world players in the scenario, as president trump pulled harris -- pulled us out of the climate accords and vowing to do things

differently than the obama administration might it comes to attacking climate change. what have we heard generally from climate change active -- advocates calling for a decision to be made on this topic? guest: there has been a lot of pressure here. even the week leading up to did -- to the debate the sunrise advocates had a sit in outside .he dnc demanding a focus a lot of them are saying that this is a top issue, especially for youth voters, which are a very important vote to it for democrats. in general polls have been showing democratic voters really care about the issue of climate change and it has risen in the ranks as a top voting issue going forward. we think that activists pointing , saying thatifics

this is not just something that can be given 10 minutes of debate, saying it needs to be given a main focus. maranda green, if you want to read her reporting on this and other topics, the hill.com. thank you for your time today. guest: thank you. "the guardian" reporting out of the u.k. saying that the president wants to go against the criticism of his rollbacks on environmental protections. he will be touting the clean air and water, though the administration has many experts saying that they have undercut the country's environmental record in the guardian saying that the president has little to point you in terms of environmental achievement. he could point to the cleaning up of marine debris coming from asia and republican arguments that countries like china are contribute in far more to the climate crisis than the u.s.

if climate change is an important issue to you, we are getting your thoughts on that this morning. for democrats --(202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 four republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002 good morning, ed. --(202) 748-8002. good morning, ed. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. why the understand is there seems to just concern about climate change, but then i see certain things happening on the they don'tde where seem is concerned about climate change as they pretend they are. like for example, representative , her and hertexas staff are down in mexico right having human trafficking. they are helping human

trafficking by helping people to come into the people illegally by telling them what to say. host: so is that a climate change -- as climate change a campaign issue for you are not? caller: well yeah, climate change is probably caused by human interaction. so you know, the more people you have in your country, you know, the higher your numbers are going to be when it comes to pollution. ok.: this is leslie, democratic line, jackson heights, new york. good morning. i think that climate change is a truly central issue that is interconnected with every thing else. president trump's withdrawal from the paris climate accord was a signal event. everything that has followed

from that, his policies, we have to get rid of him, first of all. terribly, terribly important. it isn't just a question of electing democrats. as your previous caller mentioned, the democrats don't seem to be particularly sanguine on the issue as they should be. host: so, do you think that as the caller, do you think there should be a separate debate? host: absolutely -- caller: absolutely. , deepelligent conversation about this. i have friends and family all over the country feeling the effects of this. we have family in california feeling it, the fires, the droughts, we have friends -- everybody i know is very concerned about it. they feel that the dialogue is

really not happening the way that it should be. that's leslie, jackson heights, new york. climate news reports that when it comes to the first debates that you saw on c-span, four out of the 10 candidates during the debates were asked about the ,reatest geopolitical threat climate change, one question being that the action would have to happen at the expense of health care, carbon taxing being one of the only solutions mentioned by name and deemed politically and viable at the start, though there were slivers of information that could be useful to voters as they draw distinctions among the candidates. this is elaine, olympia, washington, republican line, good morning. hi, i hope you let me finish. i think it's important in the fact that i don't think people are open-minded about the reasons of it.

trump says he knows it's happening but he doesn't think -- he can't prove that people are the cause. that is as study danish study about the earths magnetism and how it affects -- it's changing and it affects our climate and it affects our because it allows these , galacticarticles cosmic rays to come through our atmosphere, which create clouds. i wish people would read up on the danish thing host:. so one -- thing. to a so when it comes campaign issue, is this on the top of your list when it comes to things you are concerned about regarding president? caller: i think that when 49 scientists quit working for nasa along with six astronauts because they embraced co2 as the

cause and only cause and they walked out on them, they even signed a letter, a petition asking them to review this and they never did it. i think that we need a symposium. our government needs a symposium of many people, many scientists, not just nobel laureates who have journalism degrees and although that. host: -- all of that. ok, ok. catherine, climate change as a campaign issue, go ahead. caller: good morning, i have a comment and a suggestion. climate change is the most important issue of anything. we don't have any other issues in the future unless we take care of climate change. our government and private oftor need to think outside

the box on climate change. i have been thinking about tornadoes and climate change, global warning -- global warming . most things have a positive and a negative view. tornadoes being destructive are negative. could we use tornadoes as a positive? could we make large cylinders and inside of them create continuous tornadoes to run our electrical utilities and produce clean energy, eliminating the need for coal and oil? does anyone stand out when it comes to issues of climate change? i think we keep going over and over the same ways of doing things. to high school science fairs. if we can go to the moon, we can

solve our climate problem. host: that is catherine in new hampshire amongst the democratic candidates. washingtond our governor talk about this as a standout, the main feature of his campaign, during the debates he talked about the issue and his concerns about it. [video clip] >> first, to start with we have to take away the filibuster from mitch mcconnell. the first generation to feel the sting of climate change and the last that can do something about it. our towns are burning, our fields are flooding. we are inundated. we have to understand that this is a climate crisis, and emergency. it is our last chance in the administration, the next one, to do something about it. we need to do what i have done in my state. we passed a 100% clean electrical grid bill and we now have a vision statement. my plan has been called the gold

standard of putting people to work. important thing, the biggest decision for the american public is who is going to make this the first priority? i am the only candidate who says this has to be the top priority of the united states, the organizing principle to mobilize the united states so that we can do what we have always done, lead the world, invent the future, put 8 million people to work. lucy is next, darlington, maryland, democratic line. caller: good morning. i'm a self-employed bay wise landscaper and i would say that my primary concerns are water quality? we look at flint, but there are a lot of cities throughout the u.s. whose water quality is not healthy to drink. , climatea green said change and these environmental concerns are part of health and

should be part of the national dialogue, a major part of it. air quality as well. then environmental justice. for donaldr vote trump because his adult son's trophy hunt exotic wild animals like leopards and i think that is a disrespect of god's world. his or anyone you would vote for when it comes to climate change? and kamala booker harris. --ler: -- cory booker caller: cory booker and kamala harris. they both care about water and air quality for all in the u.s. and in our global community. sterling, virginia, gary, republican line. good morning, you are next. caller: i would like to say that

on this time it change i heard a guy from iowa call in saying that co2 is such a good thing. i wanted to say that yeah, especially if you are growing fungus or something like this. we need to switch the buses and trucks to natural gas. we wouldn't be sending the saudi's $100 billion per year. allowing for to hit squads to in jetsound the world and kill people like khashoggi? tot: when it comes candidates, how much does ?limate change factor in caller: it's common sense, look at all the fungus, fold -- mold,

mildew. is thisu said that, but a top issue for you amongst the candidates? andrew stands out? caller: i would like -- and who stands out question mark caller: i would like -- stands out? caller: i would like to say bernie sanders but i'm not sure. the oil refineries, people like that environmental group, 140.org or something? anyway, madeleine albright, she is a big proponent of that. host: let's hear from kathy in michigan. democratic line, you are up. caller: thank you, pedro. good morning, c-span. i would like to be able to give

a comment on the people who are running on the democratic side. trump, i already know, mass consumption, not my life style, will never be. we need to start walking more. i walk a mile to the hospital, a mile back, 12 hour shifts. i'm able to do it. and i'm 62. work,d -- but i see at with my coworkers, i never say anything, overuse of styrofoam containers. i pack my entire lunch. bring it home and wash it. as a campaign issue, whose plan or platform is most attractive to you? i don't see anything out there. i would like to see some film footage of them walking somewhere, taking a bus or something.

happy whenpeople they are walking and smiling, riding their bikes, that's a good sign. host: ok. that's kathy in michigan. you saw the story of the president laying out his theme of climate change. during the reelection rally the president took on the topic of issues of the environment and here is a fit of what he had to say. [video clip] the lasted administration's cruel and on energy.ar something i want to make clear to the media, we have the cleanest and sharpest crystal clean air and

water anywhere on her. we are creating a future of american energy independence and theour air and water are cleanest they have ever been by far. host: "usa today" recently took a look at the topic of coal in the united states, saying 2000 minors across more states may lose their jobs after another major coal company filed for bankruptcy this week, the thirst and a half since last october. nations sixth top coal producer in 2017 admitting the presidents ongoing efforts to boost the flagging industry, the administration rolled out a rule last sunday meant to extend the lives of coal-fired plants across the nation. again, when it comes to climate change as a campaign issue, we are interested in

hearing from you if it is an important issue from -- for youth. timothy, indiana, independent line, hi. about climate change? host: if it is a campaign issue for you. is," notell yes, it but not the. i work in the country for living , i'm always in the woods and stuff, i'm two years of age. my mother was a biology teacher and she told me stuff when i was little and i see a lot of things wrong. host: such as what. caller: about climate? host: you said you saw it affecting climate, what did you see? well i cut a tree down two years ago and i cut one down in late august and there were in the- baby squirrels

nest and there were's squirrel season starting august 14 in indiana and if it hadn't changed, they should have been born a lot earlier. voting fors far as president, you called it a close issue but not a major issue. that said, who do you like on the topic? caller: i really don't have the research on who says what on climate change, sir. i'm just happy am sitting here on the same morning watching tv and i called you and you answered. that was timmy calling on climate change. most important campaign issue for the election, but the most important globally and must be treated as such, according to this tweet --

host: if you want to make comments there, our twitter feed is @cspanwj. republican line, harry. caller: i don't believe in this at all. first of all, how many are meteorologists? i go back to roger goodell, he started this in 1957. by 1961 -- by 1991 he said he andwrong about everything

carbon bike -- carbon dioxide is more beneficial to the earth than anything else. everyone that calls in, none of them know anything about this. have a meteorologist on about this. the guy from the weather channel said that if he really believed in climate change, he would say something, he has nothing to gain or lose. americans spending 4 billion dollars per year on so-called scientists to say there is climate change without studying it or knowing what it is. host: what do you think about it as a campaign issue? caller: it's garbage. none of these people know anything about meteorology. where are they getting their facts from? they want to debate? debate with a meteorologist. next, joe is from ohio. independent line, good morning. taking myank you for call. i want to say that one of the things we can do to help the

environment is get back to planting native plants. we need to plant more trees, oak trees, maple trees -- not invasive species. i don't hear any of the about the talking plight of insects across the world, particularly pollinators. the other thing we have to do is get away from -- we have to change how we landscape, get away from planting grass with a big law -- big lawns the take a lot of resources. get back to native plants. it will help the environment, pollinators and insects. real quick here, like with california, you know you see california -- a lot of the way that they landscape up there is to use rocks in their yards set of planting plants. plants are the key to helping the environment, insects, and pollinators host:. you are saying that if the candidates started talking about

those issues, they would get more of your attention? caller: yeah, i don't hear any of the candidates on either side talking about planting native plants. we have an invasive species problem across the world. joe giving his thoughts on climate change and we are asking you if it's an important issue to you or not. (202) 748-8000 four democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and for independents, (202) 748-8002. one of the candidates in the 2020 debates in the first round was the california senator kamala harris, giving the specifics on what she would see as president when it comes to issues of climate change.

[video clip] >> is a climate crisis that represents an existential threat to us as a species. with a president that has embraced science fiction over whilee fact, i visited the embers were smoldering the wildfires in california. i spoke with firefighters in the midst of fighting a fire while their own homes were burning. and on this issue it is a critical issue that is about what we must do to confront the right now.efore us it is why i support a green new deal and as president it will reenter us in the paris agreement. we have to take these issues seriously and frankly we have a president of the united states talking about the greatest national security threat to the united states -- frankly it's donald trump and i'm going to tell you why, i'm going to tell you why.

change that climate represents an existential threat. he denies the science. suzanne, tallahassee, florida, democratic line. hey there. i think that the climate is the are important thing, we going to be in serious trouble but if ourew years government will set up a commission to address the issue , we could alleviate some of the problems we have here. everybody in the world needs to plant more trees and by planting more trees, getting rid of a lot that arevasive species overtaking our natural gifts that we have in this climate, we will have solved it.

who: as far as candidates, has the best approach, do you think? caller: i think that jay inslee is right on target when it comes to climate change. i do think that we need someone like kamala harris for president. i think the joe biden is not lucid like he used to be. when it comes to kamala harris as far as climate change, what do she bring? caller: i haven't seen plans from the other candidates. priority. james is next, grand forks, north dakota, republican line.

caller: from studies of ice core and other things, i read a lot of the work of jared diamond. it talks about how climate change has affected everyone othersfferent groups to in climate change with the ice age the began in the 1300s naturally. it went on for about 400 years and there were no internal combustion engines causing that. 40,000 years is about all we have known in north america and in that 40,000 years there have been about 23 massive climate shifts. the ice age ended what, 8000, 9000 years ago? an 8000ican indians had mile wide frozen land bridge. that were immigrants from

came from asia. their were mass extent -- mass extensions. host: as a campaign issue? guest: ever me. every republican, we all believe in climate change. no one denies that, just live in north dakota with 50 below zero windchill. the thing that bothers me about some of the women in this country is how do you lose weight without a diesel engine? how can you get thousands of the supermarkets? how do you build houses? have you move weight without the power of the diesel. host: ok. let's hear from ron, independent line, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i think that climate change is the only issue. nothing else counts if we don't

have a world to live in. we are like fish in an aquarium and there is a leak in the water is going out. i don't know what's going to happen when that reaches a critical point. and it's going to be determined disease andt of illness. right now there are things happening in health care that are not explainable. when it comes to voting, is this the only issue for you considering a candidate? caller: without this on top, every other thing is secondary. host: as a workable plan, is it something you would support? caller: the governor of washington and what was the name, schmidt? , formerward schmidt

starbucks executive? caller: they make a lot of sense. i don't know if they have the leadership ability to do that, but i think that that money, money is the only thing driving this big debate. the only thing that stand to make -- deal of people that stand to make money in terms of a poor climate our food producers, specifically gmo's. and then you are talking about -- but that's international support. and then you have -- your point. a couple of other things when you continue on on this topic, los angeles times talking about jeffrey epstein, arrested new sexy in new york on trafficking charges involving allegations dating to the early 2000's, according to officials. trumpounted president

amongst his acquaintances, now expected in court according to law enforcement officials and one of them said that epstein is accused of paying underage girls for massages and then molesting them. if you go to "the new york times" section today, profile by nancy pelosi, saying that house liberals were furious with the speaker since she capitulated to moderates and agree to pass a bill sending more funding to the border. "she must know that getting trump out of office is a goal that could be jeopardized by the fact that the democrats have moved so far left -- so far left over abolishing pilot health insurance, a poll that was synonymous decades with extreme

liberalism and now astonishingly the woman formerly scorned as a thinker is the voice of moderation, urging the kids to slow their role or risk having a second unbearable helping of trump. she said it left doesn't think that she is left enough, so be , that she understands what they are saying but there is a responsibility to get something done, which is different from advocacy. a solution and not just a twitter fight." that is from "the new york times." the post,"nt page of " when it comes to approval numbers, the economy helping the 39% innt, edging up from april, send it is approved among registered voters, 47% approved of that, disapproved, and in april 42% of registered voters said they approved while 52%

said they disapproved. you will find that on the pages of "the washington post." matt, new jersey, neck, go ahead. off.r: good morning, first i would definitely like to say that climate change is at the top of my list going forward in the 2020 presidential campaign cycle, i guess there. why is it so? well, i guess we have all of those scientists telling us we basically have 12 years to get our act together, otherwise we are going to have irreparable damage that our generation, my generation, and i guess our kids, are going to be facing. host: so, as far as a campaign issue, what are they saying about the issue and what you think? well it's nice,

definitely the candidates of their are saying pretty much good things about climate change . there are a couple of stragglers, maybe. john delaney or hickenlooper, still trying to catch up with the rest of the pack. but really there is only one candidate who you can trust when it comes to these kinds of things and that's senator bernie sanders. he has been saying these things the entire time to congress. it's nice that everyone has come along to what he's saying now but it would be better if they had been there the whole time. is theohn hickenlooper former colorado governor and it was during those debates that you sought recently where he talked about specifically how oil and gas companies would fare under a hickenlooper administration. here are some of his comments. [video clip] >> i share that sense of urgency. i miss -- i'm a scientist. i recognize the 10 or 12 years

of suffering irreversible damage. but you know, guaranteeing everybody a government job is not going to get us there. socialism in that sense is not the solution. to look at what will really make a difference. colorado, closing a couple of coal plants, monthly bills going down, we went on to building a network for electric vehicles. we are working with bill and gas industry and we created the first methane regulations in the country, which is 25 times worse than co2. part, the industrial heavy industry, we haven't seen the plans yet. if you look at the real problems, co2, the worst polluters are china, the united , and beyond that i think we have to recognize that only by bringing businesses and nonprofits together, we can't demonize every business, we've got to bring them together because of we are not able to do

that, we will be doomed to failure. feed,off of our twitter steve says that it's a asnificant concern and that a citizen climate advocate, he sees it as a bridge issue not a wedge issue, that solutions can be mobilized in a bipartisan fashion, adding that we should get moving. mark stone on twitter as well -- when it comes to come if it's a campaign issue, no, but spend $100ant to trillion on the green new deal? your comments are on our twitter feed and you can post their. cornell, new york. kimberly is next, republican line, thank you for calling, go ahead. i think we are falling very far behind as far as renewable energy goes and i would like to see more of that currently and i would like to see more of that in the future.

i think that a lot of states of past the regulation that don't allow certain kinds of renewable energy. solar energy is certainly an industry that could generate new jobs and a lot of money rather than just relying on the coal industry. who didn't know that a lot of these countries were going to go bankrupt. who didn't know that? to put all of our eggs in one basket with gas and oil isn't the way to go. we really have to look at what we have, you know? and i think that we have to look at these regulations that are being peeled back constantly, clint doesn't -- flint doesn't have clean andriy readable water and it's really not acceptable. green jobs of the

previous administration, you are saying that didn't produce enough results for you? weler: i think it did but need to continue to move forward and i would say that as far as the caller in north coda about tosel, we certainly do need diesel and there is some really forward there is some technology that is making diesel much cleaner to be used. so i think that we just need to continue to work, to see what's best for not just republicans or democrats. the other thing is i think that oil and gas, it's so heavily used now because they are making money on it. ok.: that's kimberly, new york. stephen, independent line, how are you? fine, thank you. i think that kimberly makes a lot of sense in that is one reason why i think that kamala harris might be my person.

i like bernie, but i like, as well. i live on coastal south carolina -- i like kamala as well. i live on coastal south carolina , we are having higher tides in the river and on the coast. there is no question about it. you can put your head in the sand if you want to or not, but it is no different than the roads in my community, they are falling to pieces. you can wait to fix it with the good old potholes or you can address the problem. host: when it comes to tides, what have you seen as far as changes? give me some examples. caller: i have a buddy of mine who lives on an inlet and he is trying to get his house cleaned up because it floods every time there is a high tide. you can't get out of his house. that is the price for living on

the coast. but there are some strips south of me that aren't -- the holster for land is not 100 feet wide and they have houses on both sides of it. , 5, 6, 8houses million-dollar houses. crazy number houses. host: when it comes to kamala harris, what is a specifically like on this topic? she's a female and men don't get it. i'm sorry, a lot of men just don't get it. i'm not saying she is the end-all be-all, that's not what i'm saying, but we cannot put our head in the freaking sand and i don't know that she does have the answer but i don't think any of them have the answer. host: when you say that men don't get it, why do you think that? caller: i wish that i knew, it's about money more than anything else. if you want to look at society , i'm not ais

contractor, i'm a homeowner, building a house by myself and my county. if you want to see the hoops i have to jump through in this socialist society that we are already living in whether you want to realize it or not. all right, that is stephen and south carolina. maine, democratic line, nancy. caller: good morning, c-span. calling about climate change. after friday i have no doubt. when theyorted on cnn give the weather that in alaska on friday it was 90 degrees. that has never ever happened before. plus i live 15 minutes from the atlantic ocean. i have been watching the tide therefore probably eight years to 10 years. at low tide we used to have a huge area of beachfront. it took you a while to walk from the shore way down to the water.

that is no longer happening. the tide is not receding like it used to. the water is reclaiming itself. i challenge everyone listening to go online or wherever you get onr information and check what was reported by season end on friday. host: accuweather off of their website, they posted today from the meteorologist they're saying that temperature in anchorage, alaska, soaring to 90 degrees fahrenheit, shattering the all-time record by five degrees and that the previous record of 85 degrees fahrenheit was set in 1969 and it shattered the daily record of 77 degrees for the beenh of july, which had standing since 1999. records in anchorage since 1952, according to the records kept by the national weather service, of 1919, fairbanks

made a run at 100 and fairbanks has experienced 90 degree heat on several occasions, most recently on august the fifth, 1994, when they recorded a 90 degree temperature. michael, pennsylvania, new eagle, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was listening to the callers when i was on and the gentleman in south carolina said something interesting about infrastructure and how the floods or worse because of the infrastructure situation. i'm glad that you discussed the heat wave in alaska because guess what, it has gotten hot in alaska before. i like to listen to national public radio in this year they had the climate announcement the fourth warmest year ever according to records. what they left out was that the

global average surface temperature according to nola has dropped by .15 degrees centigrade since 2016. i think that if you look at global weather patterns, you would notice this. of course, we have some heat wedging going on in alaska, in general our plants get colder fast and we need to look into this. as far as a campaign issue, i'm assuming that a big one for you? it's a big one for me, i'm waiting for a candidate to come say the truth about how are -- how our planet has gotten colder. i have not seen anybody speaking the truth yet. host: ok. that's michael, new eagle, pennsylvania. about 10 minutes left in this discussion on climate change issues that we are hearing from you.

for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. ron is up next, around lake, illinois, independent line, go ahead. first of all, the whole thing with climate change and said thatming, they the temperatures of the earth were cooling on average. but whether you believe it or not, until we get a bigger producer online with the whole , all, with china and india we are doing is handcuffing our themtries and not allowing to produce a product at the same cost as everybody else due to the restrictions we put on them. so until anybody else is on

board, there's no reason to handcuff our industries and have them playing at a deficit from the big producers like china and india not being on board. also, if the democrats truly cared about climate change, the ,ran deal, all of the oil putting more carbon into the atmosphere, plus they made that agreement to all -- to open them to the oil market to get the refineries fired up, they quadrupled the output of carbon once that happens. the democrats say that they really care about climate change , but if you actually look at the record they really don't. shreveport,urphy in louisiana. democratic line, murphy, hello. caller: hey, how you doing? host: fine, thanks. caller: climate change, i think all of thestart by

above. we need to start building the infrastructure so that it will take some of the flooding areas, like we have got to build to climate.changing pretty much all god work. we cannot change the climate, but we can build our infrastructure. that lady talking about renewables? check it out, see how serious it is from the recollection, the trump administration, seeing the effect it has on people. except theng nothing people are what, settling with dialogue. in shreveport giving us his thoughts this morning. you heard about the planned julytation efforts on

fourth, it's a feature of "the washington post" this morning saying that customs enforcement developed a target list this .pring including houston, los angeles, new york, and other major immigrant destinations. arrests and deportations are to be carried out in a highly visible fashion for the sake of maximum publicity. when it comes to other plans, the story highlights that ice officials expect they may be able to detain only 10% to 20% of their targets in each city, so they are trying to target the president's expectations after a pledge to sweep up millions of eligible foreigners. officials seeing that if you are a list are likely to be encountered in court and the agency is expecting to find some of them and make collateral arrests and others will have

outstanding deportation orders." that is from "the washington post" this morning. republican line, steve. caller: good morning. this whole thing is a hoax. in the 60's and 70 voss they said that climate change was going to give us an ice age. 1986 or 87 the united nations came out and said that by the year 2000 that part of the different countries would be underwater. did not happen. this is an attempt to basically control what we can and cannot do. and i really feel that it is an issue really to control what we can and can't do. us soe our money from that the government can dictate how we live.

most americans should get out thethis vote next year, i think it's ?mportant host: one more candidate to hear from, yes, number one. [video clip] >> we have drilled down the competitive price of those renewables. i would insist that we build 500 thousand which stations throughout the united states of america. so that we can go to a full electric vehicle future.

there is new science and technology to be the exporter of. an economy that can create millions of jobs. joining the paris accords, i would up the ante that it calls for, we make up 15% of the problem. 85% of the world makes up the rest and we need someone who knows how to corral the rest of the world, bring them together and get something done like we did our administration. host: texas, independent line. thanks for letting me get on. i'm more concerned about the coal burning industry. i think that coal is very important and can be used for purification processes with water. we can turn these coal burners into natural gas burners with so much of it in the ground, it

would definitely help with the and the coal producers could use their coal for p or vocation methods and, you know, we need that in places like flint in -- and other places like that. if they could control all of that and just change it in a way where we could still be prosperous? money far as all that going to paris, my goodness, we need it right here. if we could show the rest of the world how to do it? that would be wonderful. one more point, i know that enginese gas burning that people have made in the that actually uses other resources, including water. i don't understand why that is not brought out more. anyways, those are my thoughts about maybe changing this

environmental problem. ok, carol, democratic line, washington, pennsylvania, high. i wanted to mention one or two things in terms of the impact on climate change. one simple example, and one example does not prove a case, i know that. same thing with surface temperature. prove aple does not case. there are a lot of points along the line with climate change. we band pfcs because we had a large ozone layer over the polls. when we did that, that began to close. it is still closing. 'sw the president administration wants to bring cfcs back but we had proof that this work and that it was helpful. uv,answer allowed for

greater uv exposure to humans and animals and the other thing is -- host: caller: it's not the only one, it is a major one. i'm concerned about people ignoring the science and why the regulations of air. a candidate right now that addresses those concerns? caller: i think elizabeth warren has a lot of solutions remote i've read it. it's going to be a long-term thing. i like kamala harris. i think she is trying to address it. i think overall, most of the field has some concern about climate change.

i think unless the republicans would include that in a serious not vote for them. host: the last call for this topic, we will change topics and talk about iran and its nuclear program and issues about surpassing uranium production when it comes to efforts in that country. .oining us is daryl kimball later on, and author about her "how to read the constitution, and why." about 2020 efforts on the state level. chamber that came down

to drawing the name out of a hat. supportyour plan to those chambers this year? >> you believe we can flip both of those chambers. at we need to pick up two seats in both chambers. we had an incredible success in 2017. that is our candidate. already endorsed over 30 women for both chambers. we have announced already an investment with priorities usa to do some digital outreach. i have staff on the ground coaching,cruiting, helping set up organizations around those candidates. you will see additional support coming from us. we think we can do this and we

can do it. friends of mine emailed me and said why do you want to tackle this issue? marriage and family, your jumping into the culture war. the author will be our guest on in-depth today from noon until 2:00 eastern. his latest book is "the divine plan." he has books about the spiritual lives of ronald reagan, george w. bush, and hillary clinton. join our conversation with your questions. "in-depth" today from noon until 2:00 eastern. be sure to watch next month with author lee edwards. watch book tv every weekend on

c-span2. >> washington journal continues. host: daryl kimball is with the arms control association. we are talking about iran breaking the nuclear deal. let's start with the headline this morning. it's a second time for the breach of the nuclear deal. what is happening? guest: this was expected. one year ago, donald trump with drew from the iran nuclear deal, which set limits on the nuclear program. leastanted to keep it at a year away from amassing enough nuclear material to build the bomb. since the trump administration place, iran has threatened and is following through on breaking two of the many limits set by the deal. last week, they surpassed the

limit on its stockpile of low enriched uranium. this morning, they announced they are going to begin enriching above 3.67%. they will be increasing the amount of uranium 235, the fissionable type of uranium up to 5%. they are trying to create political leverage to get the europeans, the chinese, the russians, other parties in the deal to do more and help overcome the sanctions, which are preventing iran from selling oil. some millionsell barrels of oil a day. that's more than it usually does. they are trying to pressure the europeans to do more to get around the secondary sanctions.

not an effort for a bomb, this is creating political leverage. if they continue to take further steps to threaten to reach the limits of the deal, it's going to deepen this nuclear crisis with the united states. the u.s. and iran are on a collision course. that's going to become worse over time. if the u.s. does not use back on sanctions or iran does not show more restraint or the europeans don't find a way to deliver the economic relief iran was promised,. say electricity concerns or needs, what do you think about that? guest: they need uranium to produce electricity.

this is a move intended to remind europeans and the world that iran can reconstitute its nuclear program to the point of before the nuclear deal. kilogramassed the 300 limit. that is not a significant move from a lawyer for asian -- pleura for asian standpoint. had low in rich uranium in all forms. kilograms.50 it's enough material for one bomb. are trying to remind the world that if it does not get relief not -- economic it was promised, they will move closer to where they were.

much sway do they have in trying to change the calculus? guest: the united states has on economicgrip transactions around the world. if the trump administration says we are going to impose sanctions on you, a bank or an oil company or corporation if you do business with iran, they would rather do business with the united states. over the past several months, countries of been curtailing their trade with iran. oil sales of plummeted by night percent. this has a great effect. theeuropean powers support

a ran nuclear deal. they are hard-pressed to find a way around these sanctions. china has its own ways of getting around sanctions. from iran.ying oil sustain this deal. they are hard-pressed. we are talking about the iran nuclear program. if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 784-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 four independents . a mistake under the

deal to allow them to enrich uranium at any level. we must restore the long-standing non-laura for asian standard of no. they will never allow iran to develop nuclear weapons. what do you think of that argument? guest: there isn't an international standard that says non-nuclear states can't enrich. enrichment is a dual use technology. it's dangerous in that it can be used to make nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel for reactors. the iranians agreed to limit enrichment under the deal. enrich tollowed to certain levels. when the united states was pressing in the mid to thousands for the enrichment approach

under the george w. bush administration, the response was to increase the number of centrifuges it had to the point had 20,0003, they centrifuge machines. uraniume enriching unrestricted. it's unrealistic that iran is going to agree to zero enrichment at this point. .hat might be desirable the administration policy seeks to go back to a time, a policy that was pursued before and did not succeed. host: what does enrichment mean? guest: we are getting a little bit technical. uranium is mined from the ground. types.re two

there is 238, 235. 235 is the more rare type. you are increasing the percentage. for electricity production, you need about 5% for the reactor fuel. you can increase that up to 20%. some reactors use 20% fuel. as you increase the enrichment level up to 90%, that is weapons grade. fashion a nuclear bomb out of that material. why the atomic agency looks at the nuclear program of countries around the world to make sure they are not enriching uranium. host: what's the process? guest: there are these machines

called centrifuges. they look like call cylinders. they spin at very high speeds while the have uranium in a gaseous form. it separates out the different types of isotopes so you can separate out the 235 from me to 38. the 238. types of more sophisticated centrifuges that are more efficient. limits theverely types of centrifuges they can use. 5000,estricted to having the most basic type. is the first call from maryland. go ahead. do they have the ability

just a uranium bomb or a plutonium bomb or both? i have a couple of other questions after that. guest: they probably have the knowledge to make a nuclear bomb of uranium ore plutonium. toy don't have the material make that type of bomb. deal was to deny iran to the extent possible the ability to have enough uranium or plutonium to fashion one bomb. on thetrictions centrifuge machines, on the has, on of uranium it thefying the reactor,

agreement prevents iran from being able to amass enough material for a bomb. restrictions,e additional monitoring on the nuclear program. they probably have the knowledge on how to make a bomb. they would still have to test it. they have to figure out a way to deliver it, they have ballistic missiles. thesesk now is without getrictions, iran could closer to the point where they have the ability to produce such a bomb. caller: instead of trying to develop their own bomb, what if they just decide to march their army over to pakistan and grab one? what's to stop them from doing that?

guest: i don't think pakistan would like that. they have their own nuclear arsenal. it is theoretically possible that iran or saudi arabia it could help them purchase obama or the technology to acquire nuclear weapons. the likelihood is extremely low. nuclear technology that it has developed over the years was developed with the assistance of pakistan. they were selling the designs thethe centrifuge and designs for nuclear weapons. this was happening in the late 90's.

countriesk that other could deliberately or nuclearently share weapons related technology with others. carolyn is next. she is in kentucky. caller: i just have one question. i thought we had a 10 year agreement through president obama to not do all of this. who broke the deal here? i thought we had a deal. trump comes in and all of a sudden you're talking about centrifuges. we had a deal. great the caller has a point. the obama administration spent several years negotiating with our european allies to put in

place the nuclear deal. it was the trump administration that called the deal the worst in the world, which it's not. they pulled out of the agreement. they reimposed sanctions against iran, which was a violation of u.s. commitments under the agreement. that's what his triggered iran to take steps to show. they are not going to abide by the agreement. they are not receiving the benefits they were promised. is a self-made crisis by the trump administration in the hope that the added economic pressure will bring them back to the negotiating table and get a more ambitious deal that is more favorable to the united states. that is highly unrealistic.

made iran less likely to negotiate. it has led to reaching the limits of the limits. this is avoidable. congress never ratified the deal we're making. guest: no. congress did not ratify this. this is not a treaty. this is a political agreement iran,n the united states, britain, france, germany, the european union, russia, and china. it was voted on by congress. to republican congress tied kill it. they did not get enough votes. it was approved by the un

security council. that recognize the agreement and lifted the nuclear sanctions when iran implemented its commitments. was the most a pathetic to iran when it comes to this? frankly, the europeans and russians and chinese are equally frustrated with the trump administration for backing out. they think it's working effectively. it has been working since 2015. they have been complying up until the last couple of weeks. the russians are going to use this to beat up the united states. all of them are equally concerned. are urging them to

exercise restraint. they are going to be meeting in the next few days. as a groupommission of countries that are responsible for implementing the agreement and working out problems. they will assess what they should do in response to these reaches by iran. they may come back to the security council and try to snap back the sanctions. i don't think that's likely. these are political moves. the tensions are going to increase over time. this agreement could collapse. host: we will hear from dan in massachusetts. he is on the independent line. caller: hello. the question is whether the

united states should acknowledge we have backed them into a corner by interfering with them over so many decades that they feel they need nuclear weapons. tos started with the cia posing a democratically elected leader in the 1950's whose intention was having oil profits go back to their country rather than british petroleum. age, our financial ties with saudi arabia, it's more of a question of who will be selling petroleum products to europe. will it be saudi arabia? this may be more about competition issue.

guest: the colors referring to the difficult history between the united states and iran that dates back for decades. assessment that this crisis is more about who is selling oil to europe. that is a factor in the gulf states. iranian regimehe at this point wants to have a nuclear weapon. there are some in iran who of argued for that. there are some who have worked for that in the past. it is still an option. after the nuclear deal was concluded, they were looking for ways to reenter the international economy and build up the weak economy.

they are being denied that possibility. they are playing the card they have, to threaten to increase their nuclear capacity, which can lead to them having the ability to produce material for nuclear weapons. caller: hello? thank you for taking my call. thanks to c-span. i studied political science. this is the direct consequence of the mismanagement of our foreign policy. iran is not north korea. the are not the koran of 1980's. it's been more than a year that president donald trump violated the agreement. they have tried to keep their word. they tried not to breach an agreement. the trump administration must

take the responsibility of these results. right for the enrichment of uranium. this step is extremely dangerous. the international community knows it's dangerous. guilty, not iran. that was david in washington state. takingboth countries are steps to make the situation more dangerous. need toernments understand they are on a collision course that doesn't have a good outcome. one of the things in number of people are thinking about is how can we get out of this? one of the off ramps? one of the things both countries need to think about is can we

get back to negotiation? what would allow that? the administration says they are open to talks with iran. iran has said we don't want that as long as these sanctions are in place. yesterday, emmanuel macron spoke with the iranian president. they were discussing how the two talks told resume restore some stability in the situation. what iran is thinking. iran wants the united states to suspend the sanctions they reimposed. they said they will reenter talks with the eu. one of the things we need to think about is how can the united states reenter this deal?

what would iran have to do? they probably want to get back quickly into compliance. with thed states could wave of a pan wave the sanctions again. that probably won't happen. donald trump is not going to that track. the next president could. majority of the democratic candidates have said if iran is complying with the deal, we would consider reentering the agreement. squareuld put us back to one. it would create the a possibility for talks to build upon the agreement and deal with some of the other issues.

host: the caller said iran is not north korea, not the iran of the 1980's. guest: iran, this is the same regime technically, the policies are different. it's not north korea in the sense that they don't have nuclear weapons. they don't have long range ballistic missiles. withd trump is negotiating kim jong on. iran, they hadng agreed to stop short of a mass enough material for weapons. that's another difference. the president recently visited.

where do we stand? guest: we should be concerned about the north korean missile program. even though the united states and north korea have entered , they have not made progress in talks about denuclearization and peace. hastrump administration sought more from north korea. with donald trump's walk across , the substance is it looks like working level talks will resume between the united

states and the u.s. envoy. talks,re the kinds of the technical working level talks that have to take place. they are necessary to set up a deal that could freeze and reverse the nuclear missile program. it might be the beginning of talks on a permanent peace treaty. that's what we need to see happen. of bekorea despite all happy talk between president trump and chairman kim, they continue to produce material for nuclear weapons and build more long-range missiles. host: the republican line is next.

hello. i appreciate you taking my call today. i wanted to make a couple of comments. this mess fromd the previous administration. it, he really snuck around congress to do it. them amountgiving of cash back. for terroris cash all over the world. they've done it since jimmy carter let the ayatollah takeover. question what the goal of iran is right now. the inspection protocol was a farce. any had 24 days to delay inspections.

time whena 50 day they are going to make a judgment on that situation. it looks like -- that's what it looked like to me. guest: let's clarify a few things about the deal. the problem of their nuclear program goes back a long time. 2003 when they were discovered to be secretly building a uranium enrichment facility. the george w. bush administration tried to deal with it and did not succeed. administration came into office and had a difficult situation.

they put together a sanctions coalition that increased the pressure and brought iran to the negotiating table. they negotiated the plan of action. their nuclearck capabilities and decreased the centrifuges it could operate and the amount of uranium it had. the monitoring regime. the 2015 deal was not perfect. it will not last forever. it was not a treaty. it has succeeded in rolling back the nuclear potential. we are in a better place because of this. perspective, what the trump administration should have

say we don't think this deal from the obama administration is ideal. we are going to use this as a foundation to build upon. we want to engage in negotiations with iran for this follow-up agreement. we are going to see what we can negotiate. that might have been a more intelligent approach. the possible disintegration of the agreement. there will be no limits on the program if it continues. we are going backwards. the 2015 deal was not perfect. towas strong enough stabilize a bad situation and allowed the united states to build upon it.

how often do the inspections take place? do they do an adequate job of exposing the areas? hast: every state like iran a conference of state got -- safeguards. they can visit, they declare facilities. that's not good enough for iran. the nuclear deal requires them to allow more intrusive inspections. places that are not declared and allow them access on an expedited basis to look at places where they think something is wrong. there are procedures that require notification. dispute resolution.

block them from visiting a site. reportedhe agency has they have had access to all the sites they believe they want to see to make sure they are not engaged in nuclear weapons. is involved in an ongoing investigation to make sure iran is not reconstituted some the past research it was engaged in prior to 2004. that investigation will go on. that file remains open. it won't be closed for another four years. has access to iran. one of the things i think we

should watch out for as the crisis continues, iran will strain the ability to look at stites. -- sites. we want to have a good look into what they are doing. we want to know how far along they are. host: the independent line from washington dc. caller: i have a question. as an expert, are you aware of the israeli diversion of enough uranium in pennsylvania to make a dozen bombs or the proposed sale of nuclear temps to south africa in 1975 or the diversion -- or the smuggling of nuclear weapons.

non-lauran is as a for asian expert, are you aware of the enormous diversions of nuclear material technology from the u.s., which would put the u.s. out of compliance with the treaty. is citing aaller number of reports and concerns foundour technology has its way to israel. i can't go through the list you just mentioned to address each of them. of 100has an arsenal nuclear weapons. indeveloped its first bomb 1968. it's not a member of the treaty. these are facts to be aware of.

there is more on the website about the israeli nuclear program. host: we talked about a violation? allegations about u.s. technology being used in the israeli program, that is not been confirmed. no one has officially accused the united states of violating it. this prohibits nuclear weapons related technology. the website for the organization is arms-control.org. post.d this

can you expand on that? guest: we have a number of nuclear challenges from iran and north korea and the united states and russia are approaching the end of the key agreement that limits the arsenal. they are allowed under the 2010 treaty to have no more than deployed nuclear warheads. these can be delivered long distances in just minutes. will expire in 2021. president trump is not decided whether he wants to extend it. it can be extended by a simple agreement of the two presidents. it doesn't have to go back to the senate.

if we don't have this agreement in place and the monitoring and verification, we would not have any limits on the nuclear arsenal which constitutes 20% of the world nuclear weapons. that's not a good situation. it could open up the door for increasing the tensions. there's going to be a vote in , an effort toweek encourage the president and president vladimir putin to extend this. president trump has said he wants a more ambitious deal, one with china, which is 300 nuclear weapons. he wants a deal that covers the weapons in russia's are not limited by the strategic limit.

it's going to be really difficult to do that before the deadline. another item to watch. we could talk about that at a later point. that's a quick preview of some of the other problems. bolton'ss is about attempt to sabotage. guest: he's the national security adviser. he's responsible for the review of the administration on the extension are not extension. he gave an interview where he said the new extension is unlikely. he was highly critical of the new treaty before he became national security adviser. he doesn't want to see it extended. he has been a champion of having the united states withdraw from

other nuclear arms control agreements like the 1972 treaty. he is a key figure. needs toresident trump take counsel from a wide friday of sources, including republicans in congress who would like to see him extend start. elizabeth, you are on with our guest. good morning. caller: i was just wondering if we could talk more about how overseas development and aid is related to national security. it can be a tool for enhancing u.s. relationships. to nucleares

non-plumber for asian, -- , we have for ration efforts of other countries to make sure they have controls in place. the in and states plays an important part in training and supporting the efforts of other countries that don't have as much capacity to prevent those technologies. bryan is in wisconsin. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. happy belated birthday, america. i have two comments.

agreement that was negotiated expires after 10 years. pursue awed iran to nuclear weapons program again. safeguards are there to prevent iran from purchasing a nuclear weapon from somebody like north korea? guest: thanks for the question. deal did not expire. there were limits on the nuclear program that expire in 10 years. other limitations continue. say it expires, they are referring to some of the limitations on the centrifuge

development, it's numbers after 10 years, some of those limits are used. they don't go away. iran is a member of the treaty of 1968. they pursued nuclear weapons. they have a legal obligation not to pursue. we know that iran was engaged in research on nuclear designs prior to 2003. it's a violation of its commitments. that is still technically under investigation. agreement doesn't simply allow iran to pursue nuclear weapons after 10 years.

that is incorrect. the work would continue indefinitely. the other thing i would note is said that it is against their interpretation of islam to pursue nuclear weapons. that's not an insubstantial statement. there is a large segment in iran that uses nuclear weapons. there are others don't share that view. weaponsuit of nuclear would be very controversial. a viewer on twitter is going back to our discussion and

asking do they give out reports while investigations are open? are required to report on a quarterly basis. whether it's meeting the ,estrictions set by the deal that's expecting on an ongoing basis. it will be called upon in the coming days to confirm that it's increasing the enrichment levels allow 3.67%, probably no more than 5%. the agency will report to the board of governors and the parties of the nuclear deal about what the inspectors find. host: this is a viewer from

hawaii. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a few questions. i've been following some of this stuff. from someonecle who made comments about your thepective on investigation. do with the archive. seeing what north korea was able to do and build a facility in syria, they were able to divert enough technology and construct a reactor capable of making theons grade material, secret deals, the sub deals made

and iran, the congress was not able to ratify. how does this play into your perspective? is referringll it .o the israeli analyst i have not seen her particular commentary on what we've been saying about the program. he refers to the nuclear archives. ago, israelis agents raided a warehouse that contained files that iran had been keeping on its past nuclear program. what the israelis found relates iran prior to

2004. it's very disturbing stuff. this is the kind of work the intelligence community had been aware of for some years. there is more detail than what was revealed. the confirms that iran has knowledge about how to make nuclear weapons. tomakes it more important deny them the capability to produce the material. the iran nuclear deal was a plus. it was important for national security. syria and a to reactor they were constructing.

the international atomic energy agency has demanded that israel provide more information. there is not much success in getting them. it's an egregious example of how north korea shared its nuclear knowledge trying to assist another country. syria it was what going to do with that reactor. it should've been reported to the international atomic energy agency. host: you said it was a political move. once the worst-case scenario the changes this from one to another? guest: that's a good question. the tworisis because sides are on a collision course without a clear way out.

it's going to continue to get worse and worse. this agreement may not be salvageable. if the sanctions continue to be in place. the next thing we should be looking for in the coming days, they are going to meet as part of the commitment. theeuropeans could decide actions are severe enough that the may take this issue to security council and consider it a snap back of the sanctions. that is something the u.s. is already done. that could effectively end the deal and turn this into a serious crisis. iran has hinted that they might pull out of the 1968 tree.

that is something that north korea tried to do in 2003. that would launch us into a crisis. i don't think the europeans will take that step. other thing that could happen is the united states could try to bring this back to the un security council. it would make it impossible for the countries to try and overcome secondary sanctions. the united states does not have legal standing anymore. it withdrew from the deal a year ago. some difficult pathways ahead. it could get very messy. a lot depends on whether iran theseues to breach limits, which limits it might breach, how severe they are, how

the europeans respond. u.s.hey overcome the secondary sanctions. host: iran would decide to enrich. guest: it was very important this morning that the iranians said they are going to enrich a little bit above 3.67%. 20%,ey were to go up to which they have done in the past, that would bring them closer to the 90% level. the united states needs to be very careful. if the u.s. this something and retaliation like ending the waivers for the sanctions that reactor, the research

that could give the arabians an excuse to increase enrichment. ninesay the u.s. is the the fuel for the research reactor. we have to be careful. take steps that exacerbate the problem. to bewe have the ability in the u.k. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. a follow-up to what your guesses said, the hard-liners in the government pursue enrichment for weapons grade, what are the military options for the u.s. to stop iran? that's a good question.

one of the things that's happened over the last year or so is the political influence of the hard-liners has increased. like the foreign minister, their argument that they should stay in the deal because it's the right thing to do, the europeans will come through with sanctions relief despite the u.s. efforts, they are stronger. that worries me. i don't think at the moment even the hard-liners are ready to begin pursuing enrichment to weapons grade. long-term, that's the risk. the military options are good. from ant trump pullback

strike against iranians. he understands of the military understands that any kind of kinetic exchange could quickly escalate. tothe united states were strike a nuclear facility, we could severely damage them. it would not eliminate their knowledge and the technology they have to enrich uranium. harden andwould increase the incentive to develop nuclear weapons. it could lead to a massive conflict in the persian gulf. of 2003 wasiraq war a major catastrophe in many ways

in the region, a war with iran could be even worse. the military options are there. we could set back the nuclear capabilities for some years. long-term, that would not solve the problem. it would create other difficulties, other casualties. it could make the threat of obama even worse. the executive director of the arms control association talking with us about the iran nuclear deal. thank you for your time. coming up, we will talk with kimberly whaley, she wrote the book how to read the constitution and why. that's coming up next on washington journal. i am a cold war historian, a

historian of communism, different ideologies, and so forth, and my friends emailed me -- why do you want to tackle this issue, marriage and family? you are jumping into the culture war. do you really want to do this? >> author and historian paul .engar will be our guest his latest book is "the divine plan," other books include "deuce" and biographies about and "the bush -- crusader" about ronald reagan. live today from noon until 2:00 p.m. eastern on booktv and be sure to watch "in depth" next month with author lee edwards. onch booktv every weekend

c-span two. monday night on "the communicators," georgetown cal newport questions the value of being digitally collected all the time in his book "digital minimalism." newport: social media and highlight that drive and give you a sense of being social, i am leaving messages, typing and emojis, but all the while, you are missing the drive from the same thing with boredom. why do we have such a strong drive for boredom? because boredom used to push us to do things that are meaningful, but now we can subvert that drives and glance at a phone. >> watch "the communicators" monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. is kimberly wehle, a professor of law at the university of baltimore and the author of the book "how to read the constitution and why."

thanks for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: i will start with the question you posed with your title. it,is it important to read and how the read something like because of vision, to the average layperson? guest: it is important to read it, because almost every day we see issues of national constitutional importance in the headline news. at the level of the presidency, and congress, we have calls for concern of because intrusion, and as an educator, i felt it was important to produce a book that is accessible by regular people, so people can educate themselves about how the constitution functions as well as our constitutional rights, and then get on that bike and themselves, so that is the "why" part. constitutional scholars, including myself, are worried about the state of our democracy, our republic, and

whether it can sustain the body blows happening to the separation of powers right now. if people care about having their individual liberties going forward, educating themselves for the sake of their children and their grandchildren about ift to do in this moment, anything, make your own decision, that is important. -- whys the wife are part. now it is almost like an anti-jaywalking law. is eroding under our noses, but few people realize it. can you expand on that? guest: there are two parts of the constitution. one is the separation of powers. we hear about this some of the three branches of government, but it is not actually in the constitution, those words, "separation of power," and the second is the bill of rights. law students for

13 years, and there is nothing to basic or two simple that is not worth writing down for them. so if people in law school need some basic instruction on what is a case, what if they law, and how is a law passed a awgislature different than a l that is created, essentially by the supreme court? that kind of core concepts my students learn from, and the book is really almost sort of a first year law class. it breaks that down, but it breaks it down in common sense language. you mentioned the jaywalking law. what people do not understand is because vision is like a contracts to renovate your kitchen. if a contractor walks off the job with a $10,000 deposit after demoing your kitchen, but these are paper itself is not going to get your money back. you have to enforce it by going to court. that is expensive, difficult, it takes some blood, sweat, and here's even. that is the same with the

constitution feared if this president or the next president for the next president bulldozers over the limit set by congress, do not limit no longer exists, and the president goes into the presidential toolbox for the next president. you might not like our current president or the next one, but if you expand the office of the presidency, then we have a government that is a bully, that has too much power down the line when we care, and it may be too late to put that will back back out. has three whatn we call vesting clauses, like a job description, that gives congress a lot of powers, namely the power to make laws. it gives the president the power to execute those laws. it does not define the word "execution."

think about it prosecutor or police officer. a police officer does not decide what the speed limit is. the police officer sort of flags someone that is violating the speed limit and then hands it off to a prosecutor. in that instance, it is a lot faster these days, we get something in the mail. the idea is the president is not actually make the laws. laws.esident enforces the under our system right now, the president of a lot of lawmaking anyway, so we have heard a lot about executive orders. that is not in the constitution. historically, executive orders have been tolerated, the president will issue an executive order and make a law. essentially that is the power of congress. bureaucracy, too much regulation. this is the fight we saw at the supreme court level of the citizenship question. that question was not related around residential power, per se, it was about agency power.

congress have the authority to set forth the limits about what goes in the census form. congress is under the constitution, empowered with enumerating the clause, and congress handed off the baton and said, you know what, you fill in the blanks for us. you make regulations for us, and commerce did. that is the part that the supreme court struck down was the agency's lawmaking at the the has of congress. so this is a nuance that is quite complicated, but again, it is front and center, the headline is something people feel strongly about, and people do not really understand. thanks that happened in the last 20, 30 years, social media, obviously massive amounts of new technology, and we have all kinds of information coming at us that is not exist here when i was a kid, we had a few channels and

newspapers, now it is hard to determine what is accurate, what is not cured we know from the mueller investigation, the 2016 attack on our electoral process another foreign powers, in this instance, russia, is interested in him planting and misinformation in our inboxes. theobjective wit book is to break down the language, break down the policies, it is not an easy beach read, it is a serious read for people who want to understand the baseline, so they can rely on their own knowledge and their own analytical abilities and not have to decide, listen, is this real or not real in a world where that is becoming increasingly blurred. host: our guest teaches law at the university of baltimore. author of the book "how to read the constitution and why." if you want to ask her a question, democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. an independents, (202) 748-8002.

professor wehle, your personal approach to the cause of vision, there have been debates over whether it is a living document or a static document. where do you fall on that? guest: where i fall is it is a false economy that it is not a real debate. very old. it by definition leaves a lot of definitions under five. if we had everything spelled out in the constitution, it would be like the tax code, volumes and volumes and volumes. so by definition, justices have to fill in the blanks. we have to define what is an unreasonable search and seizure under the fourth a minute, for example. the word "unreasonable" is not defined in the constitution. i introduced this concept with a wallace stevens poem. we can talk about different ways of interpreting the poem, as you

talk about in high school or college, and how a point of view can sway or affect what you think the meaning of the poem in what your worldview is that moment, and judges are the same way. some judges will look to their common sense and say this is an obvious reading of the constitution. i think that is a fallacy, in part because we have a lot of 5-4 decisions, which by definition means there are two ways of reading it, so then the question becomes -- what is the better reading? justices, may be more progressive, may say we look to the objectives and goals of the constitution, individual liberty, limited government, for example. the more conservative justices might say we want to look and see what the framers of the time of the framing of the constitution, 18th century, believed that particular term would mean. but of course when you are talking about a thermal imaging machine for determining whether there is marijuana inside a house, justice scalia found that was, issued a decision deciding

that was a search, for example, we are departing from what the framers reasonably could have anticipated in the 18th-century, and we are, by definition, going to other sources to determine the meeting. so we can debate which of those sources are better for resolving ambiguity, but the notion that there is a clear way and an out-of-the-box sorting living i think thatl way, is a fallacy, and i think it is one thing most americans do not understand, and it is not their fault. it is because it is framed that way, and i do not think it is accurate. host: let's go to viewers. we will start off with eric, in seattle, washington, democrats line. you are on with kimberly wehle. go ahead. caller: thank you. the constitution is obsolete. it was obsolete from the very beginning. it was a flawed document, basically a white manifesto document. by that what i mean is this -- you can look at the constitution or either polar end of it, no

one is right, and no one is wrong. the only thing that matters is the interpretation of the judges. if you go about the supreme court, we have juries that are 5-4, one believes this, one believes that, no one is right, no one is wrong, it is left up to interpretation. it is a fatally flawed document itself because it is led u leftp to arbitrary and capricious decisions, and it should be rewritten. we should have a new constitution written because black people were slaves. when i would like you to address is this -- no one is right, no one is wrong, slavery was justified under the constitution. anything was justified, and no one is right, and no one is wrong. host: all right, eric, professor wehle, go ahead. guest: you make a good point, and scholars make this point that the constitution was made gentried, male

landowners. it not only excluded black anple, but it also excluded entire category, women. that is a critique of the constitution. i happen to believe that it has far, and it is the best we have, and if enforced, it does create a bar for our elected leaders, and the design of the cost vision and of course the constitution has been amended many times to adjust for some of these inherent problems ied, bylike you identif excluding, for example, and authorizing the enslavement african-americans, but a document has been amended to address these problems over the years, and today, it is designed, as it was originally, to ensure ultimately that the individual citizen, the individual voter is empowered to

govern themselves. the framers of the constitution, the revolutionary war -- we just celebrated the fourth of july -- was about not having a monarch, not having a government that had so much power in the king that the king could snap his fingers and arbitrarily throw somebody in jail. this countryng in sometimes. we throw people in jail that do not belong in jail, but the system is set up to limit that kind of arbitrary power. we have a due process clause. thatve all kinds of rules apply to judges and limit their power, and as a nation, we respect those institutions. if we allowed judges orders, and we have seen this in the last few years, sort of judges' order s to be flouted or treated as if they are not real, attacking legitimate opposing ones of you, that is order of -- destabilizes the whole system.

i want it to suggest -- pick up your point on a new constitution. there are two ways of amending the constitution. one is through an amendment, we have seen that. and the other is to have a brand-new constitutional convention, which it sounds like the caller is thinking about, and the last one we had produced our current constitution that was called to amend the articles of federation, which was a document in place prior. it was supposed to be an amended constitution. they chucked that out, and they started from scratch. my concern, we are a few states away from calling a new constitutional convention. my concern is in this polarized, i think, environment, an environment that is really lacking in compassion and core values, in a lot of ways, the document we could end up with like look like nothing what we have, and we would roll back a tremendous amount of protections in the current document third if we start from scratch, we do not even know what we would get.

even the late justice a conservative justice come on icon of conservative thought, said this is not the century to start over with the constitution. my view is we have to work with what we have, and people understand that it does not mean anything if we bulldoze over it, work with it. thell it the cop at th and of the block. we needed to enforce it. host: republican line, bill, go ahead. caller: yeah, i was recently reviewing part of the constitution, and i ran into him i think it was article one, introduced and that the idea of compacts between state spirit i familiar with compacts on traffic violations. i believe those are authorized by congress. but according to that section, congress has to authorize in a

big compacts, and i do not think congress has taken any effort to legalize compacts between electoral colleges do you have any idea about that, professor? guest: not that particular question, i would have to do research on that, but you raise an excellent point with respect to congress, and congress does have not just the power to make laws, but as you mentioned, many powers, the power to tax, the power to declare war, for example, the power to appropriate, the power to allow a president to accept emoluments or gifts. congress has fallen down in the past few years. it is not doing its job anymore in the way because to june envisioned that it would do, -- the constitution envisioned that it would, that the framers envisioned it would. let's get together and figure out the problem.

let's come up with options and they threw what the best outcome might be. we have all been in this situation. we are solving a hard problem in our family, at work, you get smart people in the room, people with expertise, and you come up with a good solution. courtolicymaking, that luncheon is not really happening anymore, because we are so polarized. something is predetermined, and it is either a yes or a no vote. and the other fees, you mentioned states rights. federalism is another big important as that is a big word -- but the idea is states have their own independent rights to make their own laws, to function as independent state spirit that is another check on government powers. the framers were worried about having a federal government that ful, thatwer that individual liberties, my right

to walk down the street, but those things would follow part if government got too big, too powerful, because it is human nature to amass power. host: from rate in syracuse, new york, independent line. caller:hi. great discussion. i would be interested to read the book. i would like to mention that the before this last one ioke about arbitrariness, and think, if it is not in your book, it should be, the reason for the concert should and it is often -- i rarely hear anyone mention this, but if you read the declaration, then you cannot separate those to come along with the articles, the reason for the constitution is to keep killing each other. it is not meant to satisfy everybody. so it needs to be apolitical solution in pretty much every sense, and that is why we go back and forth between one, the less than the right, to the middle, back and forth.

it is ultimately so we do not kill each other. the authore thing, seems to come from one position. she picked the current issues of the day, basically, that trump is usurping the congress, and that is a political argument. she should have started with somebody on the other side also, so this usurping did not start with trump, it has happened in every presidency, and of course barack obama ignored the constitution in so many ways. host: ok. we will let our guest responded to all of those things. guest: well, i certainly did not mean to pick a side. the book does not pick a side. i am not interested in picking a side. i agree with you that prior presidents, barack obama and others, have utilized and expanded the scope of the president's power.

this is not a trump problem. this has been a problem over decades, and it has been a problem with congress also not protecting his prerogative to ensure that it maintains its own powers, and that it ensures that the other princes do not step outside of their boundaries. wehave just, i, you know, are living in a world today where we have a certain presidents, and those issues have become for the center, more, i think, than ever before, not entirely for sure, because of donald trump. this is not an anti-trump book or pro-trump book, it is a pro-rule of law book, and i agree, i do not talk about preventing people in general from killing each other, but absolutely, the idea behind the constitution is to put the power back into people with limits on it, with some rules, some rules of the game, and the rules have to be limited fairly. and i use the analogy, i am a mother, to go to your kid's baseball game, if your kid loses

and you do not like how the strikes were called, but they were done fairly, pursuant to a robot that was enforced, you feel like, ok, you go home, you take your kid out for a burger, and you go on with your life. rules were like the changed where the other side had an unfair vantage, then you get angry. i think that is where we are right now in a lot of ways, and the system is set up to protect people, regardless of political stripes. the book is not a red vs. blue book, it is really a right versus wrong book to think about our limited government so that are protectedhts among any presidency in any congress, not just this one. host: you write "the text of the first amendment outline two areas congress must steer clear of, religion and speech. it also says congress must be

careful when it comes to speech. according to a plain language, congress cannot even hamper speech or the press." it goes on from there, but talk about the issues of free speech. we hear about this a lot, particularly in connection to the amendment. what does it say, and what does it not say? guest: there is religion and speech, and back to your other point, is there a plain reading, the law under the first amendment is actually extremely later and very complicated, not because the clauses complicated, but because the spring court has set up -- the supreme court has set up many contexts, it depends on who is speaking, it depends on who is limiting the speech, but the primary thing i think you will need to keep in mind is that the framers believed that if the government limits your pretty soon the government is limiting how you can speak. if you limit how you can speak, you start not speaking, you

start speaking in ways with which the political whims thank you can speak, and that impacts your thinking here that is a primary infringement on individual liberties. the other thing to remember about the first amendment is that it is about government limiting individual's ability to speak, not the other way around. we have about first amendment rights of government employees. they have limited first they are rights when actually working in their governmental capacity. that is because they have the power, and the first amendment worries about individuals having the power over their own self-government. there is some debate as to how to read that. does the limit on the'government's ability to infringe on religion extend to beyond just establishing, for example, a national religion?

that would be off-limits, but how much entanglement with religion and government is appropriate? that is something that the ut and continues to hatch out. as the prior caller mentioned, a lot that will be subjective. the people on the supreme court of the united states, like it or not, they function like many legislators. they are judges. they are there to resolve individual disputes, but because what they do is essentially read between the lines in the cousin -- int, they add meaning the constitution, they add eaning and definition to the cuts it cannot be amended by constitution. meaning and definition to the constitution. it cannot be amended by congress. we do not likee

this president, we do not like this member of congress, we do not like who is in power in congress, we are going to switch it. with the supreme court of the united states, we do not have that power, and that is another nuance i think people do not understand. rights, butt about the supreme court has the powers that extend vastly beyond that that impact our individual lives, and understanding how that court works and how it functions in relation to the other two branches i think is very important as a matter of civics to every american. host: the book is called "how to read the constitution and why." kimberly wehle joining us for this conversation. from virginia in pennsylvania, republican line, you are next. caller: hello. believe wholeheartedly in our constitution. i do not think it should ever be changed. also, i am disappointed with the supreme court decision over the citizen question. on the census. .

i think everyone in the country should be counted for. and -- host: caller, finish your thought. caller: and i just feel like that decision was very wrong. host:. ok. let's hear from bill. bill is in burke, virginia, independent line. caller: hi, professor. i am glad that you have written this book, because in my cover station with folks, so many people do not understand the constitution because they have never read it. they do not understand the basics. i'm going to cite the ninth amendment and ask you a question. deny commitments as the enumeration and the constitution of certain rights shall be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, whoprofessor randy barnett, i have met down in georgetown, he has written a book about this.

others have written about it, too. i would like to ask your opinion. it seems like the ninth amendment has been dead for years. it is sort of libertarian language. do you think the ninth amendment will ever be brought back to life? because when i mention it to people, they have never heard of it. it is in the bill of rights, and they have never heard of it. i would just like your opinion. examplehat it's a great of not enforcing or not finding meaning in a particular part of the constitution, take out your black sharpie" it out, essentially. it is not functioning, it is not doing work anymore. ninthd reading of the amendment would be that even though there is not a right tomerated, you have a right free speech, you have a right to freedom of religion, a right to freedom from searches and seizures, we have the right to bear arms, all kinds of rights that are enumerated specifically in the constitution, but there are a lot that we do not have. we don't, i mentioned earlier,

the right to decide how to educate my children. that is not in the constitution. the court has read that into the constitution under the due process clause, the same way, the rightit read in to abortion. there is no express hook for other rights, that we do not want government coming in telling us how to raise our children or what kind of medication they should have, for example. ise say the night amendment that provision, listen, this is not exhaustive. you can add rights. the court has said, you know, that is so vague and open, and we do not know how to fill that in, so we're not going to try. that is just too broad. we saw this recently with gerrymandering decision, on a different legal basis, but a majority of the court said we do not know how to fix partisan gerrymandering, so we are not even going to try. to answer your question -- do i

think it is going to be resurrected? not with this particular supreme court. i am careful about sort of putting labels on justices either way, because we have seen conservatives join with liberals and liberals join with conservatives, so that political divide i think is not accurate at the supreme court level. that being said, i do not see a conservative majority identifying many new rights that are not already established in the law under because of fusion. they are not going to read new rights into the constitution. it is unlikely. if that happens, it would have to happen through the congress, and as i suggested before, congress is not really making new policies very often hear they're not making new laws, new limits, new big programs. happened during the civil rights era, the

americans with disabilities act, all kinds of violations, that sort of massive social reform, environment of reform, etc., we have not seen that, and we are not likely to see it in the congress or in the court anytime soon, i do not think. host: from hollywood, florida, democrat line. tom, hello. caller: hi. thank you, professor, and god bless you for writing this book. i think it was a great idea. so many people do not understand the constitution. i have also read it and had to read it very closely to try to understand it. and i totally agree with you that we should not think at all about getting rid of the constitution. it would be a mistake of biblical proportions. i think in this climate right now, we would have a constitution in favor of the corporate people instead of the individual, which is not what the framers had in mind. individual rights would go out the window.

i do agree that, yes, some presidents, even president obama, skirted the line with the constitution on certain things butdid not tow the line, this particular president has made so many egregious violations of the constitution. not since richard nixon have we seen such blatant disregard for the rule of law, which is ridiculous. but i agree with you. we need the congress and the senate so get back to work and do their job and protect the constitution and follow it, since this president has disregarded it so many times in so many ways. host: that is tom in hollywood, florida. professor, go ahead. guest: yeah, well and this gets toolbox analogy,

filling out the belt and suspenders, if we allow the office of the presidency, say we like this resident, to allow the office of the presidency to expand in its our some of that amount of power goes to the next president. there is no president who sits for more than eight years under our constitution of governance, so if you love this president, you don't have problems that you might have problems with barack obama, you might have problems with donald trump. donald trump has pushed the boundaries in ways we have not seen before, agreed? and the congress is allowing it. we are not seeing push back. office of the presidency is getting more and more powerful. that amount of power gets headed to the next president. a democratic president, it could be an independent, we do not know, but presumably there will be at some point in most people's lifetimes

a president they do not like. they do not like her policies, they do not like anything about them, we are allowing that office to get that much larger for the next president. saw over thejust fourth of july, the american revolutionaries did not, men and women did not fight and die -- independence from england to have a more powerful presidency. they did it to take back their power over their own government and put it back in the people, and i'm glad you mentioned the concept of corporate america. the reason i wrote this book, actually, i started writing a more academic book that talked about how when corporate america does stuff for government, the constitution does not apply at all. so the more we shift our government power into the private sector, that is going outside any limits of the constitution, and then of course we have a lot of money coming

into campaigns from corporate america. that is in part because of the supreme court's controversial citizens united decision that held, essentially, that corporations have first amendment rights, like you and me. isause of that, the congress arguably working more for these profit-making centers than for constituents.al so it is that merit that the normal desire to expand power, for some people, and no bar pulling back on that power, no ticket on the windshield, right, in this one parking spot, that says it is illegal, they never take it, so you park there every time you go to the coffee shop, because you know you will not get a ticket. the day you get a ticket, you will not park there anymore. not get aesident does ticket or barack obama does not get a ticket, bill clinton does not get a ticket, that oftefice

gets additional power, and i hope that comes across regardless of where we are in political spectrum, because we are, ultimately, americans together. host: let's hear from hannah in california, republican line. caller: good morning. theve a question about enumerated and implied powers of each of the branches of government, and i was hoping thatyou could elucidate area, because a lot of the decisions that are being made about which branch of government folded these powers seems vague sometimes, and i have one other, that i would like to make, and i would like you to respond to. day.ch c-span 18 hours a i watch c-span, because i am sick and tired of hearing everybody else's

opinions, similar to the reason why you wrote your book. i want to see with my own eyes what is going on. and when you earned your position, and are as old as i am, you see problems, when you are watching congress, that are horrifying. for example, today, i have to watch c-span to see a congresswoman who ranted and raved on the news media, that no citizen should be allowed to make fun of a congressperson, and she intended to see to it that the people that did that were prosecuted. it occurred to me that this woman had probably never read the constitution or the bill of rights. host: ok, caller, i apologize, we have to leave it there, because you put a lot before that. professor wehle, go ahead. guest: first, you asked about the enumerated powers. if anyone has watched "the crown" or anything about england, the monarch, imagine that the constitution is like a

job disruption, and the monarch, that is us, "we the people," gave congress the powers, like with a sceptor. you have the legislative power, judges have the judicial power, or i call them sandboxes. you have to play in your sandbox. we also know that there is some blending of powers that is normal. when iteme court's job, takes these cases, in part, is to make sure that each branch stays in its sandbox, because of it takes over a second sandbox sandbox some of it have tyrannical power. toone who has been washington, d.c., you see stone buildings as a "department of something," those of the executive branch. they answer to the president, and they make laws, regulations. the supreme court says that is ok.

that is an example where the president is dipping her toe or his tow into the sandbox, because congress gave it away in the statute. here, agency, make laws for me. expertise, i have to get reelected, i do not want this political hot potato, whatever the reason. and this gets very thorny and complicated. in the book, i lay out ways of , because the question is so good. newput your finger on the ones of the constitution. students in law school will get very frustrated when they do not get an answer. no one will pay you a bunch of money as a lawyer if the answer is on wikipedia. it is hard. the book does what you are suggesting. it walks through the three enumerated powers and explains what the plain language me and some of where the wiggle room is, how to fill in those blanks

muscle i am glad you put your finger on that particular question, and i cannot call if there was a second one that you wanted answered or not host: chapter five, religion and the first amendment, chapter seven, guns, and the fourth, fifth, sixth, and a amendment, some of the chapters our guest's book. let's go to martin, new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning. good morning. thank you. guest: good morning. caller: i would like your guest to address the previous fact president,evious obama, went around to the senate and of course public schools by threatening to withhold public funds for federal funds and forced the public schools to allow men and boys to look into innocent girls' school bathrooms, and what resulted was with cell phones, using

them not only taking pictures, and appropriately, and in one case, sexually assaulting an innocent six-year-old girl. if that somewhere in the constitution, that these innocent children -- you: caller, what are pointing to specifically, as far as violations of the constitution? caller: well, i am asking your guests, that this has resulted in invasion of privacy. children have been videoed. host: you make your point. we will let our guest to go ahead. guest: i have to say i do not have particular expertise in the narrative or that reporting or what happened with respect to that. it sounds like a sad state of affairs. but i can talk about the of what theality president's list withhold funding, for example. --, the prior caller asked where is the line between what

the branches do? congress withholds to the various agencies, and the constitution under article two said the president shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed. shall take care. some people say the word "shall" is "shall." the president has to execute the law as congress requires it. that is every person who violates the speed limit -- speed laws are local, but i am using that as an example, gets a ticket. you do not pick and choose who gets a ticket. the counterargument is that that is not realistic. that we do not have the enforcement authority, we do not have enough police officers and prosecutors to prosecute everybody. but if the president gets the money and then says, "i am not going to do anything with that," there is an argument that the president has refused to take

care that the laws are executed, is not enforcing laws. i cannot wait in specifically on president obama, but this is a tool in the president's toolbox. and the question becomes, always, what do you do about that? obama, george bush, there are criticisms of presidential use of power across both political spectrums. what do you do? there are two options. you use the ballot box that person out of the office. sometimes that is not very good as a solution because you have to wait for the next presidential election. two, you tell congress to do something about that, and congress as we really mean that this money goes x to president, or we really mean what we said, that sort of highlighting the law does not really do anything, and i think president trump knows that in particular. he knows that he can do what he wants to do, so long as there is

not a consequence. and then the third part is to go o to the courts. in your example, if a child was molested in a school, that child might have a claim in court to get money or an injunction against the school, against, maybe even a levels of the presidency. .hat is a complication question but then you go to the courts. that is healthy three-branch system works. one breast does something wrong, then where does the cop give the branch a speeding ticket? or theither congress courts. if it is neither, then that branch has more power. it has just expanded its authority, and ultimately the idea is, the framers thought, there will be some bad guy, ultimately, for you, and that power, and acquisition of power, that when you do like massive authority in a way you do not

like, and it is too late to put the toothpaste back in that tube. you cannot rewind and say, "whoa, we did not mean for the presidency to have that much power." host: on the democrats line, anthony comello. caller:. hello. thanks for waiting, and c-span, happy fourth of july. week idemocrat, and last received an official looking letter, which was the arizona republican census form. now that form, it looked andtical, two pages long, ask questions about how do you feel about the president's policies, etc., etc. askeden at the end, it for a political donation and directed you to a website.

now on the census form and the census question, hypothetically if you had a 100-story building and you have an elevator that stopped at the 50th floor, and 12 people wanted to get on the elevator, it can only hold 10, and they have to wait and you ofe the actual weight everybody, and you did not give it, but something is going to happen on the elevator. host: so the question for our guest, caller, is what? question for her is when we do not have the proper representation and resources, we do not know if the census is going to give us that. host: ok, that is anthony and, i it was arizona. professor wehle, you can address that as you wish. guest: one theme that i think comes out of his question is that has to do with the reliability of information that we get. think -- i mentioned this

earlier -- the data, technology, cable shows, all of this has really distorted our understanding of what the law is , what facts are, how to think about these things, what is real, what is not real. i think one of the prior callers mentioned this idea, too, of watching c-span to get some grounding, and i encourage, like i encourage my students, people, do not take my word for it, not take commentator, legal analysts on a tv show's word for it, not taken op-ed writer's word for it, we need to retrain ourselves and go back to source principles and sources. getconstitution is to call into just read and understand, in part because the supreme court has added onto it. so that is the objective of the book, but do not just take my word for it. you can do additional reading.

there are all kinds of sources cited in the book. but we just went through the mueller investigation for two years. if you want to know what mueller really decided, do not take bill barr's word for it, read the summaries of the report. if you want to know what the russians allegedly -- or did! because most of our intelligence officials believe that, it has not been refuted, in 2016, read the indictment. i think there was one in july in which the agency or, excuse me, greatr lays out in detail. that is happening for 2020. so read it yourself and then make your own conclusions or you take a little more time, but i think this is a skill we all need to get back to, kind of so that we cans, make these decisions ourselves based on actual fact it we have a grounding. this is real.

we can debate what to do about it, and whether a president or congress is using power, right or wrong. we unfortunately cannot rely on elected officials even anymore for the accuracy of what is coming out of -- through the television screen. we need to educate ourselves. host: texas is next, tom, on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call, and kimberly, thank you for coming on. i do have a question, and it is to you, kimberly, but before that, my quick comment is trump bashing has become a blood sport in america and the world. liberal vs. conservative has become so oversaturated with information, as you said, from 24/7 news cycle. it is very difficult for someone like me, 70 years old, who loves his country -- i am a veteran --

i really do love america, and i and moved by the other night, watching the blue angels. my question to you, kimberly, and your constitutional smarts, the way i read the cause, and i am an unusual person. i have letter to letter. the president does have the to put the census question on the 2020 census. what i understand is that judge roberts decided that he did not like the way it was presented, in other words, the reasons, and he kicked it back to lower court, and that is pretty much a delay. i believe we need that question on there. just -- it is my viewpoint. i believe if we are going to count, we are going to spend billions of dollars to count, the question needs to be on the

and there are underlying reasonsre,. theywe need to know who are, where they are, and that is a big deal, to decide our future for 10 years. host: ok, that is thomas in texas. we will let our guest respond. guest: thomas, i want to make one point, on reaction to your first point, which is about the polarized nature of our conversation and how unfortunate law,is, most of life, like it is not black and white, it is gray, and we are in black and white camps all the time, team x, team y, whether it is strong or liberal or whatever. i agree completely. that is a very toxic way of muddling through difficult problems. and framers, i think congressman just in a mosh, a congressman from michigan, he quote just let

the republican party, he quotes george washington, wh flinches at the notion of a republican party. the constitution does not say anything about political parties. we can have that conversation another day. the fact that it is party versus party versus country first is a problem, across the board. itthe citizenship question, is has come of a couple of times, so let me get into it in a little more detail, because it sounds like people want to understand it, and it is an important conversation. the enumeration clause in the cause of vision actually gives congress power to conduct the census. and the constitution makes clear it is about head counting, it is about -- it is not about counting citizens, it is about counting human beings. spring court that wilbur ross, the secretary of commerce, president trump's secretary of

commerce, did not violate the enumeration clause in wanting to add the citizenship question. so there are two part series are one of the constitution itself is not care about citizenship. number two, by adding it, it was not a problem with the constitution. the problem with the whole citizenship thing is actually the power goes to congress, congress gave it to an agency that answers to the president. the president does not get the power under the constitution to conduct the census. it goes to an agency, and the agency is basically exercising congress' power. the connection. it is weird, because the agency is actually in the president's chain of command, and some scholars, justice thomas on the supreme court thanks that that is totally unconstitutional. congress should be doing it. should not even give it to wilbur ross. but basically what the supreme court sai if when an

agency makes laws for congress, they have to dot their i's and dot their t's. higher standard, because they cannot be thrown out of office like. congress can they are in the president's chain of command. that is the part that justice roberts said was done improperly, and you're right, they could go back and do it better. but they would not be able to do it in time for this particular census, and the implications are big, for in terms of common members of congress each state gets and how much money from the federal government based on that. but the reason it is important is agencies do all kinds of other things to regulate our lives, to make sure that planes do not crash into each other in the sky, for example, they regulate the environment, they regulate the economy, they do all kinds of things. we do not want agencies having so much power that really belongs to congress that is

unchecked, and that is the there. host: from ohio on it up in a line, jim. caller: hi. call. for taking my the second amendment, a role regulated militia being .ecessary for a free state we are all familiar with the second part. i want to talk about a well-regulated militia. what does well-regulated militia mean? i think it is ambiguous. what does well-regulated mean? it is there for us, we the people, here and now, to decide what will regulate it is. host: ok, jim, we will leave it there for our guest. guest: well-regulated militia, presumably in gifts power to angress to put limits on militia, militia being a citizen's army that can be

pulled together to fight against, you know, england. the revolutionaries did not have an organized army. there was no federal government. they wanted to preserve the ability to do that. originally, the supreme court read the second amendment as just protecting that in a case, and the howard case v. district of columbia, the court actually changed its point of view on the reading of the second amendment and held that there is a right to bear a handgun and a home for self protection. that is the limit to the second amendment based on the last pronouncement from the supreme court. determine as how to what well regulated means, in a famous case, harper reed madison -- v. madison way back when, the supreme court held, the supreme court decided how to breathe because of vision, so that terminology that came up in a , may be adispute

government did not regulate a militia, for example, or did in a way that people were unhappy with, that case would have to be filed into a lower court and go all the way to the supreme court to get a definition of well-regulated militia. i do not know the answer to that right now. joseph in neweph, jersey, republican line, hello. caller: hello. i would like to strongly recommend a publication called "the supreme court," by which w published c-span in 2009, and use excerpts from a number of interviews by brian man another's, the supreme court justices that were sitting at and it is a fascinating insight into how the supreme court works, how cases are chosen, etc.

it is my understanding that about 8000 cases or 8000 petitions are made each year for thesupreme court, and of 8000, only about 80 or 90 cases were actually heard. and it is my understanding also that each supreme court justice has four clerks that are working for them, and my question is how much influence do those clerks have on the various cases being considered? it is my understanding they do a lot of the work in preparing for cases for the supreme court justices to review. host:. ok. thank you. guest: everything that you said -- i did not click on the supreme court, so i do not have personal knowledge, but i do know a number of clerks, former clerks on the supreme court, and one or more supreme court

justices. the supreme court also has a band of lawyers that work for the supreme court as a court that manage some of its business as well. the motion that come in over the summer, for example. i think the relationship -- i didn't clerk for a federal jude. judge.a lower clerk in my experience, at least at the lower court level, some judges would ask their .lerks for insights others would say this is how i wanted to come out, write the opinion. the clerk is very important, because of the clerk is putting pen to paper on behalf of the justice, which happens sometimes , how those words or friend can have a tremendous influence on many, many cases later than

that, because, as i said earlier, because there are so few cases that go to the supreme court, and because the supreme court if the entity, not congress, that upheld what the constitution means, those tea freshest, and lawyers carefully, carefully look at them and try to discern them in the next case and the next phase and the next case. so a clerk is a person that decides a turn of have a tremene going forward. at the supreme court level, i should say much more than a lower district port. most federal judges are well versed in the cases before them. the supreme court judges personally understand the ins is outs of what everybody bringing. they understand those issues. the clerks are presumably a very big part in informing the justices. summarizing the various points

of view. that is some tailoring that requires an exercise of judgment. it is the team behind the court that produced the supreme court decisions. is called how to read the constitution and why by professor kim whaley. thanks for your time this morning. >> thanks for having me. it was great. up, elaina train and jonathan of the philadelphia inquirer who serves as a national political reporter. also, we will have gary locke. cochair andorary served as the u.s. ambassador to china and the former commerce secretary buried we will talk about trade policy between mexico and canada. that is it for washington journal. another addition comes your way tomorrow at 7:00 in the morning.

we will see you then. ♪ >> here is some of our sunday lineup on c-span. newsmakers is next. talks about thenk organizations strategy heading into the 2020 election. after that, a hearing on the impact of climate change. dames witt, an atmospheric science professors review ways to prepare for natural disasters. then, a hearing on efforts to protect children and consumers

from hazardous products. later, h.r. mcmaster participates in a form on threats to free and open societies. friends of mine emailed me and said why do you want to tackle this issue? marriage and family? you are jumping into the culture war. you really want to do this? will be our guest on in-depth today from noon until 2:00 p.m. eastern. his latest book is the divine plan. other books include the crusader, as well as the spiritual lives of ronald reagan, george w. bush and hillary clinton. join our live conversation with your phone calls, tweets and facebook questions. watch in-depth with