keep you ahead. >> mediacomm supports c-span, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> the january 6 committee returns earlier than expected after yesterday's announcement that it would hold a public hearing on to evidence today. watched on c-span, c-span now, or anytime online at c-span.org. you can also visit our website. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington. keep up with events with live streams of floor proceedings with hearings from u.s.

congress, white house events, and the world of politics all at your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available in the apple store and google play. downloaded it free today. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter recaps the day for you from the halls of congress to delete -- daily press briefings. subscribe today using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. host: back with us is edward

whelan of the ethics and public policy center. explain what the center's mission is. guest: our mission is to explore and apply the christian road tradition and principles across a broad array of challenges that our country faces is. host: what do you focus on now? guest: constitutional law and working to build the rule of law. host: 20 to chew on from the last couple of days out of the supreme court. let's start on the kenedy case, the foot fault coach case we have been talking about. what do you say to those viewers who see this ruling yesterday as an eroding of the separation of church and state in this country. guest: what we see is the vindication of individual liberties including the

principal that individuals do not lose their religious liberty simply because they are on the job. the court was careful to distinguish between the folks that -- the things that he did in his capacity as a coach and things he was able to do in his personal capacity. just like teachers can say a blessing before eating, so can coach kenedy on his private time can say a private quiet prayer on the field. that is what the court vindicated. host: separation of church and state, not in the constitution. where did that come from? guest: that came from a letter that thomas jefferson wrote. he spoke of a wall of separation but the separation was drawn from that and it is a helpful metaphor because we have never had a wall. it is impossible for that

metaphor to be meaningful. we recognize that religious beliefs and convictions have properly infused such things as the civil rights this country. official proceedings of the supreme court in congress begin with a prayer. george washington families you warned -- famously warned that we should be wary of the proposition that this american experiment can survive. folks have the leisure to ridicule because we live in a society that has benefited from the judeo-christian road tradition. host: the conflict seems to be between the establishment clause , a free exercise clause. are they in conflict, have they historically been in conflict?

congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. guest: what happened in recent decades was the establishment clause on steroids, a version of the establishment clause that put it at war with the free exercise clause. the establishment clause should be interpreted in accord with history and tradition. i think that things will be a lot better going forward. we will not have the establishment clause attacking the free exercise clause nor the free exercise clause limiting the establishment clause. to quietly kneel on a fullback field after a game, if it was the constitution of the establishment of religion, then the framers would be puzzled by that notion. host: edward whelan with us for

45 minutes this morning. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. let's back up to friday at the supreme court and the decision. in the wake of this, what is the next frontier for the pro-life movement after roe v. wade being overturned? guest: dobbs overturned roe and restored the issue of abortion that roe had stripped away some 50 years ago. roe ignited a culture war in which people were fighting through the courts on an issue that have been in the process of being wrecked out democratically -- being worked out democratically. folks on both sides to persuade to other and especially folks in the middle of what the policy consists of and the challenge is

going to be to make their case, make their case showing love and concern for pregnant women, make their case emphasizing the fundamental humanity of human beings and working to make sure that we have legal protections for them. host: what is a just policy in your mind? we are seeing a patchwork across the country at on complete ban to very few weak bans to efforts to try the right of abortion in the country. guest: my decision is that the unborn human being has a fundamental right to life that should be protected in law. the debate on their heart aces like rate and perhaps they are policies that can better protect the unborn and the mother and make sure that the mother is helped to bring her baby to term , but i believe very much in basic protections. i also recognize that people disagree with me. i hope to persuade them but if i

don't, i recognize that i have lost through democratic means and i hope to persuade people later. a lot of questions arise from this patchwork around the country that is happening -- host: a lot of questions arise from this patchwork around the country. one of them is the abortion pill. kent states that ban abortion also ban the delivery of abortion pills through the mail in their states? guest: federal law's now actually ban the delivery of abortion pills through the mail. these are lost that had not been enforced while roe v. wade was in effect but ought to be enforced now. if federal law can ban this, then state law's can as well. host: what do you think this justice department will do when it comes to those lobs after hearing from president biden on friday? guest: i hope the justice

department will commit to impartial enforcement of our loss. i fear that it will not because pro-abortion forces are very dominant in this administration. we will have to make our political case and criticize him for it. host: what did we learn about the roberts court this term? guest: we have the practice of calling the court by the name of the chief justice. for many years what we call the robber court was really the kenedy court. i am not sure we have a roberts court. i was disappointed in the chiefs incoherence concurrent -- incoherent concurrence. i think you failed in an -- i think he failed in an opportunity. going forward the chief justice

will have to figure out is he going to lead, easy-going to be a dissenter or something in the -- is he going to be a dissenter or something in the middle? host: today's "politico," that she's got no help from conservative justices. if it is not roberts leading the court, who is leading the court? guest: the median justice might appear to be just as kavanaugh -- justice kavanaugh. you can see from case to case, someone else might be in that position including the chief. as a general rule, it is not the chief who is driving the direction of the court. host: who would be? who is the middle ground? guest: there is going to be a big racial preference, two aces

coming up this term. that is an issue in which the chief has been a leader. we will see if he leaves on that. host: edward whelan with us and taking your phone calls. phone lines as usual. numbers for all. nicholas in pennsylvania, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i love your program. i am quite nervous. but anyway, my issue is with the christians. they claim that the abortion issue is not in the bible, which it is. and it is under numbers 5:11-31 where it claims that the phrase has a right to give a woman in abortion by feeding her a substance that is in the bible where they claim abortion does not exist.

donald trump was a president who had the ability to put three people on the supreme court unjustly because of mitch mcconnell and obama had the right to put a supreme court justice up and also denying biden to put one up. these particular judges are from the christian-based. this country was not founded on christianity. it was founded on freedom of religion. guest: on the first point, it is rather odd that the folks who seem to invoke religion most often in the abortion debate are those who insist as this caller does that the bible requires lawful abortion. there are few, if any folks in the pro-life movement will make religious arguments for the

pro-life position. our argument is based on biology, basic science. the humanity of the unborn human being and on the moral principle that one should not unjustly kill someone. those two propositions combine, they do not involve invoking a verse in the bible as the caller just did. the caller claims that three justices in the court were appointed unjustly. that is a long matter to go into but strange to hear people attacking decisions of the court, each of those appointments by the constitution and each of the three justice are an excellent addition to the court. host: two of those justices making comments about being misled on their positions on roe whether it was law or not.

what are your thoughts? guest: if you look back at what was actually said and what susan collins and joe manchin said, at the time they were not given any promises or assurances. they may have found it convenient to construe things a certain way but the testimony that those justices gave is very much akin to the testimony that every justice has given. justice ginsburg said no forecast, no previews. every nominee since then has made clear that he or she is not giving a peek at as to how he or she will rule. host: glenn, lancaster, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about the

cherokee nation and the creek nation. their fourth amendment, almost every amendment has been unduly done. we have no delegates to the court, the house of representatives, which is in the constitution with our treaty rights. we have no first amendment. jefferson lost a supreme court ruling and forcibly removed the minute -- the native american people. we need to be a whole people in the united states. when you delegate to congress, which is in the constitution, they shall have delegates, we need to be seen as a whole people. we were forcibly removed from our lands.

d.c. has delegates. puerto rico has delegates. the virgin islands. we need a voice in the united states. host: thanks for bringing it up, but a topic you have thought much about? guest: not much. the caller refers to a case from two or three years ago that involves the scope of jurisdiction over indian lands in oklahoma. neil gorsuch has proven to be the strongest advocate of native american rights. he was with the liberal justices. he wrote the opinion in that case. it is a controversial case. i cannot discuss it much more at this point. host: framed out of new york -- frank out of new york, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm about to officiate a wedding

soon. i am not a clergy, not a religious person at all even though i was raised catholic. but i do believe that jesus was a prince of peace and i practice as much as my can -- as much as i can of loving each other over being kind and compassionate. i appreciate his nephew and his fiancee are not religious. i do not intend on bringing any religion into the conversation. what i do intend on doing is bringing spirituality into my speech. i'm going to include the beauty and spirit of nature that surrounds us. john said allowed nature's peace to flow into us as sunshine flows into trees.

host: bring me to the relationship to the topics we have been talking about. guest: i'm curious as to what mr. whelan thinks of that. i am assuming that he feels -- i am afraid that i may offend religious people in the audience because i am omitting religion. in fact, i am just an efficient -- officiante. host: it does bring up this question about how do we talk about religion in the society. guest: you have the need to do what you plan to do. it does not bother me at all. go right ahead. host: religious liberty and the court's definition of that in recent years and where it could go.

what are your thoughts on that? guest: what we are seeing is a recognition that religious liberty is right for all. it is so curious to hear people contending that -- look at the supreme court rulings from recent decades that involved a muslim prisoner or animal sacrifice. these justices have a robust understanding of religious liberties, something that extends the people of all religions and people of no religion. i think we will see a continuation of the courts recognition that religious exercise, the free exercise of religion is a fundamental right and as i mentioned, that the establishment clause should not be misconstrued to trample on this right. host: i know the justices get to pick their own case is that they decide on but are there in the

pipeline -- are there aces in the pipeline that will further the discussion of religious liberty? anything you are looking ahead to the next time? guest: there are some cases in the pipeline. the ones we have had my clear some of those out of the pipeline. the court often sends pieces back in light of rulings. host: there were some c ases on the fact that religious schools in maine could be barred from a program on areas that lack public schools. can you fill us in? guest: the court ruled that it was not constitutional to exclude sectarian schools, religious schools that are

sectarian, from a general program of tuition assistance for those school districts that do not have their own high schools, which turned out is a lot of school districts. maine has set up the system, when you set up these programs you cannot discriminate against religious entities and how you run them. host: what with the argument on the other side concerns about federal dollars going to schools that are nonpublic schools? guest: or state dollars. in this case, there is a notion, in misapplication of the establishment clause that even though these decisions defer on the individual choices of parents, that somehow it is illegitimate for parents to make decisions that would lead to funds going to the schools they

want to go to. host: michael out of lewistown, pennsylvania, democrat. good morning. caller: yes. everybody keeps saying about religious freedom. that is not what the constitution says. it is freedom from religious persecution. you can believe anything you want or you do not have to believe anything at all. it is this talking point that they keep putting out there. when you die, you die. even in the bible, it says no one is going anywhere until jesus comes back. everybody who dies is still dead. they are still in the ground. they should stop it. if you want to believe in religion, that is fine. especially for children.

thinking you are going somewhere that can make your desk a lot better. but when you turn 10 or 12, you should be told the truth. if you want to believe, fine. but you should not make it lifetime. that is not right. guest: michael has the right to hold his own views on this matter. he misstates with the constitution says on this. the question starting out, what it means to have the free exercise of religion. host: a caller pointed out that when the house gavels in, one of the first things that happens is a prayer from the house chaplain. why do we have that? has there been concerned that that is a violation of the establishment clause? guest: there have been aces on that issue. not involving congress.

one involved a legislature in nebraska, march versus chambers. the reason we have these prayers is because for a long time, legislators recognized that they had a solemn duty to act in accordance with what they best discerned to be god's will for the common good. they took that obligation seriously. they took note of office that involved a promise to god -- they took a nose of office -- an oath of office that involved a promise to god. we should be more attentive to the consequences if we simply violate -- abandon that. host: what would violate the establishment clause? guest: in the kenedy case, coach

kenedy previously engaged in conduct that he learned he could no longer engage in. when he was advised by the district, he abandoned it. leading prayer circles on the field in which he was making religious references, that was deemed -- the deemed that improper. he complied with the request that he not do that. there are all sorts of things. to take an extreme case, in the establishment clause, you cannot establish a religion. but beyond that, you cannot do anything that favors one religion over another. you cannot say that even though muslims are free to practice their religion, we will declare this to be a christian nation. that is not permissible. there are a whole host of things. we look to history and tradition and it would be helpful to have something specific. host: what about putting up a

cross in a public place? guest: there are crosses in the artwork of the u.s. supreme court. there are the 10 commandments there. host: is that favoring christianity over other religions? guest: i don't think so. again, it reflects the traditions of the time. i can certainly try to chisel everything out. but muslims and juice believe in the 10 commandments as well. the question still stands. there is nothing course of about that -- nothing cooercive about that. host: roy out of arizona. good morning. caller: good morning. i had a quick comment. as republicans, we need to be careful for the roe v. wade

being overturned because what is going to happen is these democrats will try to lower the voting age to 10 so they can get these kids that were not aborted to vote democrat. that is something we need to watch out for because that is going to happen. host: your thoughts on politics in a post dobbs world? does dogs do for cash does -- does dobbs do for pro-life advocates, does it become a driving force for years and decades to come? guest: i doubt it. we will see. roe removed the abortion question from the democratic process and made it important for pro-lifers to fight year after year to improve the supreme court.

in the coming battle, pro-abortion forces can win their legislative battles and lose them and fight them again. the decision will be an important issue and it will be volatile and i'm not claiming i can predict how it will play out. we have had 50 years in which neither side has tried to persuade the middle of the merits of its positions. that will be the challenge in the coming months and years. host: you have laid out where you stand on these positions. do you think that after achieving overturning roe v. wade that the pro-life movement loses this uniting force, that there may be less momentum or less passion behind the issue after they have achieved this goal? guest: i think overturning roe is just the first step in a long process of working to build a culture of life, a culture that shows love and concern for women who find themselves in the

situation of an unwanted pregnancy. also, that shows love and respect for the unborn human beings. it is not going to be easy to build that. we have had 50 years in which roe has corrupted our moral and political culture. the pro-life movement might actually end up being less tied to one party than it has been. democrats abandon pro-lifers. pro-lifers moved to the republican party. there is a lot of in the basic social justice message that how to appeal to lots of democrats and i think we see a lot more pro-life sentiment among hispanics and african-americans than among the big fundraisers and the democratic party. host: cheryl out of los angeles, democratic. good morning. caller: i want to preface this by saying that the father in

heaven is neither democratic, republican, or independent, nor is he an author of confusion. he is not into religion but i want to preface this by saying that the coach who was praying, in matthew 6:6 it says when you pray secretly, the father in heaven will reward you openly. you did not tell you to make a public thing about prayer. it is a private thing that once you do it, he will reward you openly if you do his precepts and examples. another thing i want to say about this abortion thing, i am against abortion but i am for the women who choose to have their bodies to do what they want to because when they were going to take the lady and stone her, he said he who is without sin, throw the first stone. not one man came up.

he said he who is without sin, so the first stone and everybody had to walk away because nobody was perfect enough to throw the stone at the woman who committed adultery. all of these so-called evangelicals who want to throw stones at everybody and say do this and do that, i am against that because you follow the bible. host: got your point. guest: jesus said go and sin nor more. this is not a matter to be decided by citing bible verses. this is a matter to be argued in terms of moral principles accessible to all apart from religion. cheryl invoked the bible verse about not praying in public. coach kenedy is entitled to his own view of when and how he should pray. he is not constrained in the american tradition of --

religion is not constrained by a particular bible verse. lots of folks of other faiths would find no meaning at all in that bible verse. it is perfectly proper for cheryl to draw from her own understanding of her religious faith what the matters of public policy ought to be and how to address them. lots of other folks can decide based on their own faith or more importantly, based on reason that is accessible to others and work to persuade others. host: i get the question was coach kenedy's case and the justices make clear what they think about it. is a situation like this, this picture from "the wall street journal" of coach kenedy being surrounded by his players after they prayed after a game, whether that situation is part

of the public schools. it took place on a full bar field at a public school -- on a foot ball field at a public school. was this part of the program of that day? guest: i cannot see the photo you are looking at but i believe it is the coach with players of the opposing team. for the three games in which he was punished, not a single player from his team was with him during the prayer. there were some episodes in the months and years before where there were players from his team that surrounded him. when he was advised that that should not happen, he complied with that. what we are talking about and what the court ruled on and what the extent of the ruling relates to, the coach praying silently by himself on the field after a

game. there is nothing to indicate that in the three instances for which the district punished, disciplined coach kenedy, that there was anyone who was coerced to join him. host: tasha in l.a., independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not know how many of today's christians know this secret, but we are in the last days. the original christ is black. the image we see now was modeled after the illegitimate son of a pope. host: three meters 2022 -- bring me to 2020 to? caller: the research on the black madonna, the church had a

split with rome. as far as a potion, that was brought into parishioners in america by a woman, margaret sankar, who wanted to keep the black birthrate down to a minimum. there are abortion clinics to the state through all the neighborhoods that are black. instead of saying christ did not exist, we may want to uncover things. guest: the second point, the color is correct that there has been a strong eugenic component to the abortion movement from the very beginning, a very heavy component and one that has led disproportionately to the deaths of unborn black babies. host: pat in keyport, new jersey. republican. good morning.

caller: good morning. i have a question on the dobbs decision and how it will impact mississippi which has its own trigger law which would automatically send the abortion rules back to rights of the mother. does the trigger law automatically invalidate the law that was declared constitutional? guest: it does not invalidate it. it perhaps renders it superfluous. the caller is right. the law is operating from conception. the 15 week demo card that was upheld -- the 15 week ban that was upheld is simply superfluous. host: other constitutional issues you are watching? guest: the racial preferences case is on the docket for next term. i do not know if you are referring specifically to

abortion. you will see, already have seen an effort to get state supreme courts to rule that there is a constitutional right to abortion under state constitutions. there are 11 courts that in recent decades have already ruled that way relying on the same sort of flimsy reasoning that the court used in roe. in most states it is much easier to overturn supreme court rulings with a constitutional amendment than in the federal system. you will see fights on those grounds. those will be the big legal fights in the years ahead. host: laporte, indiana. ron. good morning. caller: good morning. in the first place, do you hear about abortion in the bible? i don't know.

jesus christ, when he directed his moral proclamations to the human heart, only when people's hearts are changed. only when the very corner of their being is transformed -- very core of their being is transformed. we are talking about a transformation where jesus gave up everything he had so people could know god. as long as you have a court that is blind, or one-sided, you will not have any justice anyway. the problem is probably the core and transformation. have a good day. thank you. host: anything you want to add

to that? guest: the court has returned to the democratic processes what abortion should be. it is strange to describe the result as one-sided. it is roe that was wildly one-sided. in terms of his thoughts on the bible, obviously he is entitled to his interpretation. i do not really care to argue with him on religious grounds. my pro-life decision does not rest on specific religious versus but there is a verse in the bible, that shall not kill. host: one question from jeff on twitter saying if the great state of washington can decide abortion legalities on its own, why not separation of church and state? guest: the answer to that is that we have religion clauses in the constitution.

we do not have an abortion clause. the great question that constitutional interpretation poses is which matters are left to the democratic processes and which matters are taken away from them. it is quite clear that there is a right to free exercise. if scopes are not as clear, that is where we litigate. there is no right to abortion in the constitution. there never has been. roe rested on a set of concoctions. host: this is carl out of lansdale, pennsylvania. republican. good morning. caller: hello. a lot of questions point to a real problem that i see. people want to air their positions. no one is talking about the constitution. i am really anti- gun. as a republican, that is an odd

thing. we have a second amendment. the constitution is different from whatever moral principles you want to air out. with this gun case we just saw, what comes next for the second minute aces? -- second amendment cases? guest: i do not clear to be a -- i do not declare to be a second amendment cases. to decide whether someone should get a concealed carry permit violated the constitution. there are five or six other jurisdictions that have similar systems but three or so that do not convert that discretion. there is the state of vermont that does not even require a license for carrying a firearm.