♪ host: good morning. it is saturday, july first. yesterday, the supreme court ruled a colorado website designer has a free-speech right to deny service to same-sex couples. the court struck down president biden's plan to give student loan debt to some -- forgive student loan debt to some borrowers. we are asking your reaction to those rulings, do you agree, disagree or why? -- and why? (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. send us a text at (202) 748-8003 . we are live on instagram and

twitter. we will start with a reporter from bloomberg law. she focuses on the supreme court. kimberly robinson, welcome to the program. guest: thanks for having me. host: let's start with the lgbtq case. tell us about the case and who the major players are. guest: sure. this was a repeat of the case the supreme court heard a couple of terms ago. in that case, a colorado cake maker did not want to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. in this case, it was a website designer who does not want to make websites for same-sex couples. she says it violates her religious beliefs. the difference in the cases is that while the supreme court analyzed the case under religious freedom for the cake maker, in this case, this one was one of pure speech. host: explained that

distinction. what does that mean about free speech? guest: the justices in this case said that colorado could not compel the website designer to say something that she disagreed with. i'm not sure what the distinction will be, practically. we will have to wait and see. but it was an opportunity for the justices to take religion out of this case. although, obviously, because she believes it violates her religious beliefs, it is always there. host: the 2018 case with the cake maker, how was that decided? guest: the justices did not actually decide the main issue in the case. that is one way this case is different from the cake maker

case. the justices got to the heart of the issue. it is something the court has struggled with for a long time. it is a hard issue in general. with the conservative majority, they were able to come to a conclusion. host: they talked about this only applying to expressive businesses. for instance, a landlord cannot deny renting to same-sex couples, is that true? guest: that's what the majority said. although if we look at the 2018 case involving a cake, one of the main issues there was whether or not making a cake was expressive and there were all sorts of hypotheticals, is a makeup artist expressive? they have artist in their name, right? there is a line in order for this exemption to apply. i think probably, we will see a

broad definition of what counts as expressive. host: what are the concerns expressed by lgbtq advocates about this ruling? guest: i was in the courtroom when the court handed down its decision and justice sotomayor, it's not unheard of, but she took the rare step of pleading her dissent from the bench. she delivered a blistering dissent, saying how it tugged at the heart and the existence of lgbt people and their ability to exist in public spaces like every other american. that has been echoed by lgbt advocates as well. host: let's talk, kimberly, about the other case, which was a student loan forgiveness. there were two student loan cases handed down yesterday, tell us about that. guest: there were two cases. the distinction was who would

bring these cases. in the one case that was decided unanimously, two borrowers, individual borrowers, challenged the law and the justices in a 9-0 decision said you don't have the authority to bring this case. but then, right after the justices handed down a challenge brought by the state, in particular, missouri, the justices said missouri could sue and then struck down bidens student loan forgiveness. host: what was the basis of striking that down? guest: it was a similar rationale we have seen from the conservative majority in cases involving environmental rule that are meant to get at climate change and the biden administration's vaccine mandate from last term.

whenever congress -- it needs to be super clear. it was not clear enough here. basically, the idea is that congress does not hide elephants in mouse holes and whenever there is something that is politically or economically significant, the court will look at it with a skeptical eye. host: did the supreme court say how the president or congress should proceed on this? guest: it didn't. that was the basis of the dissent we saw here, the liberal justices were in dissent. this time, justice kagan took the step of reading from the bench her dissent in the courtroom. she talked about how congress really was clear in this legislation that it was trying to give broad delegation when it

comes to a national emergency. and there was nothing that congress could do to be any more clear. she emphasized this decision hamstrings congress and the president whenever they want to act in this way. host: and what about immediate impact? there were students who were notified that they would have some of their loans forgiven. what happens now? guest: president joe biden spoke yesterday about the decision. he said his administration was going to take steps under a different statute to try and give loan forgiveness. we will see if that holds up in court. also, there will be some forgiveness from the administration in the immediate future if people missed their loans. this was a pretty big hit to the biden administration. host: this is the end of this term. now, they go on recess. what, just overall, over this

term, what has surprised you or struck you the most? guest: one thing that surprised me was there were some really big acts from conservatives in this term. all we saw arguments go out in affirmative action and student loans and this case about lgbt rights which have big implications, we saw the middle of this conservative court reject some of the most extreme arguments on things like voting arguments -- voting rights and other federal legislation meant to help native families. this is really a court that is in flux. there has been a lot of change and we are trying to figure out how far this conservative majority will go. it seems like the stopping point will be how far the middle of the court will go. host: all right, kimberly robinson, bloomberg law supreme court reporter, thanks for

joining us this morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: we are taking your reactions to the two rulings handed down by the supreme court, yesterday. one regarding the case of the lgbtq case and the website designer and the other striking resident biden's student loan -- president biden's student loan forgiveness plan. we will go to the phones with neil from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go right ahead, neil. caller: yes, i -- as an independent, i try to keep an open mind and listen and get as much information as i can about the issues. the lgbtq case, i'm concerned that it is still considered a protected class.

he that as it may, the bigger concern is president biden's pandering. once again, he is pushing for votes. his denouncement of the ruling, i think, is totally out of step with the separation of powers. his 12 month delay in enforcement of many payment delays leads right into the 2024 election. am i the only person who figured that out? it's becoming more and more and more obvious to me that this administration, when it plays with matches, not only burns themselves, but americans.

host: neil, you didn't think there was any merit to forgiving some student loan debt? you thought that was just a grab for votes? caller: absolutely. absolutely. i signed a contract to buy a car . because i am going to now work in a higher income bracket job. does the government just forgive that loan because i am now an essential worker? host: the government is not giving you the car loan but i get your point. let's talk to linda. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm just kind of sad for this country. because of this conservative

illegitimate supreme court, they are moving us back, back and further back from the rights that we have fought for. the lgbt community, for them to put them out there as though they have no rights as a protected class, it's sad for this country. and i'm sure those people around the country are crying just like i am. and then for student loans, it's sad. you can pay your student loans but the problem with the student loans is that the interest, you can borrow $20,000 and end up paying $50,000 or $60,000 for

loans that you are struggling to pay. $10,000 or $20,000 is not going to break this country because those senators got those ppp loans all forgiven. for republicans, there is a number of them who needed that money. i live in mississippi. this is the poorest state in the union. i'm quite sure it is a republican state. they could use those loans forgiven as well. host: let's talk to mel in new york, independent. caller: good morning. i appreciate what the supreme court did in rejecting this biden loan forgiveness program. education is not even mentioned in the constitution. and it is very unfair for president biden to violate the separation of powers and forced

me and other taxpayers to pay for other people's student loans, when they signed an agreement saying they would pay it back. to me, it lends into people being irresponsible and making people dependent upon the government. but, it is a great way, if you are a politician, to try to get people to vote for you. this is something that founders learned about when government would be used as a tool to try to make people dependent. the supreme court stood up for free speech. when a person is put in a position where they are forced to say something, to me, that is coercion that violates the principle of free speech. so, nobody should be forced to make a cake or a style website

that violates their conscience. the work that was done there are free speech. host: all right. let's look at what president biden said in reaction to the court's decision about his student loan forgiveness plan. >> i'm announcing today a new path to provide student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible as quickly as possible. we will ground this new approach in a different law from my original plan. the so-called higher education act. that will compromise or release loans under -- certain circumstances. it is the beth path -- best path that remains.

just moments ago, the secretary took the first step to initiate that new approach. we are not going to waste any time on this. it will take longer. we are getting on it right away. second, you know what many borrowers will need to make hard choices, which their budgets are being strained now when they start to pay their loan payments this fall. we know that figuring out how to pay these expenses can take time for borrowers and they might miss payments on the front end as they get packed into repayment. normally, this could lead borrowers to fall into lee quincy -- telling quincy and default. that is not good for them or the economy. that is why we are creating a temporary 12 month on-ramp repayment program. it is about the same as the student loan clause that has been in effect the past three years.

monthly payments will be due. bills will not go out and interest will be accruing. you can pay our monthly bills -- if you can pay your monthly bills, you should. if you can't, this on-ramp removes the threat of default or having your credit harmed which can hurt your borrowers for years to come. the department of education won't refer borrowers. they won't refer borrowers who miss payments for 12 months to give them a chance to get back up and running. host: that was the president talking about his reaction to the supreme court striking down his plans to release student loan debt. supreme court strikes down plan to forgive student loan debt, biden vows to use alternate path. the supreme court on friday dashed president joe biden's plan to --

the latest significant -- and the household finances for millions of families, a majority ruled on ideological lines that the biden administration overstepped its power, by attempting to forgive $400 billion in student loans, lingering during the pandemic. we are taking your calls for the 45 minutes or so. and pa i next. a republican in cornwall, new york. good morning, paul. caller: good morning and thanks for the opportunity tspk. all i'm going to say is if you are a couple and you are making a quarter of a million dollars a year and you can't pay your loans back, you need to go to a financial planner and you need to learn how to handle your money. you might have to start brown bagging it and bring your coffee

into your office with you. people have to learn to be more financially responsible because they don't need every shiny toy and gadget that is out there. that is all i have to say on that topic. host: lisa in laurel, maryland. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i will give you a quick bio. i am a sanitation worker and a public school secretary. and an ivy league graduate who went to undergrad, full time at night. went to graduate school on a scholarship and i think student loan debt should have been forgiven, even though i had none. i find it quite interesting that republicans seem to be so very punitive and want to penalize people all the time for the

decisions they did or didn't make. and just so it is not lost, student loans, the affirmative action decision, although they were given on different days, all come together. the lgbtq issue, i don't think anybody should have to do or say or write anything that they don't believe in. however, it is all, to me, in one packed. anybody who feels like they are part of the underclass, which i know a lot of white americans, poor white americans don't feel like that because they are white. if we band together, we can get a lot of things done and stop seeing things as black and white. host: do you agree with how the supreme court ruled on the lgbtq case? caller: i do.

because, i feel like if i were -- and i'm not lgbt or q. but if i were, don't want to give you my business. as an african-american, i don't want to give you my business if you don't want or don't appreciate or don't respect black people. host: ok. let's remind people what the biden student loan forgives plan was and what it would have entailed this is, so, it would have ge -- $,0 would have gone to pell grant recipients. thosere loan borrowers. $10,000 to non-pell grant loans. this applies to those ki under 125 thousand dollars a year, 200 $50,000 if you are a marrie couple and it caps monthly paymentsorndergrad loans at% your monthly income. that w suck down yesterday

by t sreme court and we are taking your reaction to tt. and the other case, the lgbtq case that was decided yesterday as well. joe, independent in new providence, new jersey, what do you think? caller: i think what they did is a good thing. why should we have to pay for their college feet? they knew what they were getting into. they signed the papers. they didn't know, something is wrong with them. they should have a decent brain. as far as the other thing, with the cake, why should somebody have to make something that they don't want to make? it's common sense, all the time. but the democrats don't want that. the only thing they want is to get these people so they can vote. that is all they are doing. they don't give a damn one way or another, just as long as they vote. republicans do basically the same things themselves but it is common sense what they are doing. it doesn't make no sense to pay

college people. and what about the ones who drop out? does biden still want to pay for the ones who dropped out of college or what? let's see, that's about all i've got to say. host: kay is in alabama, a republican. good morning. caller: i want to talk about the student loans. i'm glad they shot that down. i am the professional nurse. my husband is a business major. we have to pay back our student loans. i worked two jobs doing it, through nursing school. i'm telling you, if you can't make it on $125,000 a year or 220 $5,000 -- 250 thousand dollars, whatever it was, there is something wrong. i agree with the caller who said pack your lunch. they are so entitled, these

younger people. not all, but some. the government should pay that back, that is the most ridiculous thing that we should pay back for other people's student loans. there are other ways. become an lpn, then go to your are in -- your rn. there are ways to do it. companies will help you reimburse yourself. we'll help you with some schooling. there is other ways that you don't have to have the government assist you in eliminating. i mean, there are ways that people can work it out that the government does not have to step in and bail you out. i think that is the best thing i have heard from the supreme court and i am so glad president trump put them in there, doing

to things -- the things to stop the radical things democrat want to do. host: let's look at what chief justice john roberts said in his ruling on t president biden studan ce. the heroes act grants him the authto cancel $430 billion student loan principal, it does not. we hold today that the act allows the secretary to waive or modify existing statutory or reguto provisions, applicable to financial assistance programs under the education act. not to rewrite that statute from the ground up. that is from chief justice robert pinion, which came out yesterday about the student loan case. i want to show you the response from the dissent, from justice elena kagan in that same case, of the student loan forss. she said this.

in every respect, the crt today exceeds its proper limited role in our nation's government. some 20 years ago, congress enacted legislation called the heroes act, authorizing the secretary of education to provide relief to student lo borrowers wh national emergency struck. the sec'authority was founded. he could do only what was "necessary to alleviate the ncie impact onecte borrowers ability to repay their student loans." you can see all of that at supreme court.gov if you would like to read all of those opinions. you can also listen to supreme court arguments on our website and go to c-span.org/supreme court. evelyn is calling us from chicago, illinois. morning, evelyn. caller: good morning.

i was an accountant and a teacher. i was able to go to college and pay for most of my college education. i did have some loans, which i paid back. but, i really think that state colleges and universities and municipal colleges and universities should have a program set up that pays, helps students with their tuition on an income index basis. i pay taxes. i want schools to be available to everybody at every level, all the way up to phd. i don't think everybody should have to pay 100% of their student loans back. but i think they should pay something back. i just really think that the tax money i spend every year and have been doing -- i'm 73 years

old, i've been paying taxes for a long time. i want my taxes to help students learn and to go to school. i think the country is falling behind in education. we need teachers and educated people. i have listened to people on cnn and i know some of them, their education was very sparse. i can tell by the way they speak, the language that they use. i think it would be nicer for our country and for everybody in this country, if we had a more intelligent population. which means we have to educate everybody. we need public education at the colleges and universities. that's all i have to say. i would like to see the aclu and other organizations get on this and start to ask if we can come up with a plan for everybody to go to college. host: alright, evelyn.

let's look at another short portion of president biden's reaction to the supreme court ruling, yesterday. >> why did you give millions of borrowers false hope? you doubted your own authority in the past. pres. biden: i didn't give anybody false hope, the question was whether or not i would do more than what was requested. what i did, i thought was appropriate and would be able to get it done. i did not give false hope but the republicans snatched away the hope that was given and it is real. real hope. >> did you overstep your authorities? pres. biden: i think the court misinterpreted the constitution. host: that was the president yesterday, talking about the supreme court striking down his plan to relieve some student loan debt. and, let's take a look at some reaction from members of congress on that issue. here is mike johnson, who said that today, the supreme court

confirmed what the american people knew from the beginning. the obligation to pay billions of dollars in individual student loans cannot magically be forced upon other taxpayers. fairness, reason and the constitution prevailed over politics, again. and, here is speaker kevin mccarthy who said breaking, president biden's student loan giveaway is ruled unlawful. the 87% who don't have student loans are no longer forced to pay for the 13% who do. this builds on the fiscal responsible the act's to end -- end to the payment cause. the president must follow the law. we will keep fighting to deliver relief. and finally guarantee working and poor families never have to take out crushing student loans in the first place. and chuck schumer, senator, said

this disappointing and cruel student debt ruling shows the callousness of the maga republican-controlled supreme court. the fight will not end here. the biden administration has remaining legal routes to provide relief for students facing student debt. we will have more on that and the lgbtq case that was decided yesterday. in colorado, tom is calling us from rockville, maryland. independent. hello, tom. tom? are you there in rockville? caller: yes. host: sorry, that was my fault. go ahead. caller: yes. host: good morning. caller: i just want to object to the way you phrased it. the two rulings. you referred to loan

forgiveness. everybody gets their loans forgiving. but when you phrase it like loan cancellation or the assumption of loans by taxpayers, that is a different phrasing and people who know nothing about the rulings, they might be a little more -- they may respond differently if you say loan cancellation. it just shows the bias on the part of c-span. the other thing, these are lgbtq rights. i would be for lgbtq rights. but that is not what the case was about. that case was about free speech. and if you phrase it about free speech and that the web designer have the right not to say something that she objected to, religiously, then you might get a different response. i'm just noting the bias that

you have. host: going back on the bidens student loan plan, you didn't like the idea of cancellation. some of the proponents of that plan that point to the ppp loan cancellation, forgiveness, what do you think of that? what do you think of that language? caller: well, you know, i really can't speak to that. i turned on the tv and i see talking about forgiveness. well, you know, saturday morning, everyone is for forgiveness, generally speaking. but to phrase it the way you do, as forgiveness and not as canclation, just on its face, is bias. st: all right. let's talk to loretta in cleveland, ohio. democrat. hi, loretta. caller: good morning.

good morning, america. i really don't know where to begin. i think that the lgbtq -- if the bakery is in business to make money, they shouldn't care about who they are making a cake for. i think that the supreme court aired -- erred in that case. and i think they errored in the college student loans because -- c-span, y'all are not being fair with all of the information. 90% of those loans were predatory.

these loans that they jacked them into, they can't get out. now, you can't do bankruptcy. host: how are you saying those are predatory loans? that's from the federal government. and people know how much they are borrowing and how much they will have to pay back. caller: betsy devos devised a program that was an entrapment case, really. and the doj needs to be filing charges against her and her whole administration because now you can file bankruptcy. who decided that? how can you file bankruptcy on an airplane on a yacht and all of these other rich people stuff but somebody can file bankruptcy to try to do better for

themselves? i sent y'all a story yesterday. and you didn't even bring it up. it was about betsy devos and she should have never been in that position. and trump did that. and he is doing victory laps, right now, talking about how he shot down women's rights, how he shot down affirmative action and how he has chopped down student loans. c-span, i am really getting disappointed with y'all. because you guys, you come with this view and you want to put that out there. i haven't heard y'all talk about one good thing that biden has done. has biden done anything good? host: all right, loretta. let's go to mike, a republican in new jersey. caller: hi, everybody.

all these letters to the lgbtq, god made male and god made female. he didn't make anymore. you can't change your sex because god knows you before your mother or your mother's womb. he loves us all. but you know what? those that are wanting to change our kids sex -- host: so mike, about the case itself, i take it you agree with the ruling of the case? caller: you know what, i just came and put the tv on and saw those five letters and i am speaking my mind. i already texted you, you can put that on the tv yet because i don't agree with lgbtq. you shouldn't be teaching our kids that they can be gay or this or that. you are brainwashing our kids.

you know what? a boy is a boy, a girl is a girl. host: got it. jim in illinois, independent. hi, jim. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. a few comments. generally, it is obvious to the most casual observer that, first of all, the only time the democrats complain about the supreme court ruling is when it doesn't go their way. now, the supreme court is not going conservative, the supreme court is not being crazy in their recent decisions. but what has happened is the rulings that come before them, as the third part of our government, is ruling that they are unconstitutional. they don't follow the constitution of the united states, much the same as roe v. wade was made up to begin with. that is eight separate subject. i just want to talk about the

student loan situation. when you take out a student loan, you make the decision that if i spend this amount of money, i will get a return on my investment and you sign a paper. you say that is a good deal. but if that were for a small business? i will take out this loan and hopefully i will increase my business. and if the business fails, does the government pay for that? of course not. student loans, exactly the same situation. the people who have paid their student loans, do they get their money back? no, the whole scenario is completely preposterous. to make a final point about that , we know the value of high school, which is free. there are many kids, you see the number of kids who come out of high school who essentially can't read and write thanks to our educational system. why? because it is free. there is no skin in the game.

if you do the same thing with college and start giving it away, it will also be useless and worthless. it is completely ridiculous to think that -- and when you say loan forgiveness, there is no loan forgiveness. it is loan passing on to other people, from one person to another. it is redistributing that debt. it's not forgetting anything. when somebody says forgiveness -- it is preposterous. that is not what is happening at all. it doesn't go away. host: glenn is a democrat in lakeland, florida. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: good. caller: to follow up what this guy just said when he was talking about student forgiveness loans, did the trump administration during the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, didn't they give loans to businesses?

i think it came to something like $200 billion or $300 billion that these corporations needed because they didn't have any money. did they pay those ppp loans back? you are talking about students not being able to forgive their loans, they have all of this money, more than the citizens who needed the money and went out there and did not put the money back into the business. the los angeles lakers got $10 million. harvard university got 10-12,000,000 dollars. did they get the money back? -- did they pay the money back? ridiculous to give the corporations these money but they never paid it back. it's useless to say students don't deserve that but what about those corporations? they paid their money back 10 times over. where -- when is that money coming back? host: this is just as neil

h on the lgbtq case. he said that in this case, corado seeks to force an vidu to speak in ways that align with its views but def her conscience. he, the opportunity to think for herself andpresthose thoughts freely is among our heried liberties. and part of what keeps our republic strong. but tolerance, not coercion is our nation's answ the first amendment envisio the united states as a rich and complex place where all persons arfr to think and speak as theyis not as the government demands. because colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed. that is from the majority opinion from justice gorsuch on the lgbtq case. and here is part of the dissent of justice sonia sotomayor.

she says this. today is a sad day in american constitutional law and in the lives of lgbt people. supreme court of the united states declares that a particular kind of business, though o the public, has a constialight to refuse to sembers of a protected class. the court does so for the first time in its history. the immediate symbolic effect of the decision to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status. i wonder what you think of that. if you agree with justice sotomayor or justice gorsuch on that case. we are also talking about the biden student loan forgiveness, some call it cancellation. and michael is next. he is in ashburn, virginia. republican. hi, michael. caller: hey. host: good morning. caller: how are you? host: good. caller: when president biden

said he was going to forgive loans, i knew that he wasn't going to be able to because congress has the power. you had a few callers previously who said these loans are predatory. i have to slightly agree and i will tell you why. when you get student loans, you have to start paying them back. you have 10 years to start paying back your loans. in the first probably three or four years, i paid mine the first year and my principal balance on my loans went up. it went up about $5,000 or $6,000, making the payment on the loans. if i rode out my whole term, my 10 year term, my $68,000 loan would have been a little over $130,000. i believe that if president

biden wants to do something about this issue, loans have to be interest-free. and that's just how i feel. i agree with parts of what he wants to do but i kind of know that you can't just go ahead and forgive all of these student loans. me, what i did was i worked really hard in my first three or four years of my loan and i paid back as fast as i could, huge chunks of principal and that was the only way i was able to pay, instead of 68,000 dollars, i paid $35,000 total with the interest and everything. host: michael, do you think that was a good investment on your part? caller: anything in education is a good investment. buying a house is a good investment. learning a trade. anything that will better you that you are going to use in

life is a good investment. the problem is now, when you go and forgive these loans, i already know that the colleges are going to start charging more money and the taxpayers are going to be paying more money for the colleges themselves. i think they have to be more clear with when they give students loans. a lot of students don't understand how mortgages work because they have never bought a house. they are not going to really understand a loan. but when you start making those payments like i did for one year and your balance goes from $68,000 up to $72,000, then you are like but i am making payments, why are they going up? my interest, one of them was 7.3%. the other was 5.2%. they are all different scattered loans. i think if they find a way, some balance for this country, this

is the way to go. they should give kids 20 years or 30 years interest free, pay back their loans. that way, students can start families and buy homes when they come out of college. i feel sorry for them. host: alright, michael. let's go to a michael in stamford, connecticut, independent. caller: good morning. i think it is obnoxious in the amount they charge in interest on these loans. it should just be enough to cover the loan industry there for student loans. then there is another thing. the math scores seem to be off the charts. say you owe me $1000 and i forgive you for $500, who is going to pay that? is your cameraman going to a to

meet? no, you have to pay me $500. by the time, the way these interest rates go, if you owe $60,000 and it goes down to $50,000, in a year, you will owe $60,000 again. all of these people who say why do i have to pay that loan back, they are not. host: it came from the government to begin with. that is the idea, michael. when it just goes away, that is money not coming into the federal treasurer -- treasury. caller: but how much money did they make in interest? the last guy said he paid it off and it kept going higher. it does not seem like the government is losing out on any money. it doesn't seem like joe is having to pay for those loans. the lgbtq thing, say some guy

comes in and wants to have a kkk cake made, the summit have to make that for him? are they protected? happens with that? i don't know why the republicans are screaming about all of this gay stuff. it seems like there are more gay republicans than there are any group of people around. host: let's talk to nina in florida, democrat. hi, nina. caller: how are you? host: good. caller: i have a couple of comments on the student loans. president biden got on there yesterday and said the republicans ripped the money out of the taxpayers or student loan forgiveness. but, would you please play the speaker of the house, the former speaker of the house, speaker pelosi, when she got on tv and told everyone that congress has the power that president biden

can delay or defer, but congress has the power for loan forgiveness. i think speaker mccarthy should do a house vote and have congress forgive the loans. thank you and happy fourth of july. host: rich is in ohio, republican. good morning, rich. caller: have a great holiday weekend. it seems like we are back into not buying beers, i wish they would get that back, but buying votes with everybody else's money and we have real problems coming up. instead of paying for education once, we pay for it for a lifetime, because somebody paid their loan off. they won't get taxed in the future if this doesn't get passed. otherwise, they will get a department and you will never get rid of it.

it will have eternal life. they start out with good causes to get a program in. to get a fire truck, you have to buy the fire truck. and put the pork on top and 80% will go to port. it will get past because of the pork in there. then you will never get rid of that program, which we look back through the government, comedy programs have never taken a part. -- how many programs have never been taken apart. the government -- there was a law one time where the government would not honor the loan, note 25% or anything else. it had to do with inflation getting really high. there needs to be a place for user it laws.

i will hang up. host: all right, rich. let's look at twitter. this is from jason, who says scotus's ruling in favor of lorie smith was based on a purely hypothetical scenario. amy coney barrett refused to opine on hypotheticals during her hearing. one thing is clear, the scotus is corrupt. how hard is it to see that forcing people to do what they don't want to is bad? can people not think of their own examples where this could clearly be wrong? what if the twisted anti-gay organization from kansas wanted to force a gay web designer to work for them? darius is calling us from princes and, maryland, independent.

-- princess anne, maryland. independent. caller: a caller, two or three calls ago said interest rates keep going up. i currently have student loans. unfortunately, we all know that having a home is for the middle class. the student loans prevent me from getting one. this whole suffering court student debt issue reminds me of the pig eating its tail. old people are sitting there, complaining about hey, government helps you and you shouldn't depend on the government to help you forgive your lungs. the only thing i can say to that is ok, if the national debt is

such a huge issue and student loan debt is such a huge issue, i will vote for the person who will take away social security. that will substantially take down the debt, the national debt , and i will vote for it. because we are all fiscally responsible people, now. right? nobody should depend on the government paying them for the rest of their lives, either, if that's the case. they went from $40,000 to $70,000, these are not loans that your grandma and grandpa got in the 1960's and 1970's. these loans are predatory. they have essentially thrown us to the wolves when it comes to any future economic solutions. as a few callers have already mentioned, you can get loans --

give loans to multimillion dollar corporations who have made and reaped over billions, with a b, billions of dollars and they were not required to pay it back. i don't understand what the issue is with students who go to school, are working in the national government, state government or local government, i work at a school. i will tell you this right now, there are people, you can tell them, they are nowhere near any school because they don't teach finance in school. you have to go to higher education for that. you have to take a loan out in order to learn about the money that you are taking out. ridiculous. host: all right, darius. let's go to the line for democrats. illinois, hi catherine. caller: there are a couple of issues. i've been listening to this ppp

program that allows corporations to be free, forgiven, however you want to say it, they don't have to pay the money back. student loan programs were designed to help people are poor and who got the student loans at these very high interest rates. and a student loan is not a car loan. if you don't pay it back, it stays with you forever. my husband had a student loan for our son. he doesn't have it anymore, because he died. that is how strict these student loans are. host: catherine, it's not only for poor people. the forgiveness plan would, say like a married couple making $250,000 a year would qualify.

caller: that's correct but people who have that money don't typically go after student loans. it's people who have no other way to go to college but to get a loan. similar to a person needing a car, the only way they can get a car is to go to a car dealer and be charged 16% or 17% interest so that they can have a car to go to work. this is not dealing with -- this is dealing with poverty. and the forgiveness of the ppp program allows rich people to be forgiven, so they can do their business. poor people, trying to make life better for themselves, trying to get an education, or are just trying to get a loan. to make a dream come true. host: let's talk to adam in springboro, ohio, republican. caller: good and thanks for taking my call. i thought earlier, jim from

illinois, nailed the supreme court decision. everything being unconstitutional or constitutional. and i believe the supreme court made a lot of correct decisions. the people in the united states are getting very extreme to both sides. and they are fighting for what they believe in. and they are not seeing the other side of things. i'm a conservative, especially when it comes to fiscal money and the government spending money. the woman who made a comment about par people taking loans, those loans are for everybody. the decision shouldn't be the loans. the decision should be should i go to college? the decision should be should i join the military or should i work for the government to get my college paid for? i think a lot of kids, a gentleman mentioned earlier, we are not teaching our children well enough in high school how

to be an adult. we are not teaching about credit cards and mortgages and how to pay for our house and whatnot. it is getting really bad. high school kids should be graduating high school and have some kind of idea about mortgages and credit cards and loans and student loans. if a kid is poor, a kid should try to go to the military or do other routes. i agree, i don't like the college loans myself. but it is a decision that they make and they signed the paper and they have to pay that back. i will let all of that go. i called because i am a conservative and i have a daughter that, she doesn't like to call herself one of the letters, she's just a girl who likes girls and that's all that is. i love her more than anything.

the decision on the graphic designer and the small business, i am extremely torn. i am a business type of mind, but have a gay daughter. if my gay daughter and her partner decide to get married and somebody is not going to do work for them, i would be upset about that. i would think the small business, the person has their rights to believe in what they want. they do not have to be forced to do that work. i would think that businessperson would come up with a better idea, something smarter like, i am booked up. it is bad business if you are discriminating against anybody. in the end, i believe the supreme court was 100% right on that decision. host: we are out of time for this segment. we are going to continue this conversation on open forum later in the program. if you did not get a chance to weigh in, you can do so later in

the program. next, clara germani and ira porter discuss the christian science monitor's legacy on slavery and reparations. national constitution center president and ceo jeffrey rosen discusses the centers we the people podcast and the many constitutional issues in the news. we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. july marks the 160th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. the gettysburg colleges civil war institute hosts its annual conference. 6:00 p.m. eastern, a geddes be -- gettysburg battlefield guide give insight on how whether impacted the battle.

on the presidency, historians re-examine the second edition of mr. gail's owes 1999 book, abraham lincoln, a reflection of the 16th president's on the debates of his time including religion and culture. exploring the american history. find a full schedule on your program guide or watch anytime on c-span.org/history. ♪ ♪ >> in 1814, attorney and author francis scott key wrote a song that would go on to become the national anthem of the united states. sunday on q and a, musicology and american culture professor mark plague this causes his book about the history and cultural impact to the star-spangled banner. [video clip] >> one of my big insights or beliefs about the song is that

it is a living document. it is not a frozen icon, not something static. it is constantly changing and brought to life in performance by people like jimi hendrix. every time we sing the song, we elevate questions and the tensions and the crisis and the hope that is in that song a new. >> mark plague with his book -- claig with his book sunday night on c-span's q and a. you can listen to q and a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. ♪ ♪ >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. where you can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed, a republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span.

unfiltered, unbiased, word forward. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to "washington journal." my guests are clara germani and ira porter at the christian science monitor. welcome to both of you. guest: thank you. host: i want to start with the series you are doing. it is called the reparations debate, mending the past, forging the future. clara kenna --clara, can you talk about the series and how are you going about studying this issue? guest: in the modern era of racial reckoning, particularly since george floyd, the momentum

of the reparations movement has increased. i think we were looking at california coming online this week with their two year task force that studied reparations for two years and came out with recommendations yesterday that ira reported on was our news peg for this. we decided a few months back to look at this globally. what i think we discovered in many ways, our reporting has been deep and global -- is that reparations, the temptation is to reduce reparations to pay back, to money. when you dig deeper, it has been redefined as more people get on the bandwagon. it can be everything from acknowledgment to apologies to commemorations.

yes, money. what we really discovered is community building, outreach, there is much more connection going on now and some of our stories included st. louis universities effort to identify descendants of slaves in building the st. louis university. we went to barbados and looked at their efforts, which are reaching back across the water for recompense. we looked at california's task force. my story was about white people and how they are changing their hearts. polls show 80% of white americans and a majority of all americans do not support reparations, but that is probably because they see it as money.

it is much more than that. i found all kinds of stories behind the headlines, where millions of dollars are transferring to the black community now. host: ira, let's start with the situation in california with that task force. how did, bart -- how did it come about and when did it first start? guest: the task force started two years ago. it was initiated by the governor of california, gavin newsom, and the state where they ask nine people, five of the people the governor selected and the rest were members -- members of the state assembly elected. what they did over the last two years was met with a bunch of economists, historians, scholars, lawyers and travel up and down the state of california speaking with everyday people. they had a lot of open forums. a lot of fiery escutcheon's.

what they did was try to address the harm that was done from slavery, although slavery really -- california was admitted to the union as a free state, but the racial discrimination that started from there. they also found documentations of the enslaved being brought to california during the gold rush. everything that trickled down from there in terms of the justice system to housing, education, employment. it culminated in an 1,100 page document with many different recommendations for things that can be put into place, policy going forward, not just monetary recommendations. host: we will take calls from

viewers. our lines are going to be regional this time. if you are in the eastern or central time zones, you can call us on (202) 748-8000. if you are in mountain or pacific, it is (202) 748-8001. you can also send us a text at (202) 748-8003. you can participate with us on facebook.com/c-span or on twitter. as far as administering reparations, how would that work? would it just be to the descendants of slaves? would you have to prove that, or would it be for all african-americans? guest: the way they have it set up is, anyone who can prove they were in california prior to the year 1900, that is how that would go. there is no specific dollar

amount, there were suggestions. in terms of the financial payments, it would be based on number of years lived in the state. host: sorry to cut you off. california was a free state, so how does that work? guest: right. it is not just for slavery. in their recommendation, they are talking about things like mass incarceration, redlining, housing discrimination, they are talking about a poor relationship with the police. they are talking about land seizures, things like -- they know families and businesses were terrorized by the kkk's presence in the state. they are talking about sundown towns in california. it is more than just -- you are right that california was a free

state, but racial discrimination, everything that is a derivative of -- and the enslaved were brought to california. host: clara, have their been any cost estimates done on this? about how much with this cost? california does not have a good economy right now. guest: yeah, well, with california ira knows more about the actual cost than i do. i would like to say that notion of, when people come to this and say, we did not have anything to do with slavery, that in fact -- the cascade of damage from slavery is the aha moment for many people changing their mind about reparations. lots of people i talked to said

there moment of aha was realizing the g.i. bill, which was for all veterans, black veterans could not access education and housing through that. host: why is that? was that a policy, that if you were a black g.i. you would not get the benefits of that bill? or, was it simply racism? guest: on paper, you could get those benefits. when you went to get loans in certain areas, you would be blocked. the education benefits, you could avail yourself of education benefits but a school not let you in because there were a certain number of black seats. so. that is when white people who did not it this education start -- did not get educated about

jim crow, modern prejudices and discrimination, that is where they are realizing, oh, my gosh. it may not be slavery, but it is the effects of slavery over time. host: ira, in 2021, evanston, illinois became the first city to approve of reparations for black residents. tell us how that worked. guest: it is everything you say. i cannot say i am really familiar with that. i know they approved it. i do not know what the amount was or anything like that. i think they were maybe the first city, i cannot member specifically if they were. host: clara, go ahead. guest: they were the first municipality to offer reparations in the form of money.

i am not closely familiar with the latest developments, but i know they were looking initially out trying to offer $10 million as i understand it. the law -- the poly was -- the policy was instituted years ago. it is a housing grant system in which people can get on the $5,000 grants -- can get $25,000 grants. host: let's start taking calls and see what our viewers are thinking. percy is first in norfolk, virginia. caller: good morning. host: go right ahead. caller: my name is percy tucker. i am in favor of reparations because of ongoing issues facing black men, such as myself.

i was subjected to jim crow growing up in the state of mississippi. in foster cross ration -- in incarceration. i got caught up in a drug conspiracy, did 30 years. in my investigation of eight years while incarcerated, i found that the government participated in the framing of myself into that conspiracy for drug trafficking. i fought my way out by a court appointed judge in indiana, who had a petition to order the government to -- why i was locked up. with the government learning the judge ordered, they transferred me to kentucky. so the judge hearing my petition

-- host: let's get a response. clara, do you want to take that as far as unjust incarceration? guest: i think that is one of the things that many groups from grassroots groups to -- in the state of california have taken into consideration in what they are hoping to make amends for, perhaps not individual bases. in a broad sense, by providing funding for community, development and education. host: walter is in bridgeton, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. before you get reparations, should you have to prove that you are a descendant of slaves?

or enslaved individuals? host: ira, you talked about that earlier. go ahead. guest: one of the things they have, it is a reparation to people able to demonstrate they are a descendant of either an enslaved african-american in the united states or free african-american living in the united states prior to the year 1900. that is what has been outlined for the recommendations. host: in california. guest: in california, yes. host: what is the significance of this happening in california? if this were to go through and there reparations paid, what do you expect? would there be a ripple effect of other states in the country? guest: one of the people i spoke with, reverend amos brown from the third baptist church in san francisco, he is one of the nine

task force members. that is what he hopes. he believes that california can be a leader on this and influence the way other states might know. he was particular in saying, that is why california had to get this right. it could not just be a dollar amount. he realized that is something that galvanized a lot of people. it had to be policies. it had to be something that would be long-standing and to combat the structural violence against black californians. actually, the other task force member i spoke with, a japanese-american and the only nonblack member of the task force, he spoke along the same lines, that this would be something that could be ho they had to get it right. host: go ahead, clara. guest: i can add to that.

in terms of the programs i have seen at a grassroots level in evanston, the qualifying as a descendant of slaves, proving it, is not something these other places are doing. if you are black, there is the presumption you have been discriminated against or will be. one thing i wanted to say about that proof of the ascendancy of the enslaved, one thing a lot of people talk about is how dna testing and the rise of digital archival research has become a huge tool for black americans who were unable to trace their background. that will make it easier in the case of the california. it has become a big tool of

leverage as evidence for reconciliation in reparation. host: talk to john in temple hills, maryland. hi, john. caller: there are three individuals, professor black truth and professor -- who label themselves the new black media. she has been asked about reparations because they have a large following and have opinions about reparations. they say it should be lineage based. president joe biden says it would only be for reparations if it included indians, too. why are all of these other groups wanting in on reparations that should be solely lineage based for descendants of american slaves? sheila jackson read is from the caribbean, but what does she have anything to do with it? you have other african people, they came to america willingly.

they should not have anything to say about reparations. they should be for foundational black americans, people who can trace their lineage back to slavery. why -- c-span to talk to professors. thank you. . guest: i do not know why c-span has an ask them. host: it is not about that part. guest: part of our series is talking about barbados leading the effort for reparations. reparations is not just something that is based in the united states. it is several places. the african diaspora is all over the world. i think that is one of the questions i had, what is to stop

people from not being the best version of themselves, for everyone to swoop into california and say, i am from california, i lived there for a month, cut me a check. i think this was a part of the reason that they had to make it so people either prove it or prove they were there before the year 1900, maybe to prevent people from not being the best version of themselves. if you only think -- i am going to get a check and have money in my pocket, to make it official and make it some kind of way we can determine, and as clara was saying, may be dna in all of those things can help that. host: go ahead, clara. guest: i would add to that, i am stepping out slightly. i would say that most black

people in the western hemisphere probably -- no matter where they are -- probably have descended from some sort of enslaved situation. it is worth noting that 12 million people were transported across the atlantic in the slave trade. only 300,000 of them initially were to the united states. the rest were to the caribbean and brazil. host: clara, you touch on public opinion about this topic earlier. in 2021, the pew research center put out a poll on this and found 70% of black respondents supported reparations for descendants of enslaved people. 18% of white respondents saying that. it is a big difference. our you seeing a shift in that, and what are the main reasons people are against it? guest: the first reason -- one

thing you hear often from people who just automatically here reparations and think money is that we were not involved in slavery, that was 200 years ago, it is not our fault. what is changing their mind is those all ha moments i talked about before, where reparations programs and race educators and news media and everyone are informing the public a little bit more on things that are not taught in school, specifically about the discrimination and injustice. i talked to quite a few -- i was really surprised to find the movement among churches doing things.

right there in washington, d.c., you've got the episcopal diocese which has decided they are going to give reparations. host: these are predominantly white churches. guest: the episcopal church is white, but does have a black constituency. they are going to give back to the community. there is -- the head of their task force is peter jarrett shell, he has written a book about reparations. he is the head of their task force and he calculates that they owe 15% of their assets. keep in mind that the assets of that diocese include the national cathedral, which is probably a $100 million property in the middle of washington. host: let's talk to david in

california. caller: good morning, how are you doing? i am a resident of chula vista and i am interested in what the task force did. one of them went to the state and the taxpayer and a registered voter. i did not know about this task force until a couple of months ago. i have seen an article about the work that stockton and san francisco is doing, potentially $5 million per lack resident is the recommendation. i looked at that and saw the task force. i would recommend anybody that is interested in what the task force is doing is go to the task force website. oag.ca.gov/ab3121. they have done an immense amount of work. on that website are videos from numerous meetings, meeting

notes, the subject matter experts came into to talk about different topics. you can see the diversity of the topics they discussed prior to finalizing the report that will now go to the legislature. some of the information you have talked about, i may get some of this off because i have just downloaded about the 1100 page report and going through it. one has to do with the monetary compensation. the task force looked at the monetary laws on different areas such as health harms, mass incarceration, over policing, african-american housing discrimination, and determined if a californian had been living in the state during certain period's of time, there would be a certain monetary amount that would have been lost. the recommendation to the legislature is not that

legislature prove that amount of money, but look at how much money are they going to approve for the monetary compensation to individuals for the money that they lost. host: let's get a response. go ahead, ira. guest: i think everything david is saying is true. everyone should check out the task force and look at the videos and what they are proposing. that is something members of the task force are serious about. clara mentioned this too, the education part of it. they talked about how that had to be a big part of changing minds and softening hearts. otherwise you would look at it as an aggrieved people getting money they do not deserve. clara spoke about the g.i. bill. one of the task members i spoke to talked about how he thought he had a good idea of american history and how working on this

task force over the last year and reading all of these documents and speaking to all these experts a fan a different -- gave him a different outlook on everything. he talked about how we all hear about tulsa, oklahoma, and what happened there but it happened in so many other places. he talked about neighborhoods like sugar hill and the sugar hill neighborhood in los angeles, what happened there and the seizure of land. he talked about his own family and how his family lost land in japanbut they really wanted peoo educate themselves. we live in a world know where a lot of people do not want to talk about race, where they ran box and punish -- they ban books and punish librarians. they want to make this a part of

the education of not just californians, but everyone. host: speaking of education, reparations was one of the topics governor desantis in florida did not want in the ap american -- african-american history class. what are your thoughts on that? guest 1: exactly. that is one of the things they talked about just the fact that there is a attack on history essentially. they do not want people to know the truth of what happened. as i said the only way to get around that is to confront it . otherwise, you will have everyone, as mr. tamaki said, looking at it as "these people just want money>"

that is a -- just want money." that is one of the reasons many people are against it. in this country if you work hard life will be good, and everything will go your way. over time, what they discover and what a lot of people know is that that is just not the case. in following this, you hear all these comments about the to let trias -- about the deleterious effects of this number on the budget of california, but on the others a history of improper housing, unemployment, education, living in communities with toxic chemicals that have truncated the lives of black

people in those communities, that was harmful also. host: lou is in portland, oregon. caller: this is a great program. i have two short questions and then a comment. the questions will be about the christian science monitor. it sounds like the paper itself may have endorsed reparations. portland gray panthers were a local activist chopper -- chapter supporting reparations. one of the questions for the christian science monitor is about boycotts. there's a boycott against walmart to protest gun violence.

we think california's efforts for reparations are great things. jones used to work at the oregonian, and has since moved on to better positions,s but has, better positions, but as a history teacher myself, if people believe that history happened "a long time ago," how is it that the government is responsible for it now? those unpaid workers, slaves, were responsible for building the country. expanding the reparations movement to other states.

oregon has a mixed record on slavery, despite being a western state. a navy vet, a post office -- the history part is central to social justice overall. that is my comment. if either christian science monitor people would like to say something, whether the paper itself endorses boycotts that also seem to address current issues like gun violence, that would be great. host: go ahead, clara. guest 2: the monitor is a news organization, and we are not surprising or not supporting -- are not supporting or not g supporting reparations.

from the reporting that i did when history becomes personal, particularly modern history, and people can see how they connect to it, that is when parts begin to change. i have seen a number of churches choose to give money back on the road. i talked to a dozen -- back on their own. i talked to a dozen churches. they gave money back when they realized that their church profited off of the money of founders who were slaveowners or through redlining, when they were building their churches. there are a number of things that people becoming aware of that their own close activity has been touched by

discrimination. it may not be slavery, but it is something modern, and they get touched by. host:host: i want to show a portion of an our bed printed in the hill.com. this is -- an op-ed prin the hill.com. "the entire issue orations debases the achievement of lacks throat h of blacks throughout history. repations assumed the fate of black america can be determined by what white americans do or feel to do. en bck americans had no political representation into suffered income growth disparities compared to whites, we filled hotels, created insurance -- we built hotels,

created insurance companies, and raised families." caller: talking about -- guest 1: talking about black communities pulling themselves up by their bootstrapss is important. what is important -- the reparations debate is needed because you cannot get away from what a history of structural violence has done to african-americans in this country. it has been proven. from all of the things we spoke about in terms of education, housing, redlining, the state -- the relationship we have with the police, mass incarceration.

it is great -- you cannot get away from the fact of the transfer of wealth in the gi bill and how that built generational wealth for everyone except for black americanss. you can use different examples. in california there is the example of men had an beach. a couple in manhattan beach, california owned a resort for black los angelinos to get away, and that was seized from them in 1924. although they were not the only family to have that land seized,

there were black families and white families, but from the governor down to spoke about the fact that it was particular that them being black was part of the reason that their land was seized. kind of doing the right thing, that eliminated generational wealth for their grandchildren who ultimately sold the land back to the county for $20 million. that was wiped away. that is one example. it is all good to say that black people have done this. we don't need white people to give reparations. but it needs to be done by the government. it was done by the government for japanese-americans in the late 80's. you cannot say this country, the richest country in the history of the world, which was built on the back of black free labor,

that it did not get to be that way without it, and not look at how that could have had detrimental effects with generations of black people in this country. guest 2: i like what president obama has said in the past about it. he thinks that reparations are justified, but they may not be practical in the way they are being discussed in some places. i think that sees ability and how we go about this is the next battle. once you have decided reparations are justified you then have the next battle of how are you going to do it? a very high figure of $20

million, and you think for everyone of the millions of fences and uses, that sort of figure seems almost impossible. but once you start saying reparations are due, sees ability will be worked out at some point. host: ira mentioned the civil liberties act that gave reparations to iigrants of japanese anctrafter world war ii. they were incarcerated din that war. here is some inforti on that. it grants a redress of $20,000 and a formal presidential apology to every legal resident of japanese ancestry that was incarcerated during world war ii. that was signed into law in 1988 by president reagan.

caller: thank you so much for the topic of reparations, and thank you for your guests. i think reparations is a great idea and a great gesture for the u.s. government to do. i think they should do something similar to what they did for the japanese-americans. the term itself means "the act of making amends, or acknowledging a wrong." a simple apology for starters would do until plans could be made to take care of all of the wrongs that have been done. just acknowledging a wrong from the government is a first start. i think a simple apology, as i have said, is a great start, along with setting up an organization to serve black

americans instead of making personal giftss. money is a wonderful thing, but it cannot justify the brutality of slavery. what i think we should do is something similar to what we did for the jewish-americans in setting up an organization like b'nai b'rith or similar to what they have done in livingston, illinois, or what they have done for the japanese-americans, because what reparations really means is "i'm sorry for what i 've done. i want to make it better." guest 2: i would like to say

that our project at csmoni tor.com/reparations has an array of things to read about how reparations is being approached from many different angles. host: ira, we have a tweet from mlb who says this. "how do address the fact that it will be hard for descendants of past enslaved people in america to provide the documentation they need? prior to the civil war human beings -- war enslaved human beings were considered property, and did not have birth or death records." guest 1: in the state of california, they have figured out a way.

people will be able to get this information. like i said the lineage that you were before the year 1900. i would like to add something because i forgot to mention it. your caller from maryland was talking about apologyan -- about an apology. that is key in california. one of the things is they want a formal apology written into the state constitution, and lean into it, acknowledge that this happened, say we are sorry and trying to make amends going forward and make it more than a careless whisper. that goes along way. the idea that reparations is more than just money, that will kill it before it takes off.

that is where they want to implement policy lunches. the possibility of free college, so people can get a marketable skill and get a job that will pay them a living wage, and they can build one for themselves, state subsidized mortgages that guarantee block qualified homeowners can get low interest rates to build generational wealth. these are programs they envision to go forward and enrich people's lives, that are humane, that it seems everyone had, in the apology is what starts at. that is necessary moving forward. if i painted the picture as they

only want money, i don't want to do that. all of the people i spoke with know in terms of reaching across the aisle and getting people on board with this, it will take more than saying cut a check. if you give people pockets full of money, that does not stop the structural violence. that does not stop animosity between black americans and the police. that does not address mental health concerns. that does not get people to participate in voting, and really participate in the government and how the country is run. these recommendations are what they thought would make the sees

bowl and make people look to california and say "this is something we could work with." host: good morning, rashad. caller: i am enjoying the topic. your panelists are very educated in their area. what is the issue is we are divided as a whole. african-americans, black, whites have separated, people as a whole. as americans we should look at each other on a level playing field. what has happened is the whole transatlantic slave trade is told was backwards. europeans, once they came here,

transported us from this continent to different segments of africa and spain and europe. the smithsonian's and congress have a great deal of information -- for instance, whites, blacks, coloreds, people were given these titles that separate us as a whole. i think the traumas that -- how do you make up for psychological trauma? how do we make up for that? host: clara, any comments?

guest 2: i think that is what is being recognized in the wide array of what reparations is doing. there's nothing that can be done at this point about what happened 300 years ago but at this moment, the cascade of what happened to people after slavery can definitely be addressed thr ough the wide array of what is happening with reparations. host: cj from minneapolis, minnesota. caller: i was born in 1957, and on my birth certificate i was labeled a negro. during that time i did not know anything about jim crow. i thought jim crow was a person. moving right along, i went into

the navy. when i got out, i got -- i could not even get a job. here i am a veteran. the guys in my classroom got the jobs, and they were white. they would not even hire me, and this was in the 80's. if you want to trace the jim crow era, black people were labeled negroes. i did newman know i had a country until i left my country -- i didn't even know i had a country until i left my country. abroad, i was called in american. at home i was called everything but an american. guest 1: i'm sorry that happened to you. i can believe that, that happened to you, and the trauma and everything from that. i think that is what people are

wrestling with, with all of this. there was a century f jim cro -- century of jim crow after reconstruction. we know about vagrancy laws. we know about pretty much trying to prevent people from voting. we know about lynching. that is what this addresses. you cannot detrimental -- you cannot get away from all of this, how detrimental it has been. people say reparations will never happen because this percentage of people is against it. for the piece i reported in california, they knew people would say all of these things, but that still doesn't mean you don't study it.

you get this done, you put it out there, and you let people adjust it and educate themselves on it, and that is how we go forward. they had a task to do, and they did it. they agreed on the best way going forward in these recommendations. they feel like they were thoughtful with these recommendations. they tried to be transparent. if nothing else, saying that this is a study we did, if we are going to take this seriously, here is where we start, and it can change, it can grow. people can have different input. the fact that it might cost a lot can stop us from doing it. the fact that it is not popular can stop us from doing it. it is needed. the conversation is needed, not just by people in california, but everywhere.

the hope for them was that california could jumpstart a conversation among other states. host: that series is at csmonitor.com/reparations. thank you for being on the program today. guest 1: thank you for having us. host: coming up, it is our spotlight on podcasts segment. we will have for this fourth of july weekend, the national constitution center president jeffrey rosen. that podcast is called we the people. first we will have more of your calls, back to our original question this morning for your reaction on the two supreme court rulings from yesterday.

you can start calling in now. the numbers are on your screen by party affiliation. we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv exploring the people in the events, that tell the american story. july marks the 160th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, and the gettysburg college institute -- jeffrey harding and john nease give insight into how weather impacted the battle. lucas morel and richard brooke heiser examine the second edition of mr. gail's own's -- mr. gelso's book.

exploring the american story, watch american history tv every weekend. find full schedule on your program guide or online anytime at c-span.com/history h. >> nonfiction book fans, c-span has podcasts for you. on q and a, here wide ranging conversations with journalists and authors. we regularly feature fascinating nonfiction authors on a wide array of topics. we take you -- find oliveira podcasts by downloading the free -- find all of our podcasts by

downloading e free c-span now app. >> celebrate independence day during our july 4 sale going on right now at c-span shop.org. save up to 35% on a c-span red white and blue products. there is something for every c-span fan. scan the code on your right to shop during the c-span shop's fourth of july sale going on right now at c-spanshop.org. >> watch video on demand anytime online at c-span.org, and try our points of interest feature, a timeline tool that uses markers to quickly guide you to interesting highlights of our coverage. . >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this.

it looks like this where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed and the public thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased,, word for word from the nation's capital, to wherever you are because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back to washington journal. for about the next 15 minutes i will be taking your calls about your reaction to the two supreme court decisions yesterday. one on the website designer who only wanted to do heterosexual couples, did not want to do wedding designing websites for

same-sex couples and, the other was striking down president biden's student loan forgiveness program. we we'll go straight to your calls. debbie is in philadelphia, democrat. caller: i am responding to somebody who called who kept stating that president biden did this for votes. these are politicians! they all do things for votes! you had a lady call in earlier said she was going to vote for trump again because of the appointments he made on the supreme court. that was for a vote! i am real concerned about any young folks were listening to the callers on c-span. i am going to say the majority of them are seniors, because they say they are seniors. where are the adults in the room?

i am learning that being an adult does not mean you are grown-up. i and disappointed in some of the information that comes out of these seniors. host: debbie, i have a question for about the merits of the loan forgiveness. what did you think about that? do you agree with how the supreme court ruled on it? guest: i disagree. this is why i disagree -- you have taxpayers who put money into this system that goes all across this globe. to help other people and you have no say so on that. when it comes down to the taxes that we pay into the system to help the people who pay the money into the system that goes all across the globe, we don't

want to help the people here. that is amazing to me. i am going to say this -- if all of this money just went to white folks, you would not have a problem. these white folks think that the constitution mean white folks. you are not fooling me. host: jim is in texas. caller: i of course went to college like millions and millions of other folks, and i never took out a loan. i did it by working, as well as by studying at the same time. host: what year was that, jim. guest: anyway -- caller: anyway, my aunt gave me money one time. host: i have a question for you.

how much did your college cost when you went to college? caller: approximately $20,000. host: today, it is so much more. caller: i know that, but that is not the point. the point is you can do it without a loan. you can actually do it without a loan. there are a lot of times when you have to eat peanut butter sandwiches, but that does not make a bad. that just makes it worth it. i think everybody should be more responsible. that is the word, responsible, ok? host: ok. in new york, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. as far as the school goes, i feel for the students today. as you said, college is an

incredible cost, probably a lifetime of savings for most people. the thing that bothers me is they don't attack the system. the capitalism, which is uncontrolled in this country, which makes universities, even public schools like the medical system and everything else a business rather than something that everybody should be able to have. we have endowments and universities that are savings accounts for the universities. some of them earn up to $1 billion a year, and their tax-free. you should make education affordable. you should make it free like many other nations provided. that way it allows students who have capability, regardless of their color or background to achieve an education where they can give back to the community. education should not be a business.

they should be something provided to them for the benefit of our country, our nation, and our future. that is how they should look at it. they should look at the business factor. it doesn't divide people with wealth that can have things as opposed to people who cannot have things. host: sherry is next, an independent in portsmouth, virginia. caller: hi there. i sounded the first juneteenth event here in hampton roads -- i founded the first juneteenth event here in hampton roads. we look back on our history, because this is where america was founded in 1607 in

jamestown. what we want to do is get people talking. what we do is we help people see . then we have conversations about this difficult history, and the way to move forward. we want to recommend that folks find a juneteenth organization in your local community. the national juneteenth observation foundation is available to help you do that. we have chapters all over the country networking to make sure we can get this message out. we walked for 2 million votes for juneteenth to become a federal holiday and president biden signed it into legislation a few years ago. we when to set up a network in terms of getting these reparations out into the

community. the folks will most benefit from what we are talking about is a way to make sure this is accessible. reconstruction after the civil war did not work. it lasted about a decade and did not work. we ended up with the rise of the kkk and jim crow into the 20th century. in virginia we want people to understand the roots of this history as way of understanding why reparations are so important. i hope people will understand we are at a tipping point. host: gordon is in plain city, florida. caller: i am a constituent of a new republican between tampa and orlando. i contacted her office and made her aware that i am a member of

allen colleges group. i told her that black americans have twice the student debt. black americans have three times the default rate. , other republicans, not her, but other republicans are complaining that the taxpayers are paying for the students. the lawmakers, especially scott franklin, and virginia foxx -- virginia foxx is a nice woman, but she has done nothing to eliminate or reduce the tax dollars in the first place. these students have no choice in the matter, because we already had a shortage of doctors and nurses. the only thing to make the subsidy guts is to return -- forcing the department of education more responsible and more reluctant to lend out.

everyone on all sides agreed that that is not a long-term solution. article one, section eight, clause four, some heavyweight conservatives -- they don't like the taxpayer getting fleeced ans. black americans are getting crushed more than anyone and lawmakers of both parties, our republicans had in their -- those parties are dishonest and i am asking representative laurel lead to support bankruptcy legislation. host: gordon, we got your point. i went to show you an article

from cnn.com about the other case that was handed down. it says, " colorado web designer told supreme court a man sought her services for his same-sex wedding. he says h didn't and he is straight." " the colorado web designer who just won her case of the supreme court had claimed in a court filing that a man inquired about her service for a same-sex wedding, but the man said he never reached out to lorie smith. the web designer who argued at the supreme court that she should not be able to -- in fact, the man says he is straight and married to a woman. the man is identified as stewart in court filings and as someone who requested graphic design for invitations and other materials for his same-sex wedding. stuart was contacted.

he asked for his last name not to be used. glenda is in kansas city, missouri, democrat. caller: i disagree with every last one of those, and the reason therefore is no one has called in and talked about the loan forgiveness that business owners got from ppp loans. no one has talked about how rich business owners got no taxes to pay, and we are talking about loan forgiveness. biden has not said he was forgiving loans. he said he was canceling $20,000 for some loans and $10,000 for low income student borrowers. they are not forgiving anyone's

entire loan. i paid that people are calling in here with propaganda, trying to convince people that biden is doing this for votes. politicians do everything for votes. host: got it. maurice is in michigan, independent. caller: good morning. i have been listening to the c-span for quite a few years now. the problem is the supreme court has decided to follow the rules of the constitution, and all of the whiners, who are continually crying for our help about everything because they do not do a days work, that is all it

amounts to. everyone who is calling in once an excuse for doing nothing and trying to get on the gravy train off of government dole. host: how do you say that, maurice, that people are not working and just want government handouts? guest: they are not working in the sense of thinking about how to survive in capitalist system. these people want a free ride. they are whiners, they all are. they are wasting everybody's time. it is a sickness that politics thrives on. host: let's go to minnesota next. jacob is a republican. caller: first time caller. host: welcome. caller: i put pen to paper and signed my name on it, whether my debt is forgiven or not, i don't

know. what i do know is that i can afford to pay my loan. host: let's talk to eileen next. caller: good morning. my over some of these -- my skin is crawling over some of these comments about people being whiners. the whiners were the farmers who took millions. i am a soybean farmer. we did not get any money from trump when he was handing out aliens. the 00 handing out -- handing out billions. senator grassley got half $1 million. he. $500,000 from trump's soybean bailout.

when the old people say the young people are lazy, maybe they should look at all of the money that the wealthy people get. that is all i have to say today. host: richard, bethlehem, pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call, first of all. i would like to talk about the endowments. i went through this the other week. harvard has $50 billion. yale, $41 billion. princeton, $21 billion. they are getting rich off of these pell grants. th college todaya ist $46,000. we need an investigation into how all these loans are given

out. a a lot of people go to college, and they never get a degree. you have to figure out what kind of degrees are helpful. i got an art degree. what will that do for you? that is about all i have to say about that. host: richard was our last caller for open forum. up next is our weekly spotlight on podcastss segment. jeffrey rosen discusses the center's we the people podcast and the many constitutional issues in the news. stay with us. ♪ >> since 1979 in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided full coverage of the halls of congress from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party

briefings, and committee hearings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are decided, with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> former president theodore roosevelt died on january 6, 1919. elliott hazel grove in's book chose to focus on the last 2 years of his life. it is called "the last a of the roughriders." he covers roosevelt's efforts to make another roughriders regiment.

>> william hazel grove and his book the last charge of the roughriders on book notes. ♪ >> book tv, every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. live at noon, francis fukuyama, author of thend of history returns to book tv's in-depth t take calls about politics, international affairs and liberalism. at 7:00 p.m. bethany berkshire explores what it means when we villain eyes certain animals -- villainize certain animals. watch online at any time at book tv.org.

>> washington journal continues. host: welcome back to washington journal. it is our weekly spotlight on podcasts, segment and i'm joined by jeffrey rosen. he is ceo of the national constitution center. he also hosts the podcast we the people. welcome to the program. guest: it is great to be back. host: there is a lot to talk about, obviously, but i want to start with the podcast itself and the national constitution center. can you tell us a little bit about both of those? guest: i am so excited to share the podcast with c-span viewers because it is mission aligned with what c-span is trying to do. each week i call out a liberal and conservative scholar to meet the constitutional issues in the news. we have had episodes on the

voting rights case, and the trump prosecutions and we take up issues from a historical point of view,, questions like hamilton versus jefferson, who was right? or should we break up with the founders? we have thinkers of different perspectives, and i moderate, and i learned so much. our viewers do as well. you can have an informed opinion about the complicated constitutional issues the court is deciding. we really delve in. i ask the listeners to read the opinions themselves, if they are down and listen to the arguments on both sides and make up their mind.s it is a rich way of learning about the constitution. it is very hard. these people often vigorously

disagree over the constitutional merits, but they are civil, and sometimes people change their minds or come to unexpected places of agreement. check it out. host: the national constitution center is a nonpartisan nonprofit. what is the mission? guest: thank you so much for asking. i begin every episode of the podcast by reciting the mission. the national constitution center is the only institution in america chartered by congress to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among american people on a nonpartisan basis. on those inspiring words? they come from a charter that congress passed during the biden send -- the bicentennial of the constitution. congress created this magnificent national treasure, which is a private nonprofit,

even though it was chartered by congress. it receives very little government money. we are privately funded. it is on independence mall in philadelphia with some of the most inspiring constitutional views in america. you are in this grand room with the words of the first amendment, shimmering behind you. it is so incredibly inspiring to be on that constitutionally sacred space. we have exhibits for kids, live theater, rare copies of the constitution, the bill of rights, and the declaration. superb exhibits about the civil war, reconstruction, the 19th amendment, the first amendment. you have to come if you are in philly. it is an amazing educational platform on the internet.

if you go to constitution center.org, you will find the interactive constitution, and does just what the podcast does. it brings together conservative and liberal scholars to bait every quorum of the constitution. click on the first amendment, do you will find justice amy coney barrett writing about the habeas corpus clause with neil catch out, who just went on to -- 80 causes of the constitution -- there are so many exciting things you can find online. there's also a constitution 101 class that is free. founding principles, how do interpret the constitution,

slavery and the constitution, the 14th amendment. lesson plans for teachers, and primary sources from a founders library of texts selected by conservative and liberal scholars from the declaration, to the virginia bill of rights, to the classical greek and roman authors who inspired the authors -- roman writers who inspired the authors. once again, you can make up your own mind. this is all on the interactive constitution, the crown jewel of -- the shining star of our constitutional offerings for learning of all ages is that we the people podcast. that is why i am glad you are highlighting that today. host: i will remind our viewers

they can start calling and if they have questions for jeffrey rosen, the national constitution center. the lines are by party, so democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you briefly mentioned this, it is the independent legislature theory case. if you could explain that, it is a little complicated, but it is very impactful on elections. guest: i can explain it because we just published this week a we the people podcast episode on it. we brought together judge michael wooding are and judge lytic. judge alluded is conservative former appellate judge. he opposed the theory. evan gornick is a professor of

the northern illinois law school. he is a libertarian who wrote a book about the original understanding of the constitution. let me explain as well as i can the strong version of the independent state legislature theory, which the supreme court rejected by a vote of 6-3 with chief justice roberts and justice kavanaugh and justice barrett joining the liberals in rejecting the theory. it says because article one of the constitution gives the power to said election rules to state legislatures, the word legislature only means legislature. it does not mean the acts of a legislature as reviewed by state courts and restrained by state constitutions, because legislature means legislature. a legislature after a presidential election has been

held can change its mind and flip the election, and give the victory to trump rather than biden, and that legislature cannot be constrained by a state court. that is the very strong version of the theory. the court rejected that. it is an important opinion that begins by reaffirming the principle of judicial review, which goes back to madison. it proceeded the framing of the constitution, and was assumed to be central 12 of the framers. the idea that all bodies are constrained by a constitution -- then chief justice roberts runs through the methods of constitutional representation.

history and original understanding of expectations as well as practice over time and in all of these cases he says this is a clear case. no one has ever suggested that legislatures would be free of constitutional constraints. on the contrary, state courts did review thes actions of state legislatures and elections at the time of the framing. states passed amendments to their constitutions emphasizing these constitutional restraints. we have always assumed state -- for an originalist, structure and expectations all counsel for rejecting the theory. host: why is this so significant though? what has the -- had the court not rejected this theory, what

kind of impact could that have had on our elections? guest: the strongest impact within the hypothetical that i raised, which is after the next election, say republican legislators -- say biden won again and the florida state legislature did not like the fact that biden won. they could simply take the electors away from biden and give them to trump, even though the people had voted the other way, and florida supreme court would not be able to say that was a clear violation of election law, because nobody could review the state legislature's decision to do whatever it likes in the context of election. that is the most extreme version of the theory. host: were you expecting them to reject that? that come as a surprise -- did

that come as a surprise? guest: i try not to have too many expectations, because i'm not allowed to have any opinions of my own. i did like many people feel like after the arguments there was widespread skepticism about the strong version of the theory, which many of the justices expressed sympathy for your argument. they were joined by justice alito on the technical question -- in host: let's talk about the affirmative case and he kind of impact it could have on colleges and maybe even more as far as businesses and their diversity practices and things like that. guest: once again, i will plug,

because that is what i am here to do, our great podcasts on the affirmative action case. william jeffries and william allen, conservative african-american scholars, stabbed the argument on both sides. they said the central legal question is whether the constitution is colorblind and how colorblind it is. in the opinion, justice thomas and jackson disagreed strongly about whether the framers of the 14th amendment, which is a relevant tax issue here, intended to prevent all circumstances or whether the history as justice jackson suggested, indicates a positive support for african-american and -- freedmen's bureau was pastoring the reconstruction, and that caused a significant shift in history. chief justice roberts wrote for the majority and stressed that

although colleges are not allowed to make decisions based on racial categories, they may encourage africans to write essays, discussing the way that their race impacted their efforts to overcome adversity or challenges. chief justice roberts stressed that the race has to be tied to a particular achievement or challenge. it cannot generically say that i overcame adversity because of my race. therefore, it remains to be seen how admissions officers will accompany a new rule. already, there is speculation that applicants will be encouraged to emphasize their race and how it is affecting their life story in their essays, and people who disagree about how much that will require universities to change with what they are doing, but universities

will genuinely -- generally adhered to the ruling that has to do with the next admission cycle, soon. you asked about employment, and this is an interesting question. title vi of federal law governs education. title vii governs the private workplace. in this opinion, the majority didn't explicitly talk about the relationship between the statutory and constitutional provisions, but justice gorsuch did, and he emphasized that in his view, title vi and title vii had the exact same standards as the constitution, and in his view, title vi and title vii require colorblindness and don't allow race consciousness. he cited back to the liberals and opinion that he had joined with the liberals where he had said that the discrimination,

because of sex and title vii, it includes sexual orientation. justice gorsuch said that implied race. you cannot discriminate because of race, and no racial classification. what is the practical implication of this? it could mean that private employers are just as constrained from engaging in race conscious hiring as universities are. that would be a change because current federal law allows more discretion for higher race consciousness, especially if they are remedying general discrimination in a particular industry. that could be re-examined as well in light of the affirmative action decision, though details remain to be seen. lots of litigation ahead. this addresses a question of university, race consciousness, and whether government action across the range of state activities has to be colorblind.

>> we will remind viewers of our phone lines. we will start taking calls shortly. on the case, this was for universities, higher education institutions, but there was an exception for military academies. does the constitution support that exception? guest: it was a footnote in 2022. you are right. it did, of course, in a strong which already of the support, six justices, they said there can be a military exception. i think the rationale was that the court noted there are two circumstances in which racial classification can be justified. first, you are remedying past discrimination, and second, you

are trying to avoid imminent danger whether there is an urgent national necessity, often involving violence that would justify a racial classification, and the court says imprisons, you can sometimes be race conscience if you are trying to avoid rights -- rights. there can be a similar thought that you need combat readiness to have an effective military, and the military, and his judgment has decided that a diverse officer force is related to combat readiness and it might meet the second exception. host: let's take some calls. henry in michigan. good morning. caller: i'd like to bring focus into the two topics we've had in the morning. we listen to phone calls, we've had a lot of emotion, but we missed a lot of relevant legal

and constitutional facts and reality. reparations was one of the conversations. and then, the supreme court had a recent ruling. that was the other topic we've discussed. i'd like mr. rosen to try and help expand and clarify some of the things we've missed this morning on both of those topics. in reparations, it was cited that 17% of whites don't believe in reparations because they feel like we didn't have anything to do with that. it happened a long time ago. what i would like to talk about is standing, and i'd like to talk about civil war resolution where the lincoln administration used as one of its resolutions the pavement -- payment of slaveowners for their lost chattel. the lost property which were slaves. that was for reparations.

now let's move over to the supreme court decisions that were made. they also deal with standing and the law. the first has to do with the colorado case. i want mr. rosen to explain how the supreme court could possibly have given lisa smith or whatever the woman's name was standing when she does not have an established business. she is thinking about being a designer. she doesn't actually have a business. they've also cited that the person that she said contacted her disputes that. that is about standing. there is no standing as far as i am concerned. now, let's go to the next and last point i want to make and that is president biden's student debt loans. first of all, statute.

the hero's was what the president-based his wanting to forgive the loans or cancel parts of the loans. the heroes act states that in an emergency situation, pandemic, the secretary of education has the authority to modify or to forgive certain financial instruments or agreements during the thing. that is what president biden was basing his rationale for forgiving the loans. >> we have a lot to go through. let's get a response. guest: great question. well described. i am going to focus on your last question. there is a lot there. on the question of standing and student loans.

what i'm going to encourage you to do is read the opinion. the justices can explain it better than i can. these opinions are written for us. people citizens. we don't need to be a lawyer or a professor. what is the opinion on standing? call it up, and we can't do it together in real time, but read the majority opinion. read the dissent and make up your own mind. that is the mission at the constitution center is to inspire the reading of the primary tax. justin kagan, as we skip to the strong -- objection, is very explicit about that. she agrees with you that there is no standing, and she disagrees with the court. in particularly, she focused on the entity in missouri that has created -- which is called mo.

an instrumentality to further the public purpose, and to administer student loans. justice kagan asked a central question. why isn't there an objection that the student loan debt was canceled. she said they are not party to the case. they have not followed a briefing on the case. it is because they don't believe that they have suffered an injury. the majority theory had to pay more to collect less fees if the debt was canceled. she said that was not enough to convince them to join the case, and whatever injury they suffered, at the state created corporation, it is in no way shared by the citizenry of missouri or the state as a whole. she agrees with you that is a manufactured case, and that is therefore something strong she said in her opinion. this struck me when i read this.

she said, this court violates the constitution by assigning this case. the constitution permits courses to deal with controversies to decide something that is not a real active case or controversy. it is exceeding its constitutional authority. those are strong words. it is important to note that only three justices joined that position, and the majority of the supreme court held that there was standing in the case because there was a state created entity that would allow a concrete injury in losing the fees they would collects, and that -- collect that would cause standing. but read the decision. the justices are writing for all of us. it is thoughtful to use your civic responsibility to listen to the arguments on both sides, and to do that is great. >> also, it was asked about this

the ending in the colorado case. we have a tweet from aubrey who says, is it true that we reached the merits without a legitimate case or controversy? a web designer in question wasn't actually sued by anybody. >> this is interesting. i just searched the opinion for standing, and in that quick search that i'm doing in that time, i didn't see that as an issue in the case, so i must be missing something, but they did dissent strongly but didn't object to standing. i just heard that interesting report that you raised about whether or not the president was involved in the case. whether they were gay or not, but that wasn't available to the justices at the time. again, i will read this more closely to have a podcast on it so i can hear the best arguments on both sides before i can be

confident about this, but the real objection is that this is a kind of manufactured case. people were trying to establish religious exemption when looking for a plaintiff, and they may have reached out to create a controversy in a way that would not have existed if there wasn't an effort for litigation. that happens not infrequently at the supreme court, and both sides may look for plaintiffs to establish a constitutional argument. it does not mean that there is not standing, but there is a broader question about reaching out to decide controversies that are not settled in order to change a log. that is an important part of this debate on the justices right now. host: let's go to maine, dan on the republican line. good morning.

caller: hello. i want to talk about -- i'm sorry to disrupt your train of lot with what you are talking about, but it was very interesting. i want to talk about what is currently before congress. it is called the ukrainian victory resolution. it is in both the house and the senate. subcommittees of foreign affairs or not sure what it is in, but it is into proper committees in congress. the ukrainian resolution victory resolution talks about a bunch of things, and one of them is to -- that the united states will join with ukraine to ensure that they get back all the territory lost by the russians. but to the resolution, if you read it, if people would take a look at it and read it, it sounds very red white and blue, and this is something we ought to do, but if you read john

quincy adams speech on july 4, 1821, which is what i would ask people to read, is a rebuttal to the ukrainian victory resolution. in it, he talks about -- he refers to the united states as she. she will commend a general cause and account of her voice and the benign sympathy of her example. and it goes on to talk she might become dictator of the world. she would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit. that speaks to what this resolution is all about, and i am opposed against the opinion of john quincy adams speech which you probably do not have memorize.

>> i am so glad you mentioned this. john quincy adams is one of the great founders, son of the founder with a crystal vision of the importance of using our reason to master the unreasonable passion so that we can serve others, and he became a leading opponent of the gag rule and one of the leading abolitionists of his time, and it is such a crowning voice for constitutionalism, and the speech is great, and you are so much in the spirit of reading the primary text. i think we have the speech at the national constitutional centers founding library, and we are just reading from it now. he said, let our answer be this, just as you read from it. with the same voice that spilled itself into existence as a nation should proclaim to

mankind the only lawful foundation of government. an assembly of nations that has invariably and often fruitlessly held forth to be honest with a friendship of equal freedom of generous reciprocity, they were talking about the importance of abstaining in the interference of others, which he served together. he served under president munro, and he emphasized the importance of independence and neutrality, and interference. how that applies to ukraine, i just like the fact that you made that connection because it is so clarifying to put this in historical context. i am not going to comment on this, but i think we can do so much to educate ourselves about current issues in foreign affairs and the constitution, by looking to history and you made

my morning by quoting him. >> you had a podcast about the legal issues of former president trump and the classified documents found at mar-a-lago. can you talk about the constitutional issues that your guests highlighted in that episode? >> indeed. the indictment had just come down, and there were questions about evidence and how it would come in and the question of whether a former president could be indicted. they were playing out questions of whether president trump won the next election, could you partner himself with the indictment or would it be paused, and there are a bunch of complications, and it is very helpful and important in this extraordinarily politically

contested and polarized time that we work through the various evidence of the indictment in nonpartisan ways, just asking how the legal system is set up to deal with these questions. the big take away that we got from this podcast is the urgent importance of citizens of different perspectives upholding the rule. not immediately saying or assuming that it is prosecution that is political, or justified. not presuming guilt before it has worked its way out, but allowing the institution to do their jobs and allowing it to take its course, and against both republicans and democrats to emphasize the urgent threats to democracies around the world in independent courts with the confidence to enforce the rule of law. this is the one thing that stands between anarchy, and it

is important to let the law take its course. listen to that podcast, and again, you can hear the arguments on both sides, and in that case, the conservative guest did not agree or disagree much at all with the broad framework of the trial. evaluate the trial as we do in constitutional terms, and set aside politics, and let's together defend the rule of law. >> martin is in dayton ohio. hello. good morning. >> thank you for having me. really quick, i want to say that i am an independent. i think in terms of affirmative action, our society is evolving and making progress, but we have to make a start. the language is still a terry is. it points to a black woman for justice. why do you need to say that? that is dumb.

even if you are going to do it, you want to appoint the best person. i am glad he appointed her, but he didn't have to say that. it is taking us in the wrong direction. the best thing about hers that she was from clemson. in terms of affirmative action, the language left some room for minorities, but the way was abrupt. there are more important indicators, but it is still very abrupt, and the last thing i will leave you with is a legacy. it is so terrible. if you want to take away affirmative action, but you have a legacy, that is the ultimate hypocrisy. this is a shameful statistic and unseemly. 36% of harvard graduates are legacy because there parents give to a $52 billion endowment. it is hypocritical, and the legacy is awful. host: what do you think? any challenges to the legacy at

the university? guest: it is the importance of law, but there is a pressure to deal with the legacy that the caller suggested, and we may see more of them in the years ahead. host: carol is in new york, democrat. good morning. caller: my question has to do with the concept of real case and controversy. i did read the north carolina decision and i saw that judge thomas's dissent was about a very strong argument where there was no case or controversy, but i have not read the colorado case, but from the commentary i have heard over on tv, it seems like the dissent there is based primarily on the lack of a real

case and controversy. mike question, although not very well framed is if you would comment about how in these cases, it seems like the case and controversy didn't really exist, but we have decisions despite the real case and controversy doctrine. thank you. guest: your question as well framed. i'm glad you put your finger on the case and controversy element of this case. as you say, justice thomas held there was no such life controversy because the north carolina supreme court, after they heard oral arguments, change their mind. they were elected, and a republican replaced the democratic routes, and they

planed -- change the map so it didn't require the creation of a new district, and the challenger said there is no more case and controversy because there is no district that has to be created. the majority, led by the chief justice disagreed because they said that if the state court could move a case to become moot, and there is no active case or controversy, only after having basically asked the court to issue an opinion, then the theft -- supreme court authority , what if the law would be challenged and we cannot allow parties or state court judges to make end runs around the national spokesperson under the law. through political and file should. justice thomas, as you say, and thank you for reading this

opinion, they strongly disagree with that, and they put most of their opinion into saying this is a manufactured case. there is not a lot of controversy, and the court is acting beyond his authority. justice kagan basically accuse the majority of acting outside of the constitutional limits. i need to read the nature of whatever standing there is in the colorado case before i can describe it, but you are right. all of these cases, the majority and the dissenters are disagreeing about whether or not the court is reaching out to decide on manufactured cases without a controversy or not. it is not liberals versus conservatives, but justice gorsuch and justice alito are against the others in this case, but these questions of standing are central in the current dispute. thank you. host: rory is in calhoun,

georgia. independent. good morning. caller: i'm one of the 70% that believe the institution has become politicized, and i am wondering if the constitution is so concrete, how come there is a vote. and why can we not have justices who go by the constitution. thank you. guest: this is an important question. citizens assume this is all politics versus democrats, and why should they have faith in these institutions. this is what chief justice roberts was concerned about when he became a chief justice. he said it was bad for the court and the country. for citizens to look at this as a group of political actors. he said he would make it his issue to avoid the five to four partisan splits. for you and me, we can have

faith in the court is a nonpartisan actor. as you see, they had mixed success in that project, and there has been a series of very important decisions, including most famously the job's decision overturning roe v. wade, and those involving affirmative actions, and others, where partisan lines have persisted, but not in all cases. what is interesting about this term is that this is what chief justice roberts said to take back the court. the legislature was not six to three on partisan grounds, but it was justice roberts and cavanaugh and barrett joining the liberals and moving three conservatives into dissent, and we saw some of those surprising splits in the voting rights case where justice roberts joined liberals.

all of this says that i can't deny your comment about the difficult effects on peoples confidence in the non-partisan effects, but that is not the whole story, and that is why it is great that you are turning into c-span. i want you to check out the podcast and see that there are important cases where the partisan divined -- divide doesn't break out, and it challenges the chief justice to keep up the mind, and look at what the court does to decide the opinions of justice as a point in the reasoning, and there is also a real division on the court between the textual list justice and the originalist justice, even in the conservative caps that disagree, so in that sense, they are divided on the basis of their

partisan reasons, but because of the political philosophies as well. you must find which one you find more expressive print we encourage you to keep an open mind, evaluate your decisions, rather than on political terms, and we will see if the court is worthy of your confidence. host: that was jeffrey rosen. the president of the constitution center. the podcast is called we the people. thank you so much for joining us. happy fourth of july. guest: thank you. happy fourth. host: we encourage you to check out our c-span podcast bread is available on the mobile app. you can get it wherever you get the podcast. the webpages c-span.org. that is it for today's washington journal. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7 a.m.. in the meantime, have a great fourth of july and stay safe.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> these bands washington journal -- c-span's washington journal. coming up, a discussion on recent developments in russia and president putin's future. and also talk about a new book, this union among ourselves. looking at the division in the country's founders during the american revolution and what they can teach us about today's

political polarization. join in the conversation live at 7:00 eastern sunday morning on c-span, or online at c-span.org. >> if you miss any of c-span's coverage, and you can find it anytime online at c-span. org, videos of events drink markers that guide you to interesting news for the highlights. these markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. the timeline gives you a quick look at what was it debated. spend a few minutes on c-span's point of interest. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio app just got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to washington journal" let -- and

other public affairs events. washington today, a fast-paced report of the day in news. c-span, powered by cable. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband. ♪ >> buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service, alg with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> next, reaction to the supreme

court decision to strike down affirmative action programs used for admissions at colges and universities. then oral pregnant for the cases involving race-based admission programs from harvard and university of north carolina from october of last year. and a discussion on the folwed in russia in the wake of the wag ner. >> president biden comments on supreme court ruling striking down affirmative action used for admissions to colleges and universities. the president expressed his disagreement with the decision and they're still trying to find ways to help universities support diversity. that is up to parents.