♪ host: good morning, it is constitution day in america and

we find ourselves just under 50 days from election day, 13 days to a potential government shutdown, and two days since the second assassination attempt against one of this year's presidential candidates so we begin with a question about the u.s. constitution. if you could make a change, if you could pose an amendment, what would it be and why? phone lines split as usual by political party. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text. that number, (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media. and a very good tuesday morning to you, go ahead and start calling in now. here's the headline for major paper this morning as we begin this discussion.

all of them focused on that second assassination attempt against former president donald trump. this from the front page of the washington post, the subtext prosecutors say no shots were fired, trump was never in his gun sights in the washington times, being extended, echoing harris' rhetoric. the front page of the new york times this morning. news analysis piece from peter baker, the anger that defines and threatens donald trump. that's the backdrop against this discussion we want to have about the u.s. constitution. one more this morning, a gallup poll from earlier this year about american satisfaction with how democracy is working in this country. a new low, gallup found,

democracy is working in the united states, the charts showing numbers going back all the way through the mid 80's. back then it was more than double the number of americans were satisfied with the way democracy is working. some 60% in the 80's and early 90's. amid that, we want to have the discussion about how would you change the u.s. constitution? if you could propose an amendment, what would it be. having this discussion on constitution day in america. democrats, republicans, and independents. go ahead and call in and we will start with ray in aurora, colorado. ray, how would you change the constitution? caller: my preference for changing the constitution would be, frankly, to repeal some if

not nearly half of the aspects of the constitution. a good place to start would be repealing the 16th amendment. yeah, that would be my first step. host: why the 16th amendment? caller: i think we really need to reassess forms of taxation. looking at that tax code, i mean, it takes of how many volumes? i'm afraid to look back at how many volumes i've seen of the code and regulations. so i think repealing the 16th amendment would be a good first step towards simplifying the tax code. host: the 16th amendment, congress shall have the power to levy taxes on income from whatever source derived among the several states without regard to any enumeration. we are going to be going through

the united states constitution this morning. it is constitution day and our discussion as we often have on constitution day, how would you change it, if you could, or if you wouldn't change it, let us know that. democrat, good morning. caller: good morning and happy constitution day. i think i would have to make changes to the second amendment, because for today's modern people, they don't understand what well-regulated and militia means. but if we dig deeper into that, that means there is some sort of oversight and we are talking about well-regulated, that includes the amount of weaponry that one is able to possess, and when there is regulation, there is also taking your weapons back in, there's inspections that are necessary and there is a group that is actually deployed by either the federal or state level. so for those that think that

they can have as many guns as they want regardless of their situation and their mental capacity, that is actually incorrect and the constitution as it stands right now. but i think we would need to further delve into clearly defining the second amendment because even though people think they have a right to own a gun, it is with a preclusion that it must be in a well-regulated militia, and if you are not a member of a militia or registered between the lesser, you should not have a weapon, and that is how it is written as of today. so for those that don't know, read. it is fundamental. host: the text of the second amendment, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the free states, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. new york, good morning, you're next. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i think that we should revisit the fact that the founding

fathers of the constitution wanted to have a constitution convention, revisiting the constitution i think every 20 years. we should have the whole constitution looked over and dealt with. i know it is not an easy task, but if it was easy, we have done it many years ago. a bunch of the amendments of the constitution need to be amended. the constitution is not in stone, it is a living, breathing law that we are supposed to be able to look at and change on the basis of time. because when we first developed the constitution, women couldn't have input, enslaved people couldn't have input, poor white people couldn't have input. so these people that developed this constitution developed it to benefit them.

there's more people in this country now. it is a different country than it was in 1776 when they developed this whole thing. so yeah, we should have the constitution reviewed every 15 years. we get down there, we roll up our sleeves and we say listen, this is not relevant now. it's different from what it was back then because we don't want to do the hard work. we always look at the low hanging fruit and we go that route. it's not going to always be easy for us, and we need to learn. we are going to get up and continue to move this forward. we make our own rules. we had people stepping outside the laws of the constitution, we had four different presidents

that work with four different countries outside our country. the first president that did that should have went to jail. we have a constitutional reason. we should pay attention to it, we should update it. that's what we're doing. host: thomas jefferson made that proposal, the constitution be updated by each successive generation, drafted every 20 years. we will talk more about the history of that. you can join us in about 20 minutes this morning on the constitution day, a good guest to have on constitution day in america. in that time or in these next 20 minutes we are simply asking you how would you change the u.s. constitution, if you could? other you don't have to

necessarily propose a change if you think it is something that should be changed and there are several scholars out there that warn against changing the u.s. constitution. one of them, law professor jonathan turley, constitutional scholar. wrote in the wall street journal earlie week, the cry for radical constitutional change is shortsight the constitutional system is designed forimes not only good times. it see protect individual riminoty factions a the majority. the result istem at forces compromise. it doesn't protect us from political division any more than medical care protects us from er. rather, it allows the body politics by pushing factions toward negotiation and moderation. jonathan turley warning against radical constitutional change. paul in virginia, independent. if you could propose a change to the constitution, what would it

be? caller: first i'd like to say i think you're one of the best moderators that c-span has. it seems like every time i call, you are on. but i would change if the 17th amendment. host: ny the 17th? caller: that gave the state legislatures the power to appoint the senators, not the people of the state. and that is why i would change it. and the reason the 17th amendment came about in the first place was there were a couple of states that went to years or so, i believe, without a senator. so that was when they came up with the constitutional amendment to give the people of each state the vote for their senators. that is one i would definitely look into changing or modifying. host: of the two houses, of the

two chambers on capitol hill, which one do you think functions better? caller: [laughter] these days, that's really hard to say. i understand the reason they were set up, because the house was set up because it was called a boiling teapot, and the senate was supposed to slow down the process a little bit and put some thought into it and decide whether or not it was good for the people. today, i think what is happening in the senate, they are deciding what is good for their power. not for the people. the house is probably functioning better than the senate. host: the cooling saucer as it

was once called. how long do you think it has been that way, that the senate is in a way it is not supposed to function? caller: my guess, probably since not really with bill clinton, beginning with the clinton administration, with the impeachment. starting there. and then from there, i know that with the house that brought all the charges, but from there is when i think much of the political divide in this country starts. i mean, the major political divide in this country started. it has just gotten worse. it has been horrible. i mean, they call for normalcy

in the political process, and i don't know when that will come. hopefully what i'm looking at is 2028. i don't see it coming from either party in 2024. host: katie and michigan, republican. good morning to you. katie, are you with us? caller: yes. host: how would you change the constitution if you could? caller: [laughter] i'd get rid of all of the democrats. host: ok. caller: that's what i'd do. host: katie in michigan. this is jim, nevada. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. first off, i would encourage an

interpretation of the constitution along with comments that the preamble of the mission statement of the constitution, and taking all of those clauses into account, interpretation of the constitution is relatively straightforward. as far as how i would change the constitution, but i would do would be call for an article or an amendment making education free, standardized, and merit-based, and institute a national service program for immediately when you get out of secondary school and do two years of national service, not necessarily military. host: coming back to the preamble, i will just read that mission statement as you describe it.

we the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, might for the general offense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america. a good mission statement? caller: i think it is pretty inclusive, don't you? host: this is antonio in san antonio, texas. independent, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. it is a great document, a wonderful document our founding fathers gave us. it should be enforced. separation of church and state. leaders of the church start endorsing politicians for inviting them, they should pay taxes. it's dangerous.

that is in the country started getting dangerous. they want to push their beliefs into everybody's heart. i just wouldn't change nothing in it. it's just a wonderful document, it is a way of life. just enforce it a little bit better, get the taxes right, do right for the middle class. this country has always been great. it has never stopped being great. i don't know why people listen to a dead man. host: that's antonio in texas. in terms of freedom of religion, of course congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or

abridging the freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people to peaceably assemble or to petition the government for redress of grievances. first amendment of the u.s. constitution. by the way, one other recent report about the united states constitution from the public policy center focusing on the first amendment, the freedoms guaranteed in the first amendment. they did their annual six-day survey and found several points about the first amendment including that the vast majority can name all three branches of government. 65% said they can name all three branches of government and asked which rights are guaranteed in the first amendment, nearly three quarters of respondents say freedom of speech, but the others are recalled by far fewer people. the second most often, freedom of religion is named by just

39%, a little over half of u.s. adults know which party controls the senate and which party controls the house of representatives, and other findings from the 2024 constitution day survey. we're going to run through more of those with jeffrey rosen when he joins us in about 10 minutes this morning. until then, asking you how would you change the u.s. constitution? republican, california. what do you think? caller: thank you for taking my call. i would leave the constitution just like it is because the people that want to change it like the supreme court and add more justices, their bias does not fit our country. the people that want to change everything are doing it to benefit their party. leave the constitution alone. that's all i have to say.

thank you for taking my call. host: mitchell in garden state. democrat, you are next. caller: i want to piggyback on what an earlier caller said and complement you and your fellow hosts on your topic moderation and facilitation. having coached a high school debate team, trying to get people to think clearly on topics and not fight with each other and look at both sides of an argument, you folks to a really exemplary job and it is appreciated. as far as the constitutional changes that i been like to see, i'll give you three. there's more, but for brevity's sake. first of all, i would outlaw this continual debt ceiling approval vote that congress has to take up on a regular basis.

for those democrats like myself, they look at bidens accomplishments, they recite the infrastructure bill or the climate bill or covid aid, but actually one of the most significant thing that biden did was negotiate a deal on the debt ceiling. people don't realize just how close it would bring us to international depression. we've got to take it off the table. the next thing i would do is eliminate the electoral college. and for republicans to think that is going to disenfranchise them, i'd argue that they are already disenfranchised because even in blue states like california and new york, there are large concentrations of republicans who are just completely shut out from the system. in my state of new jersey, i'm completely shut out having an

impact on the election because the decisions of my state are pretty well known in advance. so we are setting out -- shutting out a large portion of the public in the presidential debate in right now and has come down to southern states. if you are in the other 43 states, it is pretty much a done deal and the politicians all know that. they don't really care for your concerns as much as they will. in the final thing that i would do, we've got to do something to correct the money that is going into our political system. citizens united really blew it up, but we constantly put a ton of cash into politics in the election cycles are going longer and longer and longer now. it's really getting obscene. nobody puts money into politics

that expecting a return on that. and we're not getting the type of government that would serve us best. so i think that those three things really need to be addressed. i don't think they're going to be. i think we are so tightly split in this country that it will be impossible to get anything done constitutional level. host: the line, south dakota, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call, i really think that c-span is doing a good service to this country. i wouldn't change a thing about the constitution. we've had it for a long time. don't mess with something like that. and we have a supreme court that works off of the constitution. they are very important.

leave it alone, because the number one problem we have in this country -- well, there's two problems, i think. the media, the way they twist a story into something else. they put in some words and then they twist it off in another direction, that type of thing. why do we have the constitution, it is for tax law and we should be taking care of this country. i go back to the condition of the people. and that is the problem. it's just what we expect from everybody else. i think that the constitution is fine. thanks for taking my call. host: one journalist, one

columnist in the new york times who can argue for changes and has argued for changes, jennifer -- in the new york times writing about this topic from late last month. this was from august 31, a book review. this is what she wrote in the new york times, saying it's no surprise that liberals charge dollar trump with being a menace presidency and the prospect of his reelection have also generated another very different argument, that trump owes his politicalent to the constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially antidemocratic and in day and age, increasingly dysfunctional. after all, trump became president after losing the popular vote winning the electoral college. he appointed three justices to e supreme court. two of them with different by senators representing just 44% of the u.s. population. three justices helped overturn

roe v. wade, irreversible with which most ameriisagreed. a legal scholar worried a a dramatic loss of faith and democracy and writes in his new book that is important for americans to see that these failures stem from the constitution itself. a few minutes left here in this first 30 minutes of washington journal. getting your thoughts on how you would change the u.s. constitution, if you could. if you could propose an amendment, what would it be? david, independent. caller: good morning. i would change absolutely nothing of the u.s. constitution. it's lasted for 250 years. it's made the united states the greatest country in the world and i can't believe that -- well, i can believe that people think they are smarter than our

forefathers when they put this document in place, but i just cannot believe the audacity of people wanting to even think about changing the constitution, which is what brought this country to where it is now. thank you very much. host: mason, ohio, democrat. caller: good morning. we have a fine constitution, i believe, but not perfect. we've made quite a few amendments to the constitution, which have tried to improve various areas. i would amend the second amendment. the second amendment has to do with the ability to raise a militia in order to have firearms. i think we should amend that to change from any militia to

something that would keep us from using automatic firearms. i think that at the moment, at this time, that use of the automatic firearms is something that is harming everybody. it is something that the constitution, the supreme court has ruled that it is permissible to have firearms, but they don't say very much about automatic firearms. host: when you talk about automatic firearms -- caller: that's all i have to say, thank you. host: we will move onto a couple other callers waiting here with just a couple minutes left. this is brad in upper marlboro, maryland. independent. caller: good morning, sir.

first of all, i wouldn't change anything with the constitution. it served us well for 250 years. there have been nations that came and went within that time and we've been moving on strong, so i would keep it. however, i wasn't going to call but i had to have a response to the first color. not the last caller, because i don't know where he's coming from with the automatic weapons, second amendment. but the first color that came across as a little bit smug in reading is fundamental and so forth. he shared with us his personal interpretation of the second amendment. my understanding of the second amendment is well-regulated in the late 1700s or the 1700s, and well-equipped, not well restricted or filled with regulations. secondly, nowhere does it say the word government, where you

have to register a militia with the government. i think he is totally off base as to what the mindset was at his time of writing the second amendment. we had just fought a revolution and became an independent nation. i believe the whole point of the second amendment was for the individual citizen of the country to have equivalent personal firepower of an infantryman. at that time we could say that was a musket. now we have the m-16 automatic weapons, but a citizen cannot buy the m-16 automatic weapon at any gun store in any state in the country unless they have a whole special permit process and even then, that as well restricted. most states allow the ar-15, which is not an automatic weapon, it is semi-automatic.

for those that don't know, automatic shoots and shoots numerous rounds. host: i think we're losing you a little bit but i think we got your point. florida, go ahead. caller: good morning. let me just put this out there. the gentleman who spoke about the preamble, we the people of the united states, where does it say we the people of the world? i left out a word there. but anyway, there's too many people coming here with no responsibility toward giving a damn about our constitution and our country and i don't understand how this could be. that 14th amendment needs to go. the 14th amendment was never legal, and met us with a lean on to say that anybody has the same

rights as any citizen born here. let's take it from there. have a good week. host: the 14th amendment, all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and of the state wherein they reside. no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the citizens of the united states, nor shall any state deprive a person the life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny to any people within its jurisdiction equal protections of the law. that is section one of the 14th amendment. we are going to talk more about the u.s. constitution coming up next with jeffrey rosen, the president and ceo of the national constitution center. and later today we will talk about the u.s. involvement in the war in gaza with the princi

institute for responsible statecraft. those discussions coming up this morning on the washington journal. ♪ >> attention middle and haskell students across america. c-span's document recontact 2025 is here. this is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness and make an impact. your documentary should enter this use question, your message to the president, what issue is most important to you or your community? whether you are passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories, share your message with the world. with $100,000 in prizes including a grand prize of $5,000, this is your opportunity not only to make an impact, but also be rewarded for your creativity and hard work.

enter your submissions today. scan the code or visit studentc for all the details on henter. the deadline is january 20, 2025. c-spanshop.org is c-span online store. books, home decor and accessories. there something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. the c-span podcast feed makes it easy for you to -- all in one place. they can discover new authors and ideas. we are making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing

history, biography, current events and culture. from their signature program about books. afterward, booknotes+ and q&a. you can find the c-span bookshelf podcast feed and all of our podcast on the free c-span now mobile video app or wherever you eat your podcast, and on our website, c-span.org/podcast. washington journal continues. host: on this national constitution day we're joined once again by jeffrey rosen, president and ceo of the national constitution center. i want to start something that mitch mcconnell said on the senate floor yesterday at the start of the day. he said they should provide a moment of soul-searching for all americans and reflection about the ways our political process has been injected by reprehensible violence. is there any lesson that we can take from the u.s. constitution

in this moment as we reflect on what happened two days ago, what has happened this election cycle? >> well, it's absolutely true that the whole point of the constitution was to test the proposition, as john jay said in the first federalist paper, can a republic be guided by reason and conviction, not by force or violence? in the founders recognized that republics are fragile, better history, many of them felt violence or demagoguery and it is important to maintain the constitution and the rule of law, that is the one thing that stands between us and violence, which made us the greatest republic in the world for nearly 250 years. and all americans regardless of their political background must embrace the principles of the declaration of independence and the constitution. host: so we showed a gallup poll and our last segment, showing a record low percentage of americans are not satisfied with

the way democracy is working. coming back to the 80's and 90's, double the amount of americans, more than 60% were satisfied with the way democracy works. is it a failure of the system, is it a failure of the constitution? we are at a point that just 20% of americans are satisfied with how this all works. guest: the question of trust in government has divided people ever since hamilton and jefferson debated it at the founding. hamilton thought citizens have a responsibility to confide confidence in government in between elections and give it the power to achieve a strong military and a strong economy. jefferson thought that citizens should question government and always use liberty to challenge power. so the fact that people are not sure about whether to invest confidence in government is not new. we are more polarized than any time since the civil war, according to scholars, and we

know that in the civil war, the union broke, the war came. it's important to take seriously the lack of satisfaction of citizens but it is not the constitution that holds us together were bringing us apart. it provides a constructive exchange of views. the constitution is made by people with fundamentally different point of view and therefore it is especially, at times, that it is important to rally around the constitution. host: i don't have the data but do you think that lack of confidence in the government, this polling question, is it correlated with people's understanding of the united states constitution? do we had a better understanding and appreciation of the constitution back in the 80's and 90's when those numbers were higher, and less of an understanding of the constitution today, which asking this question on constitution day. guest: that's a really good

question and first of all, happy constitution day. on september 17 we are still looking forward to an amazing day of celebration at the national constitution center and it is great to start the day with you. this is a time of declining trust in all institutions and there are lots of reasons for that including social media and polarization. but it's a really interesting question about whether there was more confidence during the founding because of civic education, and there's no question that almost all the founders starting with george washington thought that it was urgently important for citizens to learn about the constitution, in particular, the principles of liberty it embodied and the habits of deliberation that made possible in order to keep the republic. they thought without civic education, the republic would fall. as you saw at the time of declining knowledge in the constitution, there may be some connection between a lack of

education and a lack of confidence in our institutions. host: asking viewers to join this conversation with jeffrey rosen on constitution day. president and ceo of the national constitution center. viewers know him well. phone lines as usual, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. jeffrey rosen, as folks are calling in, if they are in the philadelphia area, they find at the national constitution center today? caller: -- guest: you must come by, it's going to be so exciting. we start in the morning at about 9:30 with a naturalization ceremony. of all the things i have the privilege to do, there's nothing more inspiring than being part of the naturalization of new citizens. it just brings a love to the throat and a deep sense of how grateful people are to become due citizens in america.

justice neil gorsuch will be joining us all day, along with justice stephen breyer, and he will be here for a town hall with students at 11:15 or so. and then at 1:00, we are going to launch a new constitution course. it is so exciting. this is their first intervention in the civic space. we coproduced the most exciting course with america's top constitutional scholars and historians from all perspectives with the basic principles of the constitution. you've got to check out the link and take the course yourself. you will learn so much, i did. there are questions, it is challenging and exciting, and it is all free. it is a game changer in civic education, we believe. and in the evening, justice corsets will be back talking

about his new book and we are going to have a great conversation there. so, if you can, it is all livestreamed and online. check it out, and let the light and learning begin. it's going to be a great day. host: i should note that that conversation at 11:15 eastern, we are also streaming live on the c-span homepage at c-span.org, so plenty of ways to watch and interact. give us a call tomorrow, let us know what you thought of the program. we hope you join us throughout the day. jeffrey rosen with us this morning for about the next 35 minutes, and taking your phone calls on constitution day. i know you were listening to a bit of the conversation we had in the first half-hour about how people to change the constitution if they could, propose an amendment. i wonder what stuck out to you from the conversation. guest: first, there was such an informed and vigorous and thoughtful conversation.

there's nothing like c-span viewers to present diverse perspectives about constitutional issues. one thing that jumped out with the gentleman from new jersey who proposed three changes to the constitution, ending the debt ceiling stalemate, and also amending the electoral college among his suggestions. host: and his third getting money out of politics. >> interestingly, those proposals were included among those offered by a series of liberal, conservative and progressive teams that the national constitution center convened to propose constitutional amendments, and i think the progressive's proposed citizens united amendment, and both the conservatives and the progressives were open to amending the electoral college, interestingly. so we convene all three teams for a virtual constitutional convention, and what emerged blew my mind. it was so surprising and so

inspiring. the teams agreed on five amendments to the constitution. who would have suspected that these people were so strongly conservative, progressive and libertarian, leading scholars agreed on five amendments. should i share what they are? host: i hope you do. guest: well i well, here they are. first, term limits for supreme court justices, 18 year term limits. second, making amendments a little bit easier. third, making impeachment a little harder in the house but easier to convict in the senate. fourth, limiting the natural born citizenship requirement for the president. and fifth, and limiting the legislative veto before the supreme court struck it down in the 1980's. congress could say no to executive actions by majority vote. and our teams would resurrect that to reinvigorate compromised. so fascinating that none of these involve issues like

abortion or religion. they all have to do with the structures of government. and what is so significant is that all three teams wanted to amend the structures of government, not scratch or burn the whole thing down. none of the teams, progressives or the libertarians thought we should break up the constitution or that the constitution was failing or that we had to start from scratch. instead, they felt that by tweaking the structures, we could create a more perfect union. really inspiring exercise. host: making amendments to the constitution easier. remind viewers what that process is and when is the last time the constitution was actually amended. caller: the last minute recognize with the 27th amendment in the early 90's, that originally had been proposed in the original bill of rights. it prevents congress from raising its salary, it was

ratified by some states and then lay dormant and then a student, gregory wasson discovered the amendment and suggest that if a few more states ratify it, it become valid. he failed because the teacher thought the idea was outlandish and then he got a national movement, is recognized, and the greatest changed. that is an amazing story. and the reason there have been so few amendments is because it is very hard to amend the constitution. there are two ways to propose amendments, by two thirds of votes from congress or by a constitutional convention convened by congress at the request of two thirds of the state, and then it has to be ratified by three quarters of the state legislatures or by constitutional conventions elected and three quarters of the states. and as a result of that, we just had 27 of them. host: jeffrey rosen joining us on constitution day.

this is from gaithersburg, maryland, republican. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to thank you very much for your book. i met you briefly at the gaithersburg book fair last summer and as a result of your talk, i read your book "the pursuit of happiness" and was made aware of the moral philosophers, greek and roman times, and i have been going through the books as you suggested and having a great time and it is really a good touchstone for me. so i just wanted to call in and thank you very much for writing the book. i thought it was excellent. and if i could make one more comment about what i would change in the constitution, i would ban the practice of a continuing resolution that would make it a constitutional amendment that congress must stay in session until they pass a full annual budget at one time . do away with continuing resolutions. guest: so interesting. thank you so much, first of all,

for reading the book. it was great to meet you engage this bird. i'm so honored that you were inspired to read the books yourself. that's the whole point. just to inspire all of us into a life of deep reading and learning and daily reading, ideally. you can learn so much from the sources. that is a really thoughtful suggestion, very much in the spirit of the structural suggestion that would require congress to do its job, and let's put that on the list. host: classical writers on virtue inspired the lives of the founders, defined america. for folks who haven't picked it up yet, what is the pitch for it? guest: this reading project changed my life. during covid, i set out to read books of classic moral philosophy that inspired thomas jefferson in the founders when they wrote that famous phrase in the declaration. i started reading cicero, marcus

aurelius, as well as philosophers and what i discovered is that for the founders, happiness didn't mean feeling good, it meant being good. not the pursuit of immediate pleasure, but of long-term virtue. that virtue for self-improvement, character improvement, being your best self, using every moment of the day to use your power of reason to moderate your unreasonable passions or emotions so you can achieve the calm tranquility that defines long-term well-being. in the take away for the project as i mentioned to the gentleman was in addition to changing my understanding, it just changed my daily reading habits. ever since doing this unusual reading project during covid, in the morning i am not allowed to browse or search until i've read books. i've got to read for an hour or more if i can. i got back into the habit of deep reading that i had fallen out of.

i'm so happy that the gentleman who called and felt inspired to read the book and c-span viewers, all of you are readers and learners, i know you are because u.s. is engaged with democracy and politics. host: what did you read this morning? guest: i read a collection of essays called shakespeare in america and it is these primary sources that started with a letter with john adams to john quincy adams fearing that hamilton and burr would take over the republic like caesar on horseback and then quoting julius caesar. adams felt we can learn from shakespeare's history plays the fact that politics divorced from principal could degenerate into violence.

isn't that amazing, just to start off with the question that we begin with the show. what is standing between us and violence, shakespeare's lesson according to john adams is it is the principles of the constitution that keep us from degenerating into violence. that was just a skim of his book for a half-hour. it doesn't take a lot to learn a tremendous amount. host: michigan, joe, line for democrats. host: you're on with jeffrey rosen. caller: i think they've got to get rid of the electoral college. but they have to get rid of gerrymandering, too, because it wouldn't be independent for all votes to come. but that's what i think. host: jeffrey rosen, the electoral college. guest: initially, both are

conservative and progressive teams were open to changing the electoral college. it was the libertarians who vetoed. their basic approach with they wanted to add only one clause after each part of the constitution, and we mean it. the electoral college came within a whisker of being amended in the early 1970's when it was proposed to be replaced with a national popular vote. the amendment was endorsed by president nixon and by the democrats, and it would have passed the country quickly, but it was blocked by a few southern senators in the senate. so as a result, the electoral college, the question has been polarized but that is a very thoughtful suggestion. host: marilyn, independent. ed, you're on with jeffrey rosen. caller: yes, hello?

host: go ahead. caller: the question i have for you is what influence would one of the candidates saying that they are going to abolish where they intend to abolish the constitution if elected, what influence would this have on society? guest: i didn't hear the very last bit, what influence wouldn't have on the country? of course abolishing the constitution is unacceptable, the constitution is our bedrock. host: republican, good morning. caller: you know what scares me is the lack of education of have a whole system works.

nobody knows what is in it. when you abolish that roe v. wade, you have people in power coming out and giving information. the 10th amendment says that anything not enumerated in the constitution, and that is not in there. but they continue lying to people and getting them all riled up. they don't teach it in high school anymore. that's all i've got to say. guest: you are so right about the importance of learning the constitution in high school, starting in middle school. and we are going to take this constitution 101 course and make it available for middle school students. of course on many issues, there are legitimate arguments on both sides, and that's why it is so important to read.

both the majority opinions and the dissentd and supreme court opinions. i urge young kids to read the majority opinions and dissent. recently middle school kids, i'm not sure i can read the dissent, but i encourage him to do it, that is the best way that you can hear the arguments on both sides and make up your own mind. host: knowledge of the u.s. constitution, i want to come back to that policy center pole specifically asking people to name the rights guaranteed in the first amendment. some 74% of respondents, about 1600 respondents, could name freedom of speech. 39% same freedom of religion. 29% same freedom of the press. 27% could name the right to assembly, and just 11%, the right to petition your government for a redress of grievances. 22% of americans named the right

to bear arms. not in the first amendment, and issue related to the second amendment. but come back to the right to petition your government for a redress of grievances. what does that mean, what did it mean back then and what does it mean today? guest: such an important question. the right to petition is central. member, the declaration of independence was because the collins petition to georgia been repeatedly ignored and his refusal to respond to them is one of the causes of the revolution. the constitution protects the right of speech and debate within congress and the way to communicate with congress from the 19th century and the 18th century is generally for petition. before twitter and social media, that with the way that citizens made their views clear. it was very important to protect

the right to petition, especially when that was the main means of communicating. in defense of those who couldn't name the right to petition, the supreme court has not given the right a lot of love in recent years. they kind of folded it in within the right of free speech and there hasn't been a whole lot about petition and debate clause cases. but it's really important and really exciting to learn about the history. host: ohio, democrat, you are next. caller:, on? host: you are. caller: i have a question about the supreme court decision on presidential immunity. the question is, i served in the military and the thing they taught was that you can refuse an illegal or unlawful order. if that is for me, if a president makes any legal order,

that to me seems like an opinion in and of itself. it is unconstitutional. so i don't understand how the supreme court could miss the point that somebody in the military taking orders can refuse any legal order. so what does that mean with respect to the president being immune to give an illegal order? that seems like a missed the boat big time. host: will take that question for jeffrey rosen. guest: what an important and significant question. you really put your finger on it. the president can order the assassination of his rival in broad daylight and the case could not be prosecuted under the majority ruling. and as you suggest, if members

of the military are not permitted to obey illegal orders, how can the president issue one? the court did not say that any one of the president issues is legal because the president does it, but the court did make it very difficult to find the evidence of illegal official acts because it said that there is a broad area of presented immunity that would make it possible to get the evidence of his conversations with his military advisors. that's why the decision is so vigorously contested. the majority quoted alexander hamilton in talking about the need for energy executives and defenders noted that hamilton believed that the president would be amenable to ordinary criminal prosecution for corrupt and illegal acts.

and it really is one of the most significant decisions since u.s. v. nixon. host: greenville texas, robert, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, jeffrey. kind of a strange question here because i've really been trying to call in on the earlier show or an earlier episode this morning, but i think the main thing i have that really perplexes me about the constitution, we set age limits for how young you have to be to serve in office. set age limits for how young you have to be to serve in office. i guess that is to gain experience. i guess that is a good qualification the way it is applied as currently stated. but, why has it escaped everybody in the discussions about really nailing down term

limits and not just for congress, the senate, i mean we have one for the president. but the supreme court, surely there should be term limits. it should not be lifetime appointments. i do not think any court should have lifetime appointments. there would -- there should be a parameter to become a super -- a supreme court justice, and age of 45 or 50 should be accessible. terms should not be lifetime appointments. if we were to set term limits for congress and the supreme court, i think that would curtail what is really destroying america, which is the influence, and money in lobbying on people that basically just go

for the money to be reelected over and over again. and it turns into a lifetime appointment. i think termwould go a long way to solving what is wrong in american politics. your thoughts? guest: thank you for the suggestion. you are not alone. all of our constitutional amendment teams agreed with you and proposed an 18 year term limit. and justice stephen breyer who had the president -- the pleasure of interviewing this summer and i think all the current justices are open to it because under most of the proposals they would be grandfathered in to keep serving. that is to suggest that out of all the proposals this has the broadest bipartisan support. it is not partisan. you could structure term limits

so each president has the opportunity to make one or two appointments and the current justices are able to keep serving in a way that would not affect the partisan balance. and, it is a great suggestion. unfortunately, it is hard to amend the constitution and you would need two thirds of both houses of congress to approve -- to promote it. and the court has become so polarized that it might be tough to get the amendment proposed. if it were it might as well be ratified because it has huge support. host: about 15 minutes left with jeffrey rosen.

c-span viewers know that you were kind enough to invite the country . the ability to hold the dates and venues that do not have huge audience spaces as well. i believe it up to the viewers.

host: do you believe that i that -- that we missed anything? guest: both candidates left after they finished speaking, although vice president harris needed one break to prepare her closing statement. aside from that, you saw what we did and you probably have a better view. host: jim, north carolina. republican. you are on. caller: hello. number one i want to thank you for being unbiased even though you swing towards the right. and i do have a question for mr. rosen. but, and i do need to point this out. one of your cohorts, i'm just going to say her name, mimi. i will not watch your show without you being on, especially his -- if she is on.

host: all of our colleagues do a good job. what is your question on jeffrey -- jeffrey rosen because we are running out of time. caller: my question is what are his thoughts, even though it would not take a constitutional amendment to make this happen. it could be an executive order. what about if every child in high school was required to take a two semester course before they graduate, one is to know what their state laws are. you commit a crime. this is what happens where you live. and, number two, with the let's see where i am going with this. just give me a second, john.

the second semester would be on the constitution. host: got it. jeffrey? guest: mandates are not very popular in america and they have not fared well. the question of whether you could achieve big educational requirements through executive order is constitutionally contested. however, the idea that it would be great for citizens to learn about state laws and the constitution is one that i agree with. it is so important that we inspire kids to learn all of that and you are right. most of the law that constrains us comes from the states and not the feds. i would love to put state constitutions online and allow citizens to compare the rights and duties in their state constitution in other states throughout the course of american history. but, the bottom line is that now everyone can do what can just suggested, you will -- learn

about the u.s. constitution through the constitution 101 class that the constitution center is cohosting. it is online today. check it out and let the learning begin. host: your love of the constitution comes through the television screen and i want to ask you about this story. it is in "usa today." "one of over -- only eight surviving ratified copies of the u.s. constitution discovered in an old filing cabinet in north carolina will soon be auctioned off to the highest bidder. the starting price is $1 million it is expected to go for much than that. the north carolina auction houses facilitating the sale. it is one of eight known signed and surviving copies. it is set to take place on september 28. it is the last and any other -- and only recorded sale since 1891 according to the auction house." what do you think? caller: the best copy --

guest: the best call -- copy is going to be displayed. seth is bringing it to the ncc, it is rare and it is striking how few of these ratification and original copies circulate. the most recent high profile constitution sale was a ratification copy that ken griffin bought recently. and that is very exciting to see as well. and the ncc a few years ago displayed one of the 12 surviving copies of the bill of rights that showed up in a filing cabinet in new york a few years ago and which we are sharing with the new york public library. it is exciting to see these early drafts and a great way to learn about the constitution. host: how many original copies does the ncc have? and how often are they displayed? guest: we have no original

copies. the rarest copy that we have is a copy of the pennsylvania packet newspaper which displayed the printed constitution the day after it was ratified. and some people think it was incredibly significant because that was the first copy that we the people saw. most of the displays are borrowed. we have an incredible exhibit with james wilson's original handwritten draft of the constitution, one of the rarest and most significant owned by the pennsylvania historical society. they lent it to us for a while. we have a really exciting constitution coming up for america's 250. that i will be able to share soon. it is exciting to display these drafts. host: deborah in illinois. democrat. good morning. caller: please excuse my hoarseness.

but given the tone in the country with so much kind of hatred and violence occurring, i have a concern about succession -- secession and dividing the country. it is that the point where we have to divide the leanings with the republican leanings having their own country and the states with democratic ideas and leaving -- leaning have a democratic state. is it possible for states about out? seceding from the united states? because at this time we are not united. and because of the possibility of violence occurring during election day, you know we probably need to separate. i would not want to continue to live around people who did not want to live around me. host: deborah from illinois?

guest: such an important and serious question. can a state succeed from the union -- sucede from the union and abraham lincoln said no. we are one nation and the promise of liberty for all embraced by all of the states during ratification cannot be unilaterally ejected by a single state that violates the sovereignty of we the people of the united states who made the const. and then the war came and the central constitutional lesson of the civil war is that unilateral secession is not allowed through violence. that was a proposition that not everyone agreed on. thomas jefferson endorsed the possibility of nullification or secession before the civil war. james madison disagreed and thought that a single state did

not have that power. as i said lincoln and the union victory seems to settle the question in favor of union. all of this is to say that if a single state like california or idaho decided unilaterally to secede, according to the constitutional precedents that would be illegal. it would require federal force. the president would have to send in troops to stop it. and war could be the result. it is a very serious question. on constitution day, let's remind ourselves that lincoln was right, and george washington was right and johns marshall was right and fragrant -- frederick douglass and martin luther king are right. we are one nation and one people. the shining value of union and the necessity of preserving and protecting the union is the

single most important lesson of american history so let us not forget it today. host: seems like a good place to end. for most mower -- for much more can go to constitutioncenter dot oregon. that event happening at 1115 time p.m. -- 11:15 p.m. eastern. jeffrey rosen, the president and ceo. it is always good to have you, especially on constitution day. guest: thank you. host: coming up and about an hour we will focus on the war in gaza and a discussion with anelle sheline. until then it is the open forum. any public policy issue or political issue you want to talk about, the phone lines are in. they are on your screen now. go ahead and start calling in.

we will get your calls after the break. >> c-span now is a free mobile app it -- featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the biggest events of live streams of floor proceedings and hearings, white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for the tv networks and c-span radio plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available on the apple store and google play. scan the qr code or visit c-span.org/c-spannow. c-span now, your unroll -- your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. listening to programs on c-span

through c-span radio is easy. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily. important public affairs events throughout the day and weekends -- weekdays catch washington today. just tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling authors and influential interviewers on the afterwards podcasts. on q&a hear wide-ranging conversations from authors making why things happen. booknotes+ episodes are hourly conversations that feature fascinating authors of lawn for -- of nonfiction books on a variety of topics. the about books podcast takes you behind-the-scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with insider interviews and a bestsellers list. find these down -- by

downloading the c-span now podcast, wherever you get your podcasts or c-span.org/podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: it is open forum this morning. this our is turned over -- hour is turned over to you. now is your time to leave this discussion as you are calling in. here's what is happening on capitol hill. the senate is in at 10:00 a.m. eastern. plenty going on today on the c-span network. in fact the house and senate gavel-to-gavel on c-span 310:00 a.m.. it is a former deputy of security testifying on the potential risks of replacing nonpartisan cil servants with political appointe. at is a senate homeland security and government affairs committehearing. c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. and the

free c-span now video app. at 2:00 p.m. eastern a senate hearing on regulating ai including former staff from google and openai before the senate judiciary subcommittee on privacy, technology and the law. c-span3 and c-span.org and the free c-span video ap 7:00 p.m. eastern former president donald trump is in flint michigan to participate in a townhalmorated by sarah huckabee sanders. you can watch that on c-span tonight and the c-span now video app. 7:00 p.m. eastern is where that -- when that heirs. plenty going on today. now we will get out of the way and let you lead the discussion. whatever is on your mind on this constitution day. we are less than 50 days away from the presidential election and 13 days away from a potential government shutdown

and two days since a seconds assassination attempt on these -- on a potential president of the united states. good morning, it is open for them. caller: hello and thank you for having me on. i still want to talk about the constitution. it is a good topic. there is not a whole lot i would like to change. it is one of the greatest documents that we do have. there are some things i would change if you insisted. what is important i think is that we apply the constitution. we do not use it, the government does not use it anymore. it would be a better world if we did. there are some things that i would change like the electoral college, not the way that we count the votes, but the ability of the electors to change how they vote. also, i really love the ninth and 10th amendment.

if we applied that we would have a lot of unconstitutional laws that we would not have anymore. that is all i have to say. host: oklahoma, tulsa. eugene. democrat. you are next. caller: good morning and happy constitution day. i was -- i apologize. i think mr. rosen would be interested to know that the american jurists foundation came out with a tool to let you compare different state constitutions to the american constitution. it is a really interesting feature. more to today's point, i was kind of curious about people's ideas about how we can reform the senate so that we can achieve a sort of representative body, but also fulfills one of the senate's main goals of being more deliberative and thoughtful and capture the wisdom of the

legislature. anytime i explained that that is what it is for people laugh, unfortunately. that is something i think we should try and capture and one of the great things about american government is that it is reflective. we look at what is working and is not and we try something better. that is a great thing about the constitution and i appreciate all you are doing on constitution day. host: the senate is back in at 10:00 a.m. eastern today. as it always happens, leader remarks are one of the first of -- orders of business. here is how they went yesterday starting with the minority leader mitch mcconnell speaking out and decrying the second assassination attempt against former president donald trump. [video clip] >> it is dismaying. we have another week with news of an assassination attempt

against a former president. we certainly are grateful once again that the worst outcome was avoided. this ought to be a moment of soul-searching for all americans. it is time to reflect on the ways that our political process has been injected by reprehensible violence. in america, our democracy flows from the ballot box, not from the barrel of a gun. period. in the meantime, for the second time in as many months, law enforcement faces and even more urgent task, completing a thorough, swift and transparent investigation into the circumstance of yesterday's close call. the american people deserve

answers. they deserve assurance that a former president who tens of millions of americans have supported once again will receive every measure of a security and ought to receive it without delay. [end video clip] host: that was mitch mcconnell yesterday and it was majority leader chuck schumer who also spoke yesterday at the begin of the day on the same topic. [video clip] >> i will say what i have said many times before. there is no place in america for political violence of any kind. i am glad that the former president is safe and i implore the secret service and first responders for acting quickly before anyone got hurt. as for the perpetrator he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. we almost do our part -- we all must do our part to ensure an

incident like this does not happen again. that means a -- that congress has a responsibility to ensure that secret service and all law enforcement needs the resources they need to do their jobs. as we continue the appropriations process, if the secret service is in need of more resources we are prepared to provide it for them. possibly, in the upcoming funding agreement. host: chuck schumer on the floor of the senate yesterday. in the op-ed pages of the washington post, the lead editorial calling for donald trump needing a presidential level of protection when he is out on the campaign trail. "the six -- the secret service has been stretched thin but 50 days before a net connect election, protecting the armor president is an essential part of ensuring security." jimmy in north dakota, republican. what is on your mind? caller: i want to talk about the

war in gaza and to address this to your next guest. there has been an abuse of words such as mobile settler state and genocide, none of which have applied to the people in israel. they have been there from time immemorial. when countries defend themselves from the attack of war, they are justified in using all available means to crush their opposition. what bothers me the most is the people protesting this at the highest volume tend to be university students which should be the most educated class but they do not seem to know their history. they are not paying attention to the actual use of words which would entail the actual massacre of an entire group of people, genocide. the united nations while i respect it in times, it has been used to attack israel unduly. the u.n. human rights council

was abolished 10 years ago which was intended to serve as a debate forum for human rights issues but quickly devolved into anti-israeli and antisemitism before people thought better and got rid of it. i think these issues should be brought before your next speaker. thank you so much. host: jimmy in north dakota and i took notes on that. we will be joined by anelle sheline coming up in about 45 minutes. she was a former foreign affairs officer at the united states bureau of mockers see, -- my chrissy, human rights and labor. she resigned protesting the involvement of the u.s. involvement in gaza. we will take some those questions to her when she comes on. john in minnesota. democrat. you are next. caller: i think i want to make

three points about immigration. the first, i live in minnesota so i know what is going on. all of the meat is being processed by immigrants. the eggs are being -- chickens are being raised by immigrants. the cows are being built by immigrants. the coffee is being roasted by immigrants. many of these companies are owned by republicans and they love the cheap labor. second, if an immigrant emits a crime such as voting, if you vote illegally it is a felony and if they commit that felony they are never allowed to become a citizen in the future, and that is why they avoid committing crimes. lastly, the federal reserve said a few months ago that it is the immigrants in this country that

have really been the backbone of this burgeoning economy that we are now in. and the united states has the best economy in the whole world. so, that is what i have to say. host: john in the land of 10,000 lakes. this is roseann, parkland, florida. publican. caller: i was away for a couple of days so i do not know if he reported on this. i am a black woman living in florida and there was a poll released by the naacp that showed that one in four black men under 50 are voting for trump. i do not know if you have reported on that. i think you probably should. obviously if the naacp is releasing that it is most likely the number closer to 30 or 35%. but, i do not see any kamala

harris signs. i live in the northwest area of broward county, which is a democrat stronghold. i do not see any harris signs at all. i think that is very promising for donald trump. i would really like it if you were to show the pole released by the naacp. and it was covered, there is an article written about it i reuters. and president trump lee stay safe, we love you in florida. this is your state. by. host: that is roxanne and this is the headline from "reuters," "one in four u.s. black men under 50 support trump for pub -- for president." independent. good morning. caller: i really wanted to talk

to mr. rosen. i read the constitution and it has been a couple of days and i need confirmation on something that is in it. it stated that presidential terms are limited to two consecutive terms and if you could find out i'd really like you to help me out on that. host: michael in virginia, democrat. good morning. caller: i have a couple of comments. first of all, trump is not the president. a lot of people on your show and on tv are always calling him president trump. he is former president trump. ok? number two, they are talking about the democrats, saying that he is a detriment to our democracy. he is? or none of this stuff would be happening if not for him. even though they are trying to assassinate him. they are not trying to

assassinate him because the democrats are saying he is a detriment to democracy because they are telling the truth when they say that. and because of the way that he acts towards people, that is probably making people feel that way. that is all my comment is for the day. host: michael in virginia on the previous caller in presidential terms it is the 22nd amendment, no person should be elected to the office or than twice and no one who has acted as president for more than two years to a term to which some other person was elected president should be off -- elected more than once. this article should not be applied to anyone holding the office when proposed by the congress and should not prevent somebody who is may be holding the office or acting as president during the term with which the article becomes operative from holding the office or acting as president during the remainder of such term." section one and there is a

section two of the 22nd amendment saying that "this argument shall be inoperative unless it shall be ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to congress." it went on to be ratified. gerald in washington, d.c.. republican. good morning. caller: i am pleading with donald trump and the republican party to stop making a mockery of the assassinations of abraham lincoln, martin luther king jr. and john kennedy and malcolm x. these are fake assassination attempt that appeared to be publicity stunts to get sympathy votes. host: you do not think that donald trump was -- there was an attempted assassination on him? i think the caller hung up. theodore in canton, ohio. independent. good morning.

caller: i would like to talk about the hypocrisy of the constitution. we the people only served european white men that owned people. people who were indigenous, they killed off their food supply, their clothing supply, their housing supply by killing the buffalo. you stole people from africa, brought them here and made them work for nothing. expect nothing. and then, no reparations or repair to these people. indigenous people, and immigrants who came here were advertised to come here and owned land and yet the people who were living here did not own the land that was already here. hypocrisy. criminals sent to this country because they were escaping prisons, they were trying to

overthrow their own government there. they were rebels who did everything that could be done to get those people out of europe. these were criminals, the very ones they talk about as immigrants and refugees today were criminals. people from insane asylums, pedophiles and all kinds of the worst of europe. host: that is theodore. denny i -- benny in louisville, kentucky. democrat. caller: good morning. i was just calling about the assassination attempt. they say attempt. i guess it was an attempt even though the gun was not shot. my point by calling is it is donald trump's rhetoric. and i hear people all the time saying or republican saying that they need to turn it down on the

democrat side. and i am not opposed to that. i think's rhetoric is unmatched, calling people berman -- i think his rhetoric is unmatched, calling people vermin. i often hear republican saying that they do not play the whole january's -- january 6 needs to march peacefully. but he also said you have to fight like hell or you will lose your country. donald trump pulled and attracts all of this attention to himself and he knows exactly what he is doing. and he is campaigning on this assassination attempt. i do not want him to be president again and i just wish that he would go away. raise filet. thank you for taking my call. host: this is president biden speaking out against the

assassination attempt yesterday at an event. [video clip] >> i commend the secret service for the expert handling and the former president is protected by harm and the subject is in custody. the acting head of the secret service is in florida next -- determining whether further adjustments need to be made to secure the safety of our former president. let me say that there is no and i say no place for political violence in america. zero, never. i have always condemned political environment -- violence. in america we resolve our differences at the ballot box. he suffered too many times the tragedy of an assassin's bullet. it solves nothing and chairs -- tears the country apart. we must never give it any

oxygen. [end video clip] host: president biden in philadelphia. and not mention yesterday he brought up acting secret service director ronald ro who was speaking about the challenges that the secret service faces financially among other things as he and other officials were briefing the media about this investigation so far. this is ronald ro from yesterday. [video clip] >> the secret service under -- operates under a paradox of zero failed mission, also that we have done more with less for decades. this goes back many decades. right? we have immediate needs and we have great support not only from president biden and you saw his public statement today where he said he will direct his staff to

make sure that the secret service has the resources it needs. we are having fantastic conversations with numbers of congress. i was up to the hill last week and we are continuing to have those conversations. the long and short of it is this. coming after butler i have ordered a paradigms shift. the protective methodologies work and are sound and we saw that yesterday. but the way we are positioned right now in this dynamic threat environment, it has given me guidance to say you know what? we need to look at what the methodology is. we need to get out of a reactive model and get to a readiness model. there could be another geopolitical event that could put the united states into a kinetic conflict or some other issue that may result in additional responsibilities of the united states secret service. and show -- and so we are working and making information available to all of our

partners. i want to say that commitment of congress to the secret service has been tremendous. we will continue to work with them and secretary mayorkas who supports an making sure that we get what we need is phenomenal. as we have these conversations and i feel confident that we will get what we need. we have immediate needs and future needs. i need to make sure that are counter snipers are the best in the world. that they are exactly doing what we need them to do and they mount -- they match counterparts in the military. right now, we are working with congress to get those to our training facility. we also have a need to make sure that we are getting the personnel which requires us to be able to have the funding to hire more people. you cannot just give me money and say we are going to make sure that everybody gets overtime because the men and women of the secret service, we

are redlining them and they are rising to this moment and meeting the challenges. host: ronald rowe yesterday. taking your phone calls and it is open for them. any public-policy policy or political issue, this is your time. anne, lake city, tennessee. republican. good morning. caller: i want to say hello to my good friend carol. this administration has violated our constitution, rules and regulations. they started out to sending the fbi to twitter and other social media to keep the facts and the truth off about hunter biden's laptop a promoted the lie that it was russian information and zuckerberg admitted that he gave in to keep the information from the public. and then we have mayorkas who is a failure of the border. we are -- he is in charge of

secret service and he is continuing to fail and let people come across our border and border patrol has been told when they run off into the woods to not take them. they are not being counted as getaways. we have 198 democratic representatives that voted against the bill that would keep people that are not citizens from voting and we say that will not happen. we know that the states that have fair voting roles -- have audited have found thousands of illegal voters and they have admitted that they have let people who have -- you are not citizens have registered to sign up. we have an administration that paid billion sought -- paid off billions of dollars in student loans. he told it was illegal and he did it anyway. why have a constitution if we have an administration that will not obey the rules? host: one of the topics on order crossings.

news from the department of homeland security this week " reported on monday the best border in numbers since just after president biden took office after being detecting 158, 988 down from july and the fewest since february 2021 when it was about 101,000. " it notes that the border patrol saw arrest go up "but interior entries at airports and seaports plummeted as the parole program system was paused." those numbers are out from homeland security this week. lawrence in winston-salem, north carolina. independent. caller: good morning. i want to bring to your attention that they are talking about protecting donald trump. donald trump did not protect the

police that got killed january 6 and all the republicans calling in, senator mcconnell and graham, they should have been the first ones to impeach donald trump. he would not be getting shot out or does shot at or worried about summary trying to shoot him if they would have impeached him. i just want to say that these republicans need to make sure that they do not blame the democrats because donald trump is the one to blame. thank you and have a good day. host: stephen. wheaton, illinois. democrat. caller: thank you for having the program. i'm going back a little bit. the disinformation was not that it was not a laptop it was what comber or jordan did to look for something on the laptop that bannon was putting out on the internet the whole nine. the misinformation was not that

it was not a laptop, it was they were going to lie about what was on the laptop. going back to mueller he found collusion. there was russian collusion and the senate and the congress both found collusion. mueller could not prosecute since trump was elected president and he tabled it. he said after trump's done somebody should go up -- should go back and look at it because there is field to find broken laws. durham said that the dossier was not part of the fbi's findings. they did not use that dossier and that had nothing to do with what happens to trump in the legal system. the fbi did what they did. matt gaetz kicked him out and said i do not like you because you did not find i wanted you to find. durham did not find anything wrong with what the fbi did. they said they went after a little bit hard but they should have hung it up earlier. people think that it was about president biden's dimension.

-- dementia. but they said what anybody what prompted with the documents -- trump did with the documents should be prosecuted. you guys had cared -- this guy from the heritage foundation. it trump has 8 trillion in debt and biden has $5.5 trillion in debt. who got the worst debt? and again, if we are paying $1 trillion on interest, two hundred 50 million of that is trump's debt that he'd borrowed against the treasury. if you look at afghanistan, 2400 people died and all we are talking about is the last 13. if i were one of those 2387 parents who were goldstar parents because their kids went over and got killed and all they were talking about where the last 13 i would be upset. host: that is stephen in

illinois. wendell in virginia. republican. what part of virginia? you have to turn your television down, is it vergilla, virginia? ok. stick by your phone. david. independent, louisiana. independent. go ahead. caller: good morning. i swear it is unbelievable all of people shooting at trump. they keep talking about who started the rhetoric, but when i first remember somebody calling half the country deplorables and that makes me feel so good. but i am american as can be. and let me tell you all remember this lady, i believe that she was a comedian. she is walking around with a copy of trump's head that was cut off and she was holding it

by a hair and it was hilarious. and they had a person who wanted to know when was the last time an actor assassinated a president? that was great. another movie star person said i have been thinking a lot lately of blowing up the white house. and this was years and years back when he first got in office. it is unbelievable what our country has become. host: that is david. paul in the bronx. democrat. good morning. caller: i want to talk about a couple of things. you had a caller complaining about how we refer to mr. trump as president trump. it happens and we still do that. we still refer to barack obama as president obama. somebody tried to call about presidential terms being two consecutive terms. that might have been the text in

consideration but as it stands it is two total terms. and no one is offering illegal residents or crossers a chance for u.s. citizenship. there is no way to prove that. early voting is a good thing and i am not sure why people are trying to shut that down. generally speaking, if you have a chance to vote more than one day and not everybody that's general election day off. so there is no crime in early voting. there are systems in place to make sure that noncitizens cannot vote and that multiple people cannot vote multiple times. i am not exactly sure why people are against the notion and idea that people should not be able to vote ahead of the general election if the state allows it. host: from new york to donna in waynesboro, georgia. republican, good morning. caller: i want to thank you,

c-span. i really appreciate the way you handle the station. and you handle the people that is on that, on. because, today there is so much animosity between the republicans, democrats, and independents. i was raised to be a freethinker and study who i was going to vote for and look into it. i kept up with biden and trump from the time they were in their 20's. i am that old. and i really do not like the way that it has turned out.

the way things are going because i studied donald trump. and he was such a good businessman. and i believe we need a businessman in this day and time he said he was going to run and he left the democrat party run as a republican. everybody has been against him on both sides. it breaks my heart because i believe he really loves this country. just like i believe kennedy love the country. host: donna in georgia. more of your phone calls in just a few minutes. right now a bit of historical perspective in the wake of the second assassination attempt on

former president trump in 90 weeks and we take you back to september of 1975, president gerald ford was the target of two assassination attempt in three weeks. joining us is richard norton smith, a presidential historian and the author of "ordinary man." mr. smith, good morning. take us back to september 1975. what happened that month in sacramento? guest: well the fifth of september the president was in sacramento. he was there to speak to the state legislature. and also, people forget. ronald reagan the former governor of california was about to formally announce his challenge. the president was in california twice ineptember for political reasons. heever thought that he could

take california away from reagan but they wanted him to have to work on his home turf. he was in sacramento. he walks out of the hotel which is across the street from the state capital. says it is a beautiful day and i think i will walk. there were 700 people who were -- several hundred people hoping to get a glimpse of him. you can imagine how delighted they were to meet him in person. anyway, it is interesting. i remember having a conversation with the president. he said remember i was on the warren commission, one of the seven who were charged with investigating the murder of president kennedy. he says i am aware. i was always keeping an eye out when i look at the crowd. and he saw out of the corner of his eye this woman. he remembered that she had a weathered face, and an awed red

-- odd reddish-orange dress on. they met under a magnolia tree under the capital. the next thing that he knew she had pulled out a 45 colt semi automatic pistol out of an ankle holster. and she said the country is a mess this man is not your president. ile that moment the head secret service agent of about a dozen that day protecting the president. he said the one word that all agents dread to hear but are trained to respond to. gun. he put himself in front of the president. and then managed to reach for the gun. before she could pull back on the slide that would have put the thirst several bullet -- first several bullets in the gun

chamber. he managed to lodge the thin membrane of skin between the thumb and the forefinger. he got that between the hammer and the firing pin. so the only blood shed that day was his when the hammer actually penetrated his hand. in any event. she said the gun did not go off, can you believe it, it did not go off. she was handcuffs. -- handcuffed. the president was surrounded by agents who set out a flying wedge and classic ford told them to slow down. he stood up and actually adjusted his tie. he was going into see governor brown. he went into the capital and never mention what happened. it was 20 minutes in the conversation before an aide came

up and told governor brown what had happened. he said you ok mr. president? he said it was fine. it was not something that going to waste the governor's time talking about something that had happened. two weeks later you can imagine. there is a big argument in the white house between the security people in the political people about whether he should go back to california. and he said i am not going to be held captive and he thought it was very symbol. he went back this time to san francisco. spoke to the afl-cio and ce back to the same francis out -- to the st. francis hotel. union square was a park with several thousand protesters. the secret service said this is not a friendly crowd. do not come out the main entrance. they went out a side entrance on post street. there was a small crowd there. and it was 50-ish housewife

named sarah jane moore who had gottenved in the radical politics of the bay in the 70's and had an obsessionith patty first. in any event. the amazing thing is that over the weekend, she had been and visited the san francisco police . they knew all about sarah jane moore. they confiscated a gun and 113 rounds of ammo. the day before the secret service interviewed her. and they did not detain her the reason being is that she was offered to be a government informant. this was a story within a story. e had been forced to buy a new gun. a 38 smith & wesson.

she did not realize that it was six inches off. she was only 40 feet away. almost point-blank range and she fired a shot and missed by literally six inches. she was unable to get off a second shot or at least target a second shot because her hand was grabbed by a stranger, a nonveteran, murray -- veteran, marine who was the real hero that day. he had seen her take the gun out of her purse and he longed and basically the second shot went awry. of course, the sequel is he became the victim of unsought

publicity and became the hero of the day. and then the "san francisco chronicle" outed him as gay and his family disowned him. the president wrote a letter thanking him. and what a lot of people do not know is that he wrote back to the president asking him not to call attention to is rol -- his role because of what it had done to destroy his relationship with the family. can you imagine the reaction today if it was known that the secret service had in fact interviewed would be assassin less than 24 hours earlier customer --? host: were their questions about access to a president and criticism of the secret service and everything we have seen in the past nine weeks at congressional hearings and

everything leading up guest: it was very different. on the contrary, ford went out of his way to thank the secret service for in effect saving his life. they had a very special friendship that lasted for the rest of the president's life. the criticism after the second attempt, most of it from the press was directed at ford for exposing himself to such risk. it wasn't directed at the secret service. that is one of the distinctions between then and now. host: i want you to stay on the line as we show our viewers testimony from president ford about the first attempted

assassination. he gave testimony as part of the criminal trial. that was eventually released years later. this was him talking about the first assassination attempt. >> i noticed this lady in a brightly colored dress who wanted to move closer toward me and i assume shake hands. i hesitated, instead of keeping moving as i normally do. as i stopped, i saw a hand come through the crowd. that was the only active gesture that i saw.

in the hand was a weapon. host: gerald ford back in 1975. what eventually happened in the years later? guest: i believe that is the first time a president gave testimony in a criminal trial. both women were tried rather quickly i guess by modern standards. both were convicted. th served lengthy services. both were releasedro jail after president ford passed ay in 2006. both are still alive. sarah moore is 94 living at disclose location. squeaky is 79 and living in

upstate new york. host: much more on gerald ford, an ordinary man, historic presidency. richard norton smith is the author of that book, we appreciate you filling us in on the history here on c-span. guest: thank you so much, happy constitution day. host: back to your phone calls, about 15 minutes left of this segment. anthony is in florida, independent. go ahead. caller: good morning. always a pleasure to talk to talk to you, happy constitution day. the constitution is an adaptable, living thing, same thing with the constitution.

black people could not vote, women could not vote. should always be amended and changed for our benefit. the power comes from the united states and the constitution protects all people and it should always have the highest value. thank you, c-span. goodbye. host: from florida to ohio, this is carolyn, democrat, good morning. caller: i just wanted to recommend something. i came home and i was in the middle of watching it. you all had on sunday, a lady.

hannah, she was with namy, when i came in on it, it was just riveting. i want to go back because i know you have it online and i could go to the start of it that i missed. i think everyone could use listening to her. i thought she was fantastic. i want to commend you all for having that on. i was involved with the school system for a long time. people know me from working e.my daughter always said i shod go back to get my therapy to be able to help people, i just know when i'm out in public, so many

people want to talk and they want to talk about their problems. i know personally from that, i'm not able to really help them like i want to. i listen but i just think people would really get a lot out of her talk from sunday, it was just fantastic. thank you, c-span, for doing that. host: she was from the national alliance on mental illness. discussing access for mental health care parody and we took a lot of stories from viewers about their troubles. september being national suicide prevention month. thanks for watching. caller: thank you. host: carol in kentucky,

republican. caller: i hear some of these callers, trying against trump. trying to blame him for january 6, trump had nothing to do with that. he didn't tell them go down there and commit violence. that fellow from north carolina doesn't know who he's talking about. the only person who could've stopped the riot was nancy pelosi. everybody should know what is going on. i pray president trump, somebody tried to kill him thank god they got that person.

thank you. host: independent, good morning. caller: there was a comment earlier talking about trump being a great businessman. i would look at the performance of his social stock that is cratering while the stock market is about 12,000 points higher than it was when president joe biden took office. those are just raw numbers that show the performance of this man's stock is not up to par. we are characterizing him as a good businessman. i would encourage people if they will vote for a 70-year-old -- 78-year-old man that he's going to tweet out that he hates taylor swift. thank you. host: cedar rapids, a line for

democrats, good morning. caller: the last caller was sort of where i was going. very misinformed if she thinks trump was a good businessman, go look into his bankruptcy, how he got his start and where the other gentleman was just saying, now he is trying to do something with bitcoin and has a whole slew of criminals assisting him with this. it's just sad the amount of misinformation out there for people who don't pay attention. thank you. caller: alabama, republican line, good morning. caller: i would like to address people calling in about seceding

from the union. i'm a combat veteran, so is my husband. these people calling in saying this, i've had other soldiers blood on my hands. i can't imagine that my son would have to fight fellow americans that don't know better and have never been to war that don't know what that would entail for our nation. that almost broke my heart, we are united and on the verge of world war iii. if we do not come together, we are doomed. thank you, happy constitution

day, god bless everyone in this nation. host: independent line, your next. caller: it is constitution day. all of those individuals supporting insurrection and otherwise, they should read the constitution. we pour over the constitution to know. all laws in the united states originate from the constitution. that goes from local municipal laws down to the federal code. if a scholar were allowed to talk on an interview show, it would demonstrate how violent the constitution, his administration has been, thank you. host: on constitution day,

didn't want to note for you that c-span has a new gallery to highlight video from the c-span archives on the federalist papers, more. you could see interviews with justice john robert, all talking about the united states constitution. the books about the constitution, the constitutional convention, delegates, james madison, more. c-span.org is where you could go , that gallery is up today on constitution day. this is isaiah in virginia, democrat. good morning. caller: i would just like to offer some information to the citizens of the united states. if you are a voter and you intend to vote in this upcoming

election, or you are thinking about voting for the first time, there is some information i would hope you would educate yourself with. it would be back in the 1920's. about the war of the worlds what we had this mass hysteria, it was serious. we had the incident where we had the mass suicide. and then we always have the situations for whatever reason it feels like the whole country is in a state of culture shock. please educate yourself and make sure you are not in persuasion

of those people that are caught up in the war of the worlds. some type of savior where they would commit suicide because he said so and keep in mind, whatever you do, we are all american citizens. whatever we do, we should all put country before party. we should always put country before party or any individuals, thank you. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. caller: i guess i would just start -- host: start with what? we are running out of time. caller: the assassination

attempts on the former sitting president are nothing more than disgruntled former trump supporters. who could blame them for being disgruntled? donald trump has succeeded in dividing our country. he has no regard. you saw what he tried to do to stay in power. we don't want donald trump killed or murdered, we want him tried for his crimes. any cohorts who haven't been indicted yet we want them tried as well. information i have heard expressed, i wish there was some way we could check some of the statements, they are just so wrong.

i realize you are trying to create an open forum. i just think there has to be some way to do that. i've heard a lot of minor inaccuracies from democrats. th major factual inaccuracies on the republican line are ridiculous. thank you for c-span, have a great day. host: about 45 more minutes this morning. in that time we will discuss the u.s. involvement in the war in gaza. stick around for that discussion . we will be right back. ♪ >> attention middle and high

school students across america, it is time to make your voice heard. the contest 2025 is here. your chance to create a documentary that could inspire change and make an impact. your message to the president, what issue is most important to you or your community? whether you are passionate about politics or community stories, your platform to share your message with the world. including a grand prize of $5,000. this is your opportunity to make an impact but be rewarded for your creativity and hard work. enter your submissions today. the deadline is january 20 2025.

> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided coverage of the halls of congress from the halls -- house and senate floor, party briefing and committee hearings. c-span gives you a front row seat to out issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruption and completely unfiltered. your unfiltered view of government. >> if you miss any of c-span's coverage, you could find it any time at c-span.org. videos of hearings and other events with markers that guide you with newsworthy highlights. these markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen. this tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was

debated and decided in washington. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the biggest events with floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress. the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics. you could stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal. plus a variety of compelling podcasts. it is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: conversation on the war in gaza, our guest is annelle sheline. previously a foreign affairs officer at the state department. annelle sheline, when and why did you leave your state department job? guest: thank you for having me and thank you for drawing attention to this. i left at the end of march. as you mentioned i was working on promotion in the middle east. at the time, because i had been at the state department such a short time i wasn't initially planning to go public. i had told superiors i would be resigning over gaza, i was going to leave it internal. colleagues asked if i would consider going public with the resignation.

it did seem public pressure would be the only thing that had any effect. my own resignation and those that came after mine unfortunately don't seem to have had that much of an effect on the policy. i just felt it was important to try and speak up. host: you resigned over gaza, for folks who haven't read your statement, why? guest: in general, as someone who studied the middle east, i have a phd in political science. i, and those who know the middle east well were extremely concerned about the humanitarian effect, the humans hold this was having, this was not a wise policy with american security or is really security.

it is extremely destabilizing and will only lead to more violent. more specifically trying to advocate for human rights, something that people may give a smile, the american credibility on human rights already was pristine before october 7. there was important work the u.s. was doing across the region . it has only grown more repressive in the intervening years. the u.s. was playing an extremely important role in advocating for human rights. it became sort of a laughing matter for the thought that the u.s. would be advocating on the human rights activists.

host: why did you go to the state department and what does this do? guest: i had a government issued fellowship that allowed me to be hired. that contributed to my decision to stay for the entire year. i wanted to fulfill my service obligation. i let my superiors know that after those 365 days were over i would be resigning. people may be aware of the human rights report that the state department produces every year and has done so since the 1970's. the original intention of those reports when congress mandated them after the vietnam war and concerns over the way the united states supported authoritarian government, the thought

initially was that by producing human rights reports, the united states would condition countries. if a country had a really poor human rights report, unfortunately that initial report had fallen by the wayside. they cut off the sales to any country regardless of human rights record. however, the state department continues to produce these report every year. that was a big part of what i was involved in. host: what do you want to see the biden administration do today? guest: they need to cut off weapons to israel. it is no longer legal for the united states to continue to send weapons to israel. this is also true of other

governments across the world. these extreme human rights users. in israel it is particularly urgent given the level of violence they are conducting. host: what is the legal definition of genocide? guest: essentially it is an effort to wipe out people, it doesn't have to be the entire people. it is an effort to eliminate a particular people on the basis of their membership and a particular group. israel is trying to wipe out the palestinian population of gaza, it is not allowing in aid, 500 trucks per day were regularly going into gaza.

israel does not allow goods in and out of gaza. last month in august, it was an average of 69 trucks per day. in september, the latest i saw was 62 trucks per day. 500 was necessary, that was the bare minimum. the extent to which israel is making it impossible for people to survive in as well as daily arguments, dropping bombs all over their territory. interestingly around the same era that congress mandated the human rights report, the aftermath of the vietnam war, a lot of concern about what the united states was doing. there were instances of people going public with concerns about the state department.

the state department established the channel. you receive a response. it is something taken very seriously. you do not have access to previous cables. what level of dissent the policy might be generating. i signed two cables. i co-authored a cable on the human rights aspect. the violations israel was involved in. i did not receive a response. in general, i found many people in states were horrified by this

policy including senior people inside states. when it comes to u.s. policy towards israel, that is divided -- decided at the very top. the people in the middle east to work on the region, their insights are not being listened to. host: design cables are taken extremely seriously, do you think antony blinken knew about this? guest: my understanding is he is made aware of all of them. i don't know if he personally read it. my understanding is this issue has generated more dissent cables than any recent issue. leading up to the invasion of iraq. i know the level of dissent is extensive.

each one personally we did receive a formal response from the state department. the united states is doing everything it can that we continue to hear over and over again. this broke down just before last thanksgiving. i think it is extremely frustrating the extent to which this continues to be put forward as a solution when the u.s. is unable to use any sort of pressure to actually get there to the extent that this is why argue it is time for the united states to uphold american law

and no longer send weapons to israel. that what they are doing is unacceptable under international law and the u.s. will no longer support it. host: annelle sheline is with us until the end of our program. phone numbers as usual, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you currently work at the quincy institute for responsible statecraft, what do you do there now? guest: it is a think tank that launched in late 2019 that tries to advocate for a less militarized policy. i interviewed before i jayland -- joined the state department. there is too much money, not

enough domestically on addressing the security concerns. continuing to spend so much on our military in pursuing our primary foreign parsi -- policy tool. the only people that benefit are the shareholders from the weapons manufacturers. host: would be able to get the arms somewhere else? would we be able to change what is happening right now in gaza? guest: absolutely. this is what changed israeli policy in the past. use our ronald reagan do that with the violence israel was perpetrating in lebanon in the 1980's. we know that had a big impact when president biden called back in 2021 and said that is enough.

the violence had gone on for a matter of weeks. host: is it the violence or the political protection that is provided by the u.s.? guest: those are completely integrated. the biden administration has sent more weapons than any previous administration. signaling the biden administration supports what israel is doing. if the history should wishes to signal it no longer supports this, that is the way to send that signal. saying we don't agree, you should stop and send extreme amounts of weaponry. it would also help to prevent a broader regional war. we know from the perspective of benjamin netanyahu, who is trying to stay out of jail for

corruption and other acts in many ways kind of similar to what we are seeing with former president trump. their best bet for staying out of jail is to come back into power. from his perspective, blocking the violence and shifting that attention away from himself to regain some of that he lost. that is his best bet for avoiding jail time. host: kamala harris said last week about the u.s. approach to israel, this is what she said. vp harris: what we know is this war must end. it must end immediately and the way it will end his we need a cease-fire deal and we need the hostages out. we will work around the clock on that. understanding that we must chart

a course for a two state solution. in that solution, there must be security for the israeli people and an equal measure for the palestinian. i will always give israel the ability to defend itself particularly as it relates to iran and any threat that iran and its proxies close to israel. guest: it's not surprising she is running for president and thus far almost no one has faced any consequences for being too pro-israel. we are seeing a generation of young people who no longer support this unconditional support for israel no matter what it does to the population under control. i had hopes that candidate and potential president harris might pursue a different policy.

thus far i am not surprised that she is expressing this ongoing unconditional support for israel. host: mark on the line for democrats, good morning. caller: i will disagree with your guest, politely. i will give you the title on the report. it is called the traditional assessment, why is israel doing the swords of iron war? this was written by academics independently who are members of biochemistry food and nutrition science. hospitals, medical standards, the conclusion was or is that a sufficient number of food has been sent into gaza.

a sufficient amount of food has not gotten to the people who need it. the food has been hijacked by hamas is what i am saying. i am quoting the academics who evaluated the nutrition. given where this person is coming from, i think it is critical to note that israel does publicize the number of hamas that are killed. i'm quoting data published by israel that 18,000-19,000 hamas fighters have been killed in this war.

when you look at the total number killed in gaza, one should be aware of the number of hamas fighters composed in that total number of 40,000. host: annelle sheline, what do you want to respond to? guest: appreciate the caller for his time and questions. i would direct them to the humanitarian operations on the ground in gaza. we had the state department make this assessment. this was part of why people were following when my state department colleague resigned over the msm20.

as she said publicly at the time , the determination had been made that israel was blocking humanitarian aid. meaning they were no longer able to get security assistance in the foreign assistance act. she and her colleagues made that determination. when the report was released, that had been changed. unfortunately israel commits the same error. any mail individual killed is considered a fighter between the ages of something like 14 and 60.

those numbers we are seeing of a legend hamas fighters killed, that simply reflects men that were killed. in general it is important the extent to which women and children are regarded as victims . the also the acknowledgment that women are victims. some are civilian men that have nothing to do with hamas and when they are killed they are designated as hamas fighters. in many cases they had no involvement. host: how do you figure out what is reliable information, whether it is these numbers on casualties or anything else going on in the active war zone? guest: it would be easier if israel allowed foreign journalists to get into gaza. when you see u.n. trucks driving

around, it is complete devastation. there are still 2 million people trying to survive. it is a desert, there is no water. it is absolutely shocking that all of us have access to sufficient information from people inside gaza. people were posting on social media and you could see their geo-tag location. knowing they were not aware of what was happening. host: nina in maryland, independent, good morning. are you with us? caller: yes i am. thanks to your guest for pointing out the varying obvious facts that we could all see.

the misinformation that israel is putting out about deaths of hamas fighters. i won't belabor that. do you have any thoughts about a change coming with regards to all of the presidential candidates that are available? i know jill stein is the only antiwar candidate. i don't know. i would love it if you could reflect on that. guest: thanks so much. i appreciate what jill stein has

said and her willingness to take more of an antiwar stance. i think voting for jill stein could bring donald trump back into the white house. personally, i will be voting for kamala harris and trying to work with those working to push her. i no longer think we will continue to see this unconditional support that it currently has in congress. we saw the efforts to eliminate members of congress who were going into their primaries spending millions of dollars to make sure people were not able to make -- keep their seats because of the ways they were criticizing what israel was doing.

i think the naked expression is something that has turned off a lot of american. they are operating so blatantly on behalf of government. if you are concerned about the israeli civilians, how is this making them anymore secure? israel has behaved provocatively in terms of killing the hamas leader and the fact that they have not engaged in a massive retaliation. it speaks to the power of restraint to prevent a broader war. it is not u.s. interest to get dragged into another war in the

middle east. it is a signal to netanyahu that the united states continues to support him and will support him up to perhaps sending u.s. troops to fight on his behalf. american troops are so tired of these unnecessary wars in the middle east. i think harris is someone who could be moved on this. the hiring she has done giving some optimism to shift here. also calling ones number in congress is important to signal not only you want a cease fire but it's time to end the sale and u.s. weapons and information to israel. host: what are you referring to? guest: united states has mobilized more resources into

the area. think about -- we hear a lot about the missiles that get sent back and forth from hezbollah and lebanon. i think the way that is often construed in u.s. media is they are hezbollah missiles. i believe it is 80% of the missiles across the board have been from israel at lebanon. israel killing as i mentioned the hamas leader in tehran or attacking the iranian consulate in damascus. as they continue to behaved provocatively, these other countries might get to a point where they are no longer willing to exhibit the restraint. if we get into an actual war launching massive military

action, the united states is going to be involved in that. host: when you say provocatively, how would you describe the events of october 7 and the caller earlier when we mentioned you were coming on said i want to know whether she thinks israel has the rights to defend itself? guest: the events of october 7 were absolutely horrific. hamas is a terrorist organization and obviously israel was going to respond to the trauma and violence that it suffered. what israel is doing at this point in no way constitutes self-defense and makes itself significantly less secure not only as a result of this traumatized population but around the world.

we have seen instances of u.s. official specializing in this with the extent to which the level of terrorist recruitment, the extent to which it is making israel and the united states less secure is immense. the question is i would say what it is doing could not be described in any way as self-defense, furthermore under international law, because israel occupies gaza, israel does not have a right to defend itself from a territory it occupies. this gets into legal questions. according to the u.n. determination, it is a generally

acknowledged fact, it cannot legally defend itself under the u.n. charter from a territory that it occupies. host: this is joe, republican, good morning. caller: the history of post-world war ii where millions of germans occupied by russia moved to the west. this was once part of the ottoman empire, why can't palestinians who want to leave the gaza strip or west bank get asylum in places like turkey or the island of cyprus, or give turkey a u.n. mandate to run the gaza strip and shape it up so it's not run by the corrupt palestinian authority. i'm sure there are many people

in the gaza strip who would move away from their after what has been happening after the past year to go to a place like cyprus to start a new life why could that not be a solution to the problem in gaza and on the west bank? guest: i think this is something a lot of people have asked. the most basic impediment to be believing is that borders are closed, israel controls those borders. there have been efforts to try to extract the most severely injured people you see here and there are reports of a child getting out for getting treatment. these are an extremely low number of individuals compared to the vast numbers who would be

eager to seek medical treatment or building a life elsewhere. at the same time, there are many people historically where there have been the desire to remain. this goes back to israel in 1948. the determination that there would be two territories. the territory for israel and palestine. at this point for people inside gaza, historically there has been a determination to stay, maintain the state of palestine. what we are seeing right now is the violence israel is conducting has increasingly spent -- spread to the west bank . we have had hundreds of palestinians killed before

october 7. 2003 was the year with the highest mortality rate. most of that was in the west bank. why don't people take palestinians, in many ways the palestinian national project remains very much alive. this has been something that has been criticized, the extent to which israel is isolating itself because of this level of violence. after october 7 and israel's response, the world supported the thought that israel needed to respond and go after the people that conducted october 7. it has alienated the world and

the united states provides diplomatic cover for israel at the u.n., generating this broad frustration with the failure as this. for americans, we need to ask ourselves to what extent are we willing to allow the post-world war ii system that the united states was responsible for sustaining, all of that is being shown as corrupt, bankrupt, are they willing to show all of that support of the israeli genocide. host: what was the last time the system was working in this region? guest: that's a good question. the way the council were set up,

it was intended to prevent world war iii. it was necessarily intended to address many of the problems i think they would like the u.n. to address. i think it has been successful in doing so. that is my question of if it does completely break down or countries no longer wish to reciprocate because of the function that they observe and their inability to cause this rogue state, the inability to shift that, this could have broad repercussions so far beyond just this part of the world. host: less than 10 minutes left with annelle sheline. we will take you to the senate judiciary hearing, member

starting to gather. daniel in north carolina, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call and our desk for a nuanced discussion about this. i appreciate what the guest said and the number of arrangements being illegal. does the current legal arrangements established by the international norms or laws make any clear differentiation between offensive versus defensive arms specifically under their proposal with cutting off military aid that israel needs? i just want to second what the guest said about kamala harris being somebody who understands the rule of law domestically and

internationally, thank you very much. guest: that's a great question. as a political scientist, the difficulty of actually distinguishing offensive from defensive weapons, it is a explosive device that could be used for defensive purposes. that is getting at a fundamental question. although i personally would support the full withdrawal embargo on israel, until israel changes its behavior, certainly restart the provision of defensive weapon. especially for the iron down. that would be my preference to make sure that is abundantly clear. i could see a possible president

harris pursuing a more nuanced approach if she said we will continue to provide weapons to allow israel to maintain its air defenses. no longer providing things like the 2000 pound bomb that has been dropping in civilian areas. the amounts of explosive material israel has dropped on gaza, i forget the exact but it was more explosive material than was dropped on hamburg and london in all of world war ii. it is a blitzkrieg of london. the amount of violence carried out during world war ii. they have dropped more than that on this tiny territory of gaza.

conveying the urgency with which the united states has to get israel to stop what it is doing not only for the sake of people inside gaza before the sake of preventing broader war. host: one more question, could you make it quick? caller: aipac is the driver of all of this. according to the book, aipac was set up with israeli money in the 50's and 60's. until it enforces its own 1962 order, nothing will change. host: annelle sheline? guest: i think that's a great point. i agree we need a lot more scrutiny over the level of the power of the israel lobby, the

extent to which israeli interests are driving a lot of the decisions congress makes. simply to agree they should be registered under the foreign agents registration act. host: what are you working on, in our final minute here? guest: quincy is involved in efforts to try to push for an arms embargo. i'm trying to travel to jordan in the coming weeks as a close u.s. partner dealing with levels of pressure. we wait to see the results for the election. that is certainly the trump administration, it is unlikely to do anything productive on this conflict.

back to the question of voting for kamala harris or not. she is our best option. host: annelle sheline is a research associate at the quincy institute, you could follow her on x @annelle sheline. guest: thanks for having me. host: that will do it for us this morning. it is 4:00 a.m. pacific. we will take you over to the united states senate judiciary committee with the issue of hate crimes. live coverage under way in just a moment here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> we are waiting for the start of the hearing with the senate judiciary committee on combating the rise of hate crimes in the u.s.. speakers and lawmakers are expected to address how the federal government can protect the safety of minority communities. later today at noon eastern the u.s. house will be in session where members are expected to work on several measures include in bills related to veterans affairs and foreign election interference. congress is still working on new government funding measures 13 days left until the shutdown day arrives. when we wait for the start of this committee hearing we will show you a discussion from washington journal.

despite one in three americans living with a mental health or substance use condition, only half of those get treatment every year. a lot of that is due to barriers in insurance coverage,

commercial insurance coverage. they might not be able to find a health provider in network, they may not be able to get an appointment and a quick turnaround. there are a lot of things that make it more onerous to get mental health care and insurance and so parity is this concept that if insurer provides mental health benefits they have to provide no more restrictive barriers and they provide other health care benefits what what we've seen is there are a lot more barriers to get mental health care. not enough providers, having to go out of network. you have to jump through hoops to get it and so this is meant to tighten those and make it easier for americans with insurance coverage to get the mental health care they deserve. sen. graham: how does the bite -- host: how does the biden administration plan to do this. guest: the mental health addiction act of 2008. that kind of sets the tone for

what parity should be and closed a lot of the loopholes that were easy to identify. you could not charge an annual limit for mental health care when you did not have it for other types of care. as opposed to things who are more obvious but a lot of these barriers that are harder to enforce persisted and so now insurers will be required to look at the disparities between antal health and substance use care and other types of medical care and when they are not complying with the law and putting additional barriers into place. they will have to institute a corrective action plan and actually act upon it. so our hope is that it improves access for the people who are covered under these plans paid host: the national alliance on mental health -- mental illness, who is the alliance? guest: thank you for that. we are the nations's largest grassroot mental health organization. we have chapters over 650

communities and we have people helping those living with mental conditions and their loved ones. host: it sounds like you're in support of this action. guest: very much so, this is a huge step forward to giving people to care that they deserve and they so often have not been able to receive. host: a statement put out by a group of major health insurers, let me get your thoughts to it. talking about this rule that goes into effect this week or that was signed or goes into effect. guest: the new rules were released this week. host: this rule will have severe unintended consequent as they write and will raise cost and jeopardize patient access to effective and medically necessary mental health support with nearly 50 million americans expensing mental illness is no question in addressing the shortage of mental health

providers must be a top priority , there are proven solutions to increased access to mental health and substance use disorder care including more effectively connecting patients to available providers, standing telehealth resources and improving training for primary care providers. however they say this rule promotes none of the solutions instead expanding the workforce or meaningful improving access to metal health support, the final rules will complicate so much that it will be impossible to operationalize in worse patient outcomes. why are you at such a different take on this from the mental health insurers? guest: what we see is truly burdensome as people can afford to get well. too many people have to pay out-of-pocket go out of network for mental health care. recent data shows for mental health care you have to go out of network 3.5 times more

frequently than other types of medical surgical care. it's not as though insurers don't have a role in supporting the number of providers that are providing care. that same data shows psychiatrists and psychologists all mental health providers significant lasts than other health care providers even though they go through the same education, the same schooling and have the same type of debt they are paid far less and so many of them choose not to engage in insurance network and then we have the system that is the haves and have-nots. so if providers are addressing reimbursement rates or mental health clinicians if they are reducing some of the ministry of burdens, they have to submit paperwork in 2024. they have to send hours appealing denial of care for

their patients. if we remove those barriers we will have more providers taking insurance. >> this was a problem legally supposed to be solved 16 years ago in the wake of what happened this week, how much more time to think it will take for this problem -- before this problem is solved? host: so much to do. host: we know plans will look at how much can we get away with and so enforcement will be key here. one element of enforcement is being able to hit insurers where it counts and that's financially. the derogative labor does not have the statutory ability to impose fines on insurance companies and that's something

we've seen commissioned under the obama administration and the trump administration as fervently support. chris christie was the chair of the trumpet administration commission and said it's absolute necessary to fix this problem to allow the barman of labor on insurance so there still some things we need but this is a huge step in the right direction. host: who is the cop on the street right now? guest: right now with the change is it's not only our plans required to look at how providing mental health care versus other types of care, they've been very tlingit about in the past. now they have 45 days to present an action plan to the department of labor and the department of labor feels that is not sufficient, that will be required to send out a letter to all of its enrollees and participants saying they are not under compliance. so this good to be more public

shaming and accountability, the 2022 analysis of a handful of plans shows none of them had done the requirements under law looking at whether they were providing comparative benefits because there was no repercussions so now we have a step in the right direction with repercussions and they have to put a corrective action plan in place. host: mental health and mental health coverage parity is our topic. we should know we are having this conversation during suicide prevention in this country. hanna of the national alliance on mental health illness. phone lines a this morning regionally. if you're eastern or central time zones it's 202-748-8000. in the mountain or pacific, 202-748-8001. hannah is with us until the end of our program. carol is up first set of new york. good morning. caller: good morning.

i think the more you keep leading us down this rabbit hole that everyone has mental health issues, they show kids on tv with her head in their hands saying they are depressed, you are just exacerbating the problem. i don't believe there's a mental health issue and i don't know if you read rahm emanuel's article about aging, as people age they do become depressed so they're looking at the -- because they are looking at the end of their life. he said that it 75 he's no longer going to accept treatment because it's his decision that he doesn't want to continue after that. that's not a mental health issue , that's a decision. so before you keep taking us down another rabbit hole with everyone has mental health issues, even suicide people may

not want to live anymore, it doesn't mean they have a mental health issue. host: carolyn new york. we will give you a chance to respond. guest: i respect everyone has their own views, but the data shows us that many more people do have mental health conditions. i think it's multiple factors. changing environment, there is a lot in the last years that have tackled mental health particular youth and young adults but we also have to chip away the stigma around mental health so people are no longer struggling in silence and it is important that anyone who is struggling is able to access the care and support that they need. host: just some statistics on the issue of suicide the caller brings it up. suicide is the second leading cause of death for people ages 10 to 14 in this country, of the 12 leading cause of death overall in the united states although more women and men attempt suicide, men are four times more likely to die by suicide. gay or bisexual youth four times

more likely to attempt than straight youth and statistics, numbers go on from there. september 10 was world suicide prevention day. it is suicide prevention month. guest: i would point out that if anyone is struggling and does need help or support should contact the 988 suicide and crisis hotline, that is a nationwide suicide -- crisis hotline. that is something that certainly with world suicide prevention day and prevention month we want to make her everyone is aware of. host: a quick call like 911. how long has this program been around and what happens when they call? guest: 988 has been around two years ago, since last july. what happens is you are connected to a trained crisis counselor. you call 911 and they are dispatching, for 988 they

de-escalate a lot of people over the phone and connect you to mental health resources in your community. they want to help people get well and stay well and connected to committee mental health providers and support programs. host: who is it staffed by? guest: in some cases by volunteer and staff, all who have clinical oversight. clinicians overseeing all training sites and counselors. a lot of them are survivors themselves. people who have lived long term with a mental illness and survived suicide or a loved one, either of those groups. they come with compassion and have extensive training. host: call or text, 988. ava in mississippi, you are next. caller: i have three questions. if a baby is born physically healthy, how old does it have to

be before you know it's mental capacity? we hear a lot about autism, is it more autism or being diagnosed more? and thirdly, does the home environment and modern technology which is computer cell phones have an effect on mental illness. i know they don't because it but do they have an effect and to what degree. thank you so much. guest: thank you for those questions, they are really good questions. we know 50% of mental illness is first present by age 14 and 75% by age 24. so those symptoms are starting in childhood and that's why we need to be vigilant and we all need training and awareness to know what to look for because the earlier we intervene and provide support for our children the better their outcomes. i would also say social and environmental factors