constitutional personhood to african americans. andrew johnson urged violence against political opponents. woodrow wilson nationalized jim crow by segregating the federal government. and finally, richard nixon committed criminal acts ordering the watergate break-in. he teaches constitutional law and politics at brown university. >> the brown university professor with his book on this episode of booknotes+ with our host brian lamb. it is available on the free c-span now app or you get your podcasts. >> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates 45 years. we have been your primary source for capitol hill providing

balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where policies are debated and decided, all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting. coward by cable. -- powered by cable. with democracy forward, president and ceo of the organization talking about the incoming trump administration. guest: thanks for having me. we are a nonpartisan legal organization founded in the wake of the 26 teen election last time when it became clear that the first trump administration, there were a range of things they were pursuing that were really harmful to people and communities. our organization, we go to court and we represent people and communities defending their rights. host: the new york times said was describing a group and those affiliated, they called you a liberal legal group. is that a correct description?

guest: people give us all kind of labels but we are nonpartisan. we work with a diverse array of people and communities across the country. teachers, parents, doctors, researchers, conservationists, all across the board. host: is that a conservative or progressive viewpoint, how would you break that down? >> on a continuum we are going to be a bit more on the progressive side. but we have seen, though, is that there is a lot that is uniting traditional liberals and conservatives, traditional progressive. a real commitment to democracy and the rule of law. so we find ourselves in really interesting positions with people who are much more conservative on the spectrum and at times representing people much more liberal. host: overall how would you characterize those concerns? >> i think we have a deep concern that the president elect

campaigned on a platform where he really distanced himself from some very extreme proposals such as the heritage foundation project when he 25 because the american people really rejected that type of extremism. now we are already seeing a number of appointments coming right out of that project 2025 playbook, so we are very concerned for all people in the country that this administration may accelerate the very thing's that the president-elect and vice president-elect thought to distance themselves from in the campaign, so we have been working on preparing to respond to that on behalf of people and communities across the country, using all the tools the constitution provides to do that.and host: give me a for instance, something that is a possibility. guest: we've seen a lot of headlines about plans to hollow out the united states civil service. these are individual that's

where a note to the constitution to protect ants to do the work of the american people. everybody wants government to work more efficiently, we all do. but what we know is that in countries like ours with a robust civil service, it actually much more efficient and prone to corruption than countries where civil servants are for the size or swear loyalty. if that type of policy were to be implemented, we believe there are legal problems to that, and we would intend unlikely taking legal action if they ignore the law and try to undermine the ability at our government to work for the people. host: what is the main legal problem in your mind? guest: there are multiple problems. we don't know exactly how they will go about doing it there are existing protections in place for civil service that congress has put in place including additional protections that the biden administration put in place in april. in addition, having outsiders in government, billionaire outsiders advising the government is something that you

have to follow a lot of processes in order to be able to do. we have transparency laws in this country that really require that if people are influencing government and policy, that there be certain disclosures and certain policies that it is not clear the administration will abide by. those are the kinds of things we are watching. host: the department of government efficiency, not a full-fledged department within the government-created. have there been issues with the existence of the body itself? guest: first of all, that body doesn't exist and they are saying that it does exist which is a problem on a range of issues. but certainly if there was an attempt to create some type of body that was going to influence government, a number of corrupt and unlawful commissions that the first trump administration set up that people were able to successfully sue and challenge in court. host: if you want to ask her

questions about her group you can call us on the lines (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. how does the group get started, particularly with this last election, what was the strategy after the election going forward? guest: we really viewed what we saw in the first trump administration which was epitomized on january 6 as a deeply concerning threat. not just to policies that people care about, but to the american people as a whole. several years ago we started looking and monitoring this coalition of very far-right groups. many of them you see on that

project 2025 heritage foundation plan, to understand what they were planning should they seek to obtain influence in the highest office in the country. that resulted in a lot of groups coming together with concerns that they would be deep threats to the american people on kitchen table issues such as worker protections and wages, fair wages, education. we began thinking about the types of responses the american people would have. one is the voting booth. he saw that in this last election where when americans have rejected project 2025, it became this topic lightning rod as we saw the president-elect to distance himself on the campaign trail saying he didn't know who they were or what they were going to do and of course now we are seeing him go back on that word. so i'm really glad that groups have been thinking about how we would use the tools the

constitution and democracy provide to enable people across the country to respond. host: what does the team you have look like at this stage? guest: we have a number of lawyers on staff for the last seven to eight years on behalf of the american people, and then there are hundreds of organizations who are lending their efforts to this. there organizations are concerned about environmental and climate policy, concerned about individual rights and the ability of people to express views that may not be popular. so all of those groups are really planning their own strategies and coordinating this one and others to make sure that the ground is covered for people this time. host: so any action by the president that your group doesn't agree with your going to push back against. guest: i wouldn't say agree with, because there a lot of things we don't agree with.

but we certainly don't believe that the incoming administration should ignore the law, and we certainly believe that the american people are entitled to leadership in this country that represents their values, including this last election cycle that the extremism of project 2025 is really not something that anybody, liberal, conservative or independent wants. as we see an acceleration of those policies that ignore the law, you will see us in court. host: how complicated is the effort not only with a republican president in the white house of the republicans controlling the house and senate? guest: this is really a moment for the american people to make their voices heard. revolver to see the president have to back away from one of his nominees already as a result of the mandate for that. this is an important time for us as americans regardless of what political party you may align with or political persuasion you

may align with really ensure that our elected lawmakers at all levels are hearing the voices of the people and holding the executive branch to account, should they violate the law or engage in activities that they promised on the campaign trail that they wouldn't do. host: how are you funded? guest: we are funded by individuals across the country. we get a lot of grassroots organizations and individual institutions, foundations that also make grants for particular projects or issues. host: bath joins us from florida, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i am a lifelong republican and registered as a republican since 1972. both on presidential and other campaigns for the republican

party over the years. i want to thank skye for what she does. she is an amazing woman. she is out there fighting for all of us. the republican party is going to have to ask for forgiveness from god for what they have done. host: ok. do you have a question for a guest? caller: you let me finish, you hung up on me almost 90 days ago. host: you are on now, do you have a question for our guest, please? caller: i don't they have a question, i just want to thank her for what she does. honestly, republicans, think about what you have been doing. guest: thanks,beth. sorry, that question was a little hard for me to hear. host: she just praised your efforts. guest: thank you for calling in, happy to answer any questions going forward. host: north carolina, democrats

line. caller: yes, i'm concerned about what it is this young lady and her organization can do to stop the folks from january 6 for being let out of prison. if i did it as an african-american or as a muslim, i would be dead as soon as i entered the capital. there is no reason for these people to be getting out and walking around, and i would love if joe biden would look down and see a little action in his pelvis the way he has about his son's problem and do something about this because the supreme court gave him the power to do so. thank you. host: thank you, joe. guest: i will say i think we are all concerned about the incoming administration's disregard for

elements of the rule of law and the fact that we've heard the president-elect say that he intends to pardon a number of the individuals that were involved on january 6. that is not a hypothetical thing. i know we all experience grave concern for our nation we saw what happened and we are sitting here in the shadows of the capitol which is very real and we about that. so thank you for calling in, i think we are deeply concerned about how the incoming administration will use their pardon power or other executive powers. and it is important that the american people really make their voices heard including to members of congress. there are a number of members of congress who have not been active since king to hold people accountable for that day and i think that is going to be a really important lesson for people to ensure that they are for the talking to their elected representatives. host: a caller has mentioned it but when it came to the idea of what the supreme court has done

when it came to former president trump and this idea of immunity, how does that impact in going into office now, and can you start by saying what you think the supreme court actually did? guest: the supreme court in the trump versus u.s. decision wasn't really concerning unprecedented decision in terms of the way it looked at presidential power. but it did say that the president is not immune for unofficial acts, but for official acts, there will be a debate about what line various acts follow on, and that is deeply concerning because in our country, americans of all stripes when you look at polling across the board do not believe that any individual should be above the law, including the president of the united states. but one thing that is really important is that supreme court decision did not apply to people who may work for the president or others in the government.

it is strictly focused on that executive office. and i think that is going to be a really important thing to bear in mind, and for us to be making sure that we are holding people accountable across the government in the executive branch or otherwise for ignoring the law to the detriment of people in communities. host: mike is in alaska, independent line. caller: good morning. i am so glad that trump won and we are keeping people like you suppressed because you've ruined this country. you've weaponized the fbi, cia, nih, the who, the cdc is completely weaponized by people like you. and i'm sorry you have your point of view because you are so mistaken. you know that when a nation slaughters the unborn and scheduled them for execution,

abortion has to be stopped 100%. i would say almost because only zero point 8% is for medical necessity. the rest is for convenience. so women need to close their legs -- host: let's stop you there. what question do you have specifically? caller: do you really know what the term progressive means, because i don't think you do. i would like to hear your definition and i would like an answer. i would like to be able to answer this. host: we believe is fair. guest: what the term progressive means, fundamentally in this country we've been on a project of moving forward. this is a country that was founded on a lofty ideal that happiness and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be accessed by everyone, but we've fallen short over the years about ideal and so the project work, the people in the citizens of democracy, i am not a member of the government, i am a

citizen here. it should be the be on that project moving forward. i think we are able to epitomize what we would call a progress oriented progressive in this country. host: john is next in texas, go ahead. caller: there are so many issues i don't know where to begin. is it progressivism for a boy to walk into a girls bathroom and take a bath and everybody because he thinks he is a girl? i would hope not. and my main point here is that you want to talk about the right to protest the government. we just overwhelmingly voted against your agenda. the people have spoken. so you need to take a hard look in the mirror and understand that we don't like what you want to do to this country. you can put lipstick on a pig but the reality is people do not like your agenda. we are against it.

we don't want boys in girls bathroom. i don't want illegal aliens crossing the border. if you don't like it, get over it. you lost. we want. guest: the one thing i would say following what happened in the last election, appropriately and all of the ballot is that we saw any number of states, states like florida and missouri and arizona, we saw a number of issues on the ballot, including in a red states. you saw the majority of people that voted in florida vote to protect reproductive rights access. it did not pass because there is a 60% threshold the last time i checked, that got more votes than ron desantis and donald trump on the top of the ticket in the state that he carried. that is the same in deep red missouri where we saw people protect reproductive health care access. we saw issues like climate and wind in louisiana, we saw issues like public education win.

it is important for us to separate the candidates from the issues. what we saw was no evidence that there is a mandate for this extremism in terms of issues, and we actually saw the president elect have to run away from the association with project 2025 and that extreme agenda. i think this is a good time for americans to reflect on what we believe on the issues and how we are going to build a government to get us there. host: when the caller says things like we thatw gives us the mandate to do it. on, guest: we actually saw a presidential candidate win only after he had to go around and distance himself from an extreme agenda on issues like abortion access, and we saw all the issues including in deep red areas. i'm from texas, and including in the red areas, we saw the issues of the american people. there is a lot more that unites us on the issues than what divides us. i think we need to look at the

election in that way. certainly we have a president-elect that did win the popular vote and the electoral vote, we have a vice president that accepted those results, there were no allegations of tampering or any type of them that we had to deal with in prior elections where he didn't win the popular vote, and now it is really about making sure that the american people can make their voices heard. so i don't believe there is a mandate for extremism even with candidates who did win by margins and certain states. host: she serves as the president and ceo of democracy forward. we he a question about servants in government. is there any room for a civil servant? guest: i think everybody says that. you've even seen the biden administration and this congress put things in place to enhance the agency and various agencies and across the federal government. what we know is that systems that rely on civil servants,

that owe a duty to the american people and the constitution, the way they get their job is not there kissing up to some fancy office somewhere, but through our civil service process. in societies who have that independent civil service, our government functions with less corruption and with more efficiency than where the parties that are doing that work are ones who may have gone through a political favor, who may be swearing in owe of loyalty. so i think we need to really think hard. if you are truly concerned about efficiency, the answer is not to politicize our civil servants and to create what was called of the foil system, something the u.s. moved away from the 1800s as a result of these concerns. host: john in washington, d.c., democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you so much for the work

that you do. i think you are a testament to what it means to be a true american. i just have a quick question about what democracy now is doing to prepare for the trump administration threats of mass deportation and any legal challenges that democracy now is pairing for. guest: we are of course seeing a deep concern all of this country including immigrants who are lawfully in the country and documented as well as those were undocumented. there are a number of organizations that have made it clear that they will take legal action and i building those cases -- cases. a variety of immigrants rights and immigrant justice organizations. in the last administration, we had to take a range of legal actions because the administration was relying on

people in positions like the department of homeland security that were not correctly appointed, and they were instituting a range of policies that were invalid and we had to invalidate those because they were ignoring the rule of law. i think that you will definitely see work from a range of organizations and you can go to democracy2025.org to see more about the plans and the organizations involved. host: delaware, republican line. caller: good morning. i'm just wondering where this organization was when the biden administration was raking all kinds of laws, some of which have been shot down by the supreme court. the corruption in this government, this administration is going to stop because we finally have the word of the people. we have spoken. we want to get rid of the administration and start a new

way of running the government where we can trust that things that are going to be done will be done legally and through nothing that this organization or any democrat is going to say is going to dampen the spirits of the american people who want a new government. and i appreciate the fact that you are letting me speak, thank you. guest: i mean i would definitely agree that nothing should dampen the spirits of the american people who i believe have spoken and have set on a range of issues like i said on those ballot issues and elsewhere that there are not mandates for this extremism. in terms of your question regarding biden administration policies, i would refer you to our website where you can look at the ways we've engaged in the courts on the first trump administration as i was current administration.

we have maintained a range of lawsuits that the federal government under the leadership of president biden continues to defend from the prior administration. across a range of issues, whether it is on a variety of health and welfare or kind of regulations. and i will also say that we proudly -- on behalf of people and communities, major medical associations, teachers gro

host: pam bondi possibly becoming attorney general, what is your position? guest: there is a real focus on loyalty. we have a deep concern around

the range of things we saw in project 2025 with plans to weaponize the department of justice against the american people, to reverse the way civil rights and other things are enforced in this country. i will be listening carefully at her confirmation hearings to understand what she would purport to do to be able to defend the independence of the department of justice. it is concerning she is known as a loyalist who may have interests beyond the independence of the institution. but i will be listening. host: is or something you have heard that is a red flag? guest: looking back at where she may not have taken action because of political alignment. looking at the hearings about how she answers tough questions. this is an incoming administration that has not been shy about their plans for