my question is: 63 years old, when i was coming up, our community taught us we had to be twice as good as other populations to get a job. so as far as dei is concerned, and adding to that, i've personally trained at least two white people who got promoted over me. so my question is regarding dei. do you actually think that the people who are hired under these programs are incompetent and got the position only because they're black, because i would say that is not the case. >> all right, carolyn. >> absolutely. the majority not. i think most people would get their own merit. that's why you don't necessarily need dei. i really appreciate you calling from baltimore because we have, over the last two weeks, been focusing on very successful americans who happen to be black and entrepreneurs and how they contribute to the better way of life in baltimore, so i hope you

follow that series. if not, just go baltimore sun.com. i would encourage you also to subscribe to the baltimore sun. i had to get that in there. >> armstrong williams. columnist, tv talk show host, entrepreneur. his website is arm strongwilliams.com. >> you do such a terrific job. >> thank you. >> welcome back. we're joined now by marrelli misal, a justice correspondent and columnist for "the nation." welcome to the program. >> thank you so much for having me. >> i want to start with this associated press article with the headline "trump administration wants the supreme court to let the firing of whistle-blower agency head proceed." could you get us up to speed on what that court is about and the issue is there. >> trump thinks he can fire anyone for any reason, whether

or not they were appointed or not for just because he feels like it and he remembers it from his tv days. right. there are laws regarding how you can fire people when they work for the federal government, who you can fire, what the proper process s is. trump wants to ignore those laws, ignore people that have the positions that are authorized by congress and fire people willy-nilly and he's hoping for the supreme court to let him do that. there are specifically laws in place to protect whistle-blowers from retaliatory firings. one of the reasons we have whistle-blowers is because we have laws. trump because he has that mobster mentality, he wants people to have omerta and never say anything against him. he thinks a whistle-blower law is ridiculous and he should never be downed by it. so we have our classic set-up of trump versus american law and he is once again hoping the supreme court allows him to escape the

realities of american law and quite frankly, the supreme court has done that for him before and might well do that for him again. >> when do you think the supreme court would rule on this? >> the timing on the court right now, i can't quite know. there is so much percolating through the lower courts to the supreme court. we have seen in the past the supreme court can move very, very quickly, especially when it wants to help trump. we have seen in the past that the support can move very slowly when it wants to -- when extending the timeframe is in trump's benefit. and i don't know how they'll play this one. what i do know is that the supreme court has the conservatives on the supreme court, the republican justices, the most extremist ones believe in this very impactful theory called unitary executive theory which holds that the executive branch of government, article 1 -- article 2 of the constitution is the president of the united states and nobody else, that he

is the entire executive branch, and everybody in the executive branch from a whistle-blower, from the head of the epa, from the department of justice, everybody serves at his pleasure or whim. that is something they have been trying to push over the years. trump is going to give them many opportunities to push that theory, to stretch that theory, even further and make him an even more powerful president and people often wonder, like, well, why would the supreme court give trump so much power? aren't they concerned 3 their own power? of course they are, but the idea here is that if you make the president kind of the very most powerful person in the world, then the only person that can tell the president no is the supreme court, because the supreme court then becomes the only body that's able to say -- put it this like this: if they make up the theory, right, then they're the only people who can tell you if somebody has gone too far against their made-up theory, right.

it's not congress. it's not the people voters elected that can restrain the president. it's the court and only the supreme court. so that's why giving the executive more power actually rebounds to give the supreme court itself even more power and that is what roberts has always been about. the chief justice john roberts of the supreme court has always been about, abrogating as much power to himself and his court as he possibly can. >> you have said the president does not have the legal authority to fire whoever he wants whenever he wants, but he and elon musk have been making the argument that this is -- the people that are being fired in the federal government are an unelected bureaucracy that we are trying to restore democracy by getting rid of these people and that, yes, the president should have the right to fire people that are not on board with his policies. >> okay, first of all, i don't want to hear anything from elon

musk, right. you can't be an unelected bureaucrat talking about the dangers of unelected bureaucrats, right. i voted many times in my life, and never once have i seen elon musk's name on a ballot. i don't know anybody who's pulled a lever for him so he needs to shut the hell up. if he's going to talk about unelected bureaucrats running america. that's number one. number two, of course, the president has the power and should have the power to assign people to work with him and advance his agenda. we have an entire process for this. it's called the cabinet. and if we think about the cabinet, if you think about this idea that the president can just fire or hire everybody he wants every time, we know that's not true because we know that even for his own cabinet, even for the people he puts in charge of executive agencies, they have to go through a senate confirmation process. that has happened throughout

american history. the secretary of state, the secretary of war, now the secretary of defense, the attorney-general, all of these people have to be confirmed by the senate. and the senate doesn't want to confirm somebody, then the president can't have that person in that position, hello, mr. matt gaetz. i hope you are well wherever you are in florida. so we know just from a basic understanding of american civics that what trump and musk are arguing for is provably wrong and inconsistent with american law. >> i just would like to say that -- i mean, there are -- elon musk right now is a special adviser to the president and the president can have whoever advising him as he likes, and they are not senate confirmed. >> yes, elon musk is an adviser so that's why i'm saying, he cannot talk to me about being an unelected official holding power and sure, the president can have advisers. the president can talk to whoever he wants. if he wants to put his buddy,

elon musk, on the payroll, if he wants to put, i don't know, his daughter, ivanka or his son-in-law, jared, on the payroll, that's fine. he can talk to whoever he wants. but there is an entire government that he represents, right. there's an entire government that he works for, and he does not have unassailable, unaccountable power to hire and fire every single person in the federal government. he just doesn't. and i just proved to you why he doesn't, right. the idea that just because you're the president, you can reach all the way down into a local civil service person, working in the gao and fire them because they happen to be black, that is insane and that is again against the entire thrust of american civics, not even law. just the civic structure of how the country works, this isn't how it's supposed to work. trump is claiming an authority that no other president has had and you know that he's asking

for something that no other president has had because he has to ask for it. if this is how we always did it, then trump wouldn't have to ask the supreme court to let him do it because it would just be the thing that's always done. this isn't how this is supposed to work and there's a really good reason for why it's not supposed to work because we like to think of the president as one official among many. he has a specific job. he has a unique job. he has an important job. but he's not the only person who has authority in the federal government. >> elle m yichlt -- mystal is our guest. if you would like to join, the republicans, 202 on had 748-2001. independents 202-748-8002. president trump, elle, has said that he will abide by court orders that block parts of his

agenda. do you see that as likely and what happens if that doesn't happen? >> he's already lying. he's already lying. he's not abiding by court orders against him right now. the federal funding freeze, the pause that he put on, has already been blocked by multiple courts through temporary restraining orders around the country and yet, the money is not back on. pro publica last week did an excellent report on this. if you go to organizations that are expecting federal checks, they will tell you in many cases, the money has not been turned back on. so that is a clear example of trump lying to everybody's face, and all of us are pretending like it's normal. it's normal. he said he would abide by court orders. he is not abiding which it. "a," "b," "c," right. do i think he will abide by future court orders? well, hell, i don't know. he's not abiding by this one.

maybe he'll abide by some other one he finds more amenable. here's my real rub, problem, issue. whatever trump he is going to abide by, there has so far been no, at all, indication that he will enforce court orders against his owner, elon musk. we haven't seen any indication of that at all. there's no suggestion at all that trump will impose a court order against elon musk telling him to rein it in. that's, i think, what i'm most worried about. but that's because i already know that trump is lying about whether or not he, himself, will follow court orders because he's not following a court order right now. >> elle, i want to play for you white house press secretary karoline leavitt when she was responding to people that say that trump's actions are causing a constitutional crisis and then

i'll get your response. >> now, before i take questions, i would like to address an extremely dishonest narrative that we've seen emerging over the past few days. many outlets in this room have been fearmongering the american people into believing there is a constitutional crisis taking place here the white house. i've been hearing those words a lot lately. in fact, the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch where districts court judges and liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block president trump's basic executive authority. we believe these judges are acting as judicial activists, rather than honest arbiters of the law, and they have issued alality least twelve injunctions against this administration in the past fourteen days, often without citing any evidence or grounds for their lawsuits. this is part of a larger concerted effort by democrat activist and is nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against

president trump. quick news flash to these liberal judges who are supporting their obstructionist efforts: 77 million americans voted to elect this president. each injunction is an abuse of the rule of law and an attempt to thwart the will of the people. as the president clearly stated in the oval office yesterday, we will comply with the law in the courts, but we will also continue to seek every legal remedy to ultimately overturn these radical injunctions and ensure president trump's policies can be enacted. >> you're reaction to that? >> if i may translate that gobbledygook, it's basically, oh, my god, every judge that i don't like is a constitutional crisis! that's what she said. she's obviously wrong. it's a well established part of american law that when you do something, you can be sued and that lawsuited will go to a judge and that judge will make a ruling and that ruling will be appealed and once you get to a

final ruing, that ruling is final. that's just how it works. there is no constitutional crisis with judges imposing the law. there is one with presidents ignoring the law. that's the inversion leavit is trying to gaslight people and confuse people. it's very easy to follow a court order. that's easy. it's trump who doesn't want to do the normal, easy thing, and he's trying to say that these judges doing their job is somehow a constitutional problem. but there's another thing that she said that i want people to notice and pick up and realize how insane it is, right. she's basically saying, and republicans have been saying this for weeks now, that trump was elected with 77 million people and blah blah and so that somehow means that because he won a majority of the vote, he gets to do whatever he wants. and again, that's just not how it works. that's not how law works.

that's not how civic works. yes, the president was elected fairly. congratulations. congratulations on all your success, donald trump. but he is still part of a system. he is still part of a legal structure. he is not above that legal structure. and there are, therefore, limitations on what he can do no matter how many people want him to do it. there are things that he can do and can't do. the judges are saying that in many cases he is exceeding his constitutional and legal authority. just because 77 million people ostensibly want him to exceed his constitutional and legal authority doesn't mean he can. it's that simple. >> let's go back to the supreme court, your cover article "the nation" says this, "how trump could remake the supreme court for a generation with the subheading, "donald trump is possessed to become the first president since fdr to have appointed the majority of high

court justices. his potential picks are terrifying." >> so my -- liberals generally think that the supreme court can't get any worse because it's already stacked six to three with republican appointees over dem democrat appointees. of course it can get worse. it can always get worse. worse right now is taking that republican 6-3 majority and making it permanent for the lifetime of my natural life and everybody who's viewing this program's natural life, right. that's because the two oldest justices on the supreme court are both republican, clarence thomas, he's 76, samuel ledo, he's 74. if both of those two men retire in the next four years, trump will have the opportunity to replace them with those men but 30 years younger. thus, at some level -- i can't say permanissing, but giving him

control of the supreme court long after trump's life, right. these are justices that are going to outlive trump. these are justices that are going to em pose the maga legacy on the rest much us through unelected means for the next thirty or forty years and trump is in a position, if if ledo and thomas retire, to become the first president since fdr to appoint not just supreme dort justices but a majority of the supreme court if these two men retire will be appointed by trump. and that is, you know, what keeps me up at night. >> elle, tre is a question for you on text from dave in elmira, new york, regarding not following court orders. he says "if i'm not mistaken, biden did not follow court ordersither, giving forgiveness of millions of dollars in school loans." what's your response to that? >> can the david elmira, you're wrong. biden did follow the court

order. they said he couldn't do the program. i can't do it that way, i'll try another way. he followed the letter of the law. he followed the spirit of the law. just because he got adverse doesn't mean he gave up on the program. he tried to find another legal way to achieve his end. trump did that last time. the first muslim ban overruled by the court, the second muslim ban overruled by the court, did trump say, no, i'm going to stop banning muslims? no, trump did not say i'm going to stop banning muslims. he tried again and again and again until he got a muslim ban that the supreme court was willing to uphold. now, i think that was a horrible decision by the supreme court in g to amorally ban muslims coming into the country did it the right way. joe biden trying to relieve student debt relief did it the right way. what trump is doing now by

ignoring the court orders ordering him to restore the funding he illegally and unconstitutionally took away, that's different in kind than anything that biden did and anything that trump did the first time and frankly that anything that any other american president has done until we have to go all the way back to andrew jackson or abraham lincoln to find somebody who openly defined a court order. host: let's talk to callers and start with maria in atlanta, democrat. good morning, maria. caller: good morning c-span family and mia and elie, i was wondering whether they'd bring you back again. i bigtime follow you. nevertheless trump gets on tv and says all kind of stuff and a wild man got on tv and talk about how elon musk helps him and swing states and how he went over there and worked on his computer and said he's awfully good at computers.

do you actually think because i never heard none of the media ever pick this up again and comment, you think he was trying to say the election was stolen? guest: no, i don't. thank you for the love and for your own mental health, try very hard to stop watching trump on tv, it's not good for you. he's going to say the same thing. once you see a dog bark and the dog run, you don't need to hear it the rest of your afternoon. go out and touch grass, man, because it will get in your soul if you listen to that man too much. as opposed to the specific allegation, no. trump is not the most rhetorically cautious individual. he's not trying to say elon musk helped him steal the election and i do not think elon musk help steal the election but i actually think that democrats and liberals somehow sometimes roll into or protect themselves with feelings that maybe

something fishy or something untoward happened because it's easy to believe 77 million americans voted for a convicted felon crazy person, right. it's easier to believe something had to be fishy there than no, they knew who trump was and just wanted to do this to the country. the latter is actually true. no, i don't think elon musk helped him steal anything. i do think now he's in power, elon musk is helping him do some serious illegal activity with musk wielding power he never should have but that's a different problem. host: let's talk to a republican in clifton park. caller: trump won the election fair and square and he has a mandate to govern conservatively. he's allowed to govern

conservatively for at least the next two years until the midterm and the next four years until a republican successor will have to run again. so trump is given the latitude because he won the election by the popular vote and a landslide electoral vote. guest: we agree he won fairly and doesn't believe he won the mandate. that's a word, who cares. he won fairly and is allowed to govern as a conservative and the conservatives are allowed to like the crazy things he d. what he's not allowed to do is illegal stuff. surely, we can agree he's not allowed to do illegal things. that he's not allowed to do unconstitutional things. surely we can agree on that. while you and i might disagree on what's legal and constitutional, surely we can agree a federal judge is the right person, is the person who should be able to tell us what's

legal and what's constitutional and what is not. so mark, can we not agree that trump, while yes, he's allowed to govern conservatively, while yes, he's allowed to do what the people elected him to do, he is not allowed to break the law. host: are you still there? do you agree with that? caller: what trump is doing is the right thing. he's doing the right thing. guest: is it the legal thing, mark? who is supposed to decide whether or not it's the legal thing? is nobody supposed to decide whether or not it's a legal thing. is anything trump says is legal? are we back to nixon now. when the president does it, it's not illegal? is that literally the best can you get to, mark? or do you think maybe somebody who is not the president should have a say in whether or not what the president is doing is legal or illegal? host: let's give mark a chance. go ahead, mark. what did you think of that? caller: i think what trump is

doing is great right now. he's cutting waste. host: that's not the question, mark. as far as legality. caller: i think that he has a large latitude and we're going to have to find out because obviously these court orders and judges blocking things, i think they will eventually work their way through the process, i suppose. host: the court system. caller: yeah, that's it. host: got it. elie mystal. there's a posting on x i'm sure you're aware of by vice president vance who said this, if a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. if a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. judges aren't allowed to control the executives' legitimate power. what's your response to that? guest: i was harvard and j.d.

vance went to yale and i'm feeling really good about my choices if that's the best j.d. vance can do right now. if j.d. vance was right, the dobbs decision canceling the right to abortion was illegitimate and illegal on its face and joe biden should have personally performed abortions for the last four years if j.d. vance was right. of course j.d. vance is not right. j.d. vance sounds like an idiot when he says that because the idea that judges -- that the third branch of government doesn't have a legitimate check on the power of the other two branches, the legislative branch and the executive branch, again, flies in the face of basic american civics, all right? i have many problems with the supreme court and how it wields power. in the past i'm in favor of what the scholars call jurisdiction

tripping and a way to limit the power they may have on constitutional issues and all for reform of the supreme court. i don't think it's the greatest body on earth but it is a legitimate part of american government and acting what it can say or constitutional or not is just not something we do in this country. we understand the judges have a role and the rest of us have to follow the judges rule. if you don't like it, there are many ways to reform the supreme court and many articles i've listed j.d. vance is allowed to read but to say he can do it because he's president flies in the law of civics. j.d. vance knows that. he's saying what he's saying because it's in his best political interest to lick trump's boots even if it flies in the face of all law and

reason and civics. host: here's lewis in new jersey, independent. good morning, lewis. caller: good morning, sir. this reminds me when trump was in his first term and had judges blocking him from building the wall. it's politics and judges should not be involved in politics. he's an executive and can fire anybody he wants. maybe. guest: maybe you feel good inside knowing there's a strong daddy person firing people. maybe that's what you want but he doesn't have the power to fire anyone he wants no matter how many times he beats his chest and says he's the president and he's the executive.

caller: i'll lick anyone's boots. guest: why can't he fire people the right way? why can't he use that process, lewis? caller: i agree with you there, ok. host: let him address his second point. guest: you were saying the judges were playing politics with the wall like in the first trump administration. have you forgotten what happened in the biden years because there were decisions from these exact same judges that were averse to biden's agendas and policies and one of the other callers brought up the student debt relief as one. if you think the judges are playing politics, do you think it's politicks that hurts trump? really? because i seem to recall. caller: i agree with you what they did to biden, too, sir. i agree with you there, too. guest: so you think judges shouldn't have as much power as they do? caller: it's politics, that's all. host: all right. and i want to ask you about an

article you wrote for the nation with the headline, trump's attacks on d.e.i. are a green light for the government to discriminate. i want to you explain that because critics of d.e.i. say it is discrimination because it's preferring people of diverse races, women over men, that kind of thing. what's your response to that? guest: so d.e.i. was invented by white people. d.e.i. was invented by white men to try to comply with the civil rights act of the 14th amendment of the constitution. d.e.i. was their white male creation to comply with constitutional law. what diverse people, if that's what we're calling us today, what women have been asking for has not been d.e.i. they've been asking for fair and equal employment opportunities.

they've been asking for the application of the equal -- of the equality clause in the 14th amendment and the application of the civil rights act in hiring. that's it. it was white guys that were just like, we don't know how to hire all these people so we're just doing some d.e.i. and makes sure we have to hire black people and women and latinos and whatever. that was their solution. now they don't like that solution anymore, that's fine. d.e.i. is a policy. it's constitutional to change policy. trump has every authority he might need to change the policy of the united states. my question is what are you doing instead? what are you doing instead,

trump and meta and musk to make sure you're in compliance with the civil rights act and 14th amendment and there they never have an answer. host: we'll hire the best person for the job and therefore we knorr compliance. guest: is that what is happening? d.e.i. was amended and it wasn't happening because they weren't able to highway the most qualified person for every job and only able to highway the whitest male person for every job, right? that's what was happening before d.e.i. and now do we see them hiring the most qualified person for every job? do we see them only firing the least qualified people for every job? no, we don't see that. in your last segment with armstrong williams, there was a caller who specifically asked that man, does he think that every single person who works in the federal government who is of color is a d.e.i. hire and was

unqualified for their job and armstrong says no, of course not, that would be ridiculous. of course he said, and i'm quoting him from your last segment, said most people got their job on merit which is an interesting statement because they're firing everybody. they're firing people not based on merit, not based on their qualifications, not based on their actual work history. and they're firing people. and that violates the constitution. it is legal for you to get rid of d.e.i. policies. what's not legal is for you to fire people just because they happen to be black at work. it's ridiculous to fire everybody who has been hired under a d.e.i. program without any kind of assessment of their actual work performance, their actual, dare i say, merit for the job. but they're not doing it that way. they're firing everybody who happens to be black in government. that's what is what is legal and

what the problem is. host: let's hear from jennifer in midlothian. good morning. caller: thank you for taking the time to listen to our calls. my question is piggybacking on what you're talking about with d.e.i., i tend to understand, right, we know there's no statute for taxation, quote, without representation. but what legal recourse do those of us who fall within these marginalized youth, i.e., youth, lbgtq+, those labeled as marginalized communities to push back on everything being dismantled in the name of d.e.i. if we are federal taxpayers and we're paying our money but every book that represents us is being banned from schools, every program that potentially may create spaces and access for these individuals, special education, all the same, we're paying our money. this is an economic issue. so as citizens and residents of

whatever state you're in, commonwealth of virginia, commonwealth of massachusetts, how can we push back and say wait, my tax dollars are going to everybody but my community, and how is that legal that we don't have any recourse because they're doing it in a discriminatory way like you said under the impies of well, that's considered d.e.i. because we just don't want it. no, we have title 6 and title 7 and all these rights we're supposed to have access to and we're paying our money and we're seeing we don't get the services and access and empowerment we should be getting. so do we need recourse? guest: jennifer, i believe it is illegal. you named the statute. i believe that what they are doing is illegal under the civil rights act. again, that's not because they're changing the d.e.i. policy. d.e.i. is not required by the civil rights act but fairness is but equality is and so when they

willy-nilly fire everybody for the crime of being black, fire everybody for the crime of being a woman without any individualized assessment of their merit, i believe that is violating the civil rights act and should catch a lawsuit. now, unfortunately, once they catch that lawsuit and i know lewis is still out there, why are they suing the courts, but when they do catch that lawsuit, eventually that goes to the supreme court and the supreme court, my read on the six republican judge is that they don't think the civil rights act should be constitutional in the first place. they don't like the voting rights act and roberts has done everything he can to eviscerate the voting rights act which is the most important piece of legislation in the american history. they've already gotten through the 1965 voting rights act, i believe next on the chopping block for these conservative is the 1964 civil rights act and don't think the lawsuit that trump deserves to catch because what he is doing and the way he's doing it is legal i know that's going to work at the supreme court. so to jennifer's question, what's the recourse? the recourse is the recourse

that the people always have. trump was elected by a majority of americans and the only people who can take that power away are a majority of americans. activating, voting, convincing people. i personally have started to boycott target. i vote with my wallet as well, target specifically because target has spent a decade telling my community, we like you here, come to target and put your products on our shelves. target is basically jerry maguire. we love black people except when trump is in charge but we hate black people and target deserves to not have my dollars at this moment and doing what i can with my wallet and my feet and my voice. we all have to do that. in the words of kermit the frog, we need more dogs and cats and mum either and chickens and

things. host: let's hear from denia, republican. caller: can you hear me? host: go right ahead. caller: i have a question biden didn't do nothing but stay on vacation most of the time and i hear people keep calling in and badmouthing trump and what he's doing and everything, and you know, it's like deja vu. are we going to keep trying to put trump in the courts again during his presidency or are we going to give him a chance? i say give him a chance. i think he's the best president we've ever had. and whatever he does, he knows right from wrong. he ain't going to do anything wrong. look at all the lawsuits they did and all of them dismissed. come on. it's the witch-hunt starting all over.

this person you have on your show morning, if they are so smart and think that trump is doing wrong, why ain't they president? they don't they get off their lazy butt and run for president. host: let's get a response. go ahead, elie. guest: i will fight trump with everything i have and fight him on the streets and never yield to this orangemen us. if that makes denir unhappy i apologize but i will do everything in my small power to fight this man and what he's trying to do to my country. host: but his supporters are saying that's exactly the problem, you're just fighting him for no reason. so give us a reason. guest: you want me to start listing the reasons. host: give us a little bit. guest: that man has been convicted on 34 counts of a felony. the only reason those other cases have been dismissed against him is because he has judges in his pocket like eileen

cannon. the supreme court gave him absolute immunity for official acts for the first time in american history. the president was placed squarely above the law by his handpicked supreme court justice. we have been talking about his racist actions with d.e.i. and calling white south africans to live as refugees in this country while expelling actual black and brown refugees living here. he's trying to overturn the 14th amendment and strip away birthright citizenship from people who have been born americans and those are the reasons i can think of to oppose him off the top of my head. so yeah, i will keep fighting. host: you have a book coming out next month called "bad law," 10 popular laws ruling america. give us one of those, a real brief explanation. guest: let's go with voting registration. all voting registration should be renounced.

voting registration does not help keep our elections safe. all it does is increase the participation in our elections and the first chapter in the book, we have a section of the book how voting requirement eligibility requirements and you should be automatically registered to vote and that registration should be portable which means when you move you're still registered, the registration follows you, you don't have to chase registration. people might think it's a radical idea and i point out to people in the first chapter of that book that's the way they do it in most of the rest of the functional democracies in the world. it's how they do it in england and france and how they do it in argentina and australia. that's how they do it everywhere else. we're the slow people. we're the people who haven't caught up with the 21st century by still doing registration in a case by case basis instead of having automatic and mandatory registration for all eligible

voters and if we had that, i wonder if the 77 million people who voted for trump, i wonder if that number would be enough. host: dave in lynchburg, virgin wants end on a positive note. you suggested what keeps you up at night, conversely, what gives you hope? guest: i've got two kids, 12 and 9 and beautiful little boys and they're not afraid. they're not depressed all the time and think the world is going to get better. they understand we've got serious problems but my kids think they'll be the people who come up with a solution for climate change. they think they'll be the people who come up with solutions for our problems and i take a lot of strength and hope from them. i do think generally and it's right to say, i do think the kids are right and i think the kids are seeing how my

generation, again x is -- gen-x is screwing up and they're committed to doing better and hope it remains the case. host: you can find >> c-span's "washington journal," our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics and public policy from washington to across the country. coming up sunday morning -- former c.i.a. russia analyst george beebe will talk about bringing an end to the ukraine-russia conflict. "washington post" berlin reporter kate brady discusses parliamentary discussions. then, amanda, co-founder and president of run for something, talks about her group's effort to recruit, train, and support

young progressives running for office. c-span's "washington journal," join in the conversation live at 7:00 eastern sunday morning on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org. >> prede trump is scheduled to address a joint session of congress next month to lay out his priorities and vision for the count ding his second term. wel ve live coverage of the president's speech on tuesday, march 4, starting a8:00 p.m. eastern cpan, along with a democratic response and viewer reaction. our coverage wil also stream live on our free c-span video app and on our website c-span.org. >> sunday on c-span's q&a -- former mafia associate louis ferrante talks about his book

"borgata", the mafia from 1960 to 16985. in part two he explores further details of the mafia's involvement in the assassination of president kennedy and discusses robert kennedy's battle with mobster carlos marcelo, boss of the new orleans mafia, from the late 1940's to the early 1980's. >> you know, a major reason why marcelo feels he has an arch enemy that will stop at nothing and if you believe in omerta and a mafia don who lives his life i will stop at nothing to get where i need to go and i face someone that will stop at nothing, it's life and death and that's where marcello made the decision, it will be me or the kennedys. >> louis ferrante sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." you can listen on our free c-span now app.

>> democracy: it isn't just an idea. it's a process. a process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles. it's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted. democracy in real time. this is your government at work. this is c-span. , giving you your democracy unfiltered. >> and now from the final day of the conservative political action conference, remarks by the border security advisor to president trump, tom homan, italian prime minister, giorgia meloni, and president trump's nominee for u.n. ambassador, congresswoman elise stefanik.