. mark: hello, america, i'm mark levin, this is "life, liberty & levin." we have a wonderful guest tonight. senator mike lee. how are you, sir? >> doing great, thank you. mark: good to see you. >> thank you. mark: now senator lee, you have quite a background. first of all, your father served in the reagan administration. what did your father do in the reagan administration? >> my dad was the solicitor general under ronald reagan during his first term in office. he was the federal government's

chief appellate advocate before the supreme court, representing the reagan administration in front of the justices. i used to go with him. that's sort of where i started to become interested in government. i would go with my dad when he argued in court. initially, it was a good way to miss school but over time i started understanding what was happening, and i enjoyed it, i found it fascinating. mark: rex lee was your father's name. >> yes. mark: but you yourself are are quite accomplished. you went to a great law school and you became a clerk to associate justice sam alito. how did that happen? >> i clerked for justice alito. clerked for dee benson in salt lake city. mark: who also worked at the justice department where i worked. >> and outstanding human being and great judge and mentor, and after i finished that clerkship, i had a friend who was clerking for then judge alito on the third circuit. he told me there was an opening and i should apply.

i submitted an application and ended up getting the job. i clerked for him on the third circuit and several years later after he got on the supreme court, he had me clerk for him then. mark: i didn't know that. you clerked for him twice? >> twice. mark: that's a big deal, a lot of lawyers want to clerk for supreme court justices, right? >> yes, i was fortunate to get to work not just for the supreme court but that justice in particular. command of the english language and understanding of the fact that finding the right answer in the law is imperative. there is something as a right answer and you have to go through the effort to find what the answer is. i loved clerking for him, every minute of it, both years. mark: do the justices get along in private? >> yes. in fact, some of the justices who appear to have the most differing opinions and, in

fact, do reach very opposite conclusions are often really good friends. for example, justice scalia and justice ginsburg were very close friends. they traveled together, they socialized together, and yet they were at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum went court. that says something, once ideological opinion on the court doesn't preclude a relationship. mark: a lot has been written about the court. a lot has been written about justices, and sometimes the certain justices got older over the years, clerks wrote a lot of their opinions. take it sam alito wasn't that way? >> nope, he was actively involved in the process at every step and was really concerned about making sure that each opinion was his, and that it said what it needed to say. he was definitely not phoning it in and definitely actively

involved in every decision and every opinion that had his name on it, and every opinion that came through the court. whether he was the author or not, meaning even if it was an opinion assigned to another justice, he wanted to make sure that it was right. mark: i want to turn to something that's just occurred and that's this budget process and appropriation process in the united states congress. jim jordan has said that the congressman from ohio, and freedom caucus member, that they had 17 hours between the time a 2200-page bill, which had been written in secret by the leadership, was presented to the house of representatives, and to vote. and so really nobody even evelyn woods herself, wouldn't have been able to get through that in time. same thing should knowing on the senate side. as a matter of fact, you weren't allowed to offer amendments and, you know, just as an american citizen, i look at this, we vote for our representatives to participate in this process, plus we would

like to participate in this process, there's supposed to be various appropriation bills that we can look at and so forth. what do you make of all this? >> 2232 pages. that's how long the spending bill was. it takes a long time even to get the fastest printers to print that out physically. takes much longer to read 2232 pages of legislative text than it does a fast-paced novel. you are right. members voting on this don't have a chance adequately to read it to understand what's in it, perhaps even more importantly, these words are negotiated in private by a small handful of legislative leaders. to the exclusion of everyone else. meaning most of the american people are effectively disenfranchised from this process because their elected senators and representatives are outside of that room where a small handful of leaders is negotiating this bill in

private. by the time it comes out into public, there isn't time to debate, discuss, amend it, to improve it. there isn't time to receive adequate feedback from the american people, and the members themselves who are asked to vote on this are not fully aware of what's in it. it's wrong. and it will continue until this process doesn't work. in the meantime, it's kind of nice to be one of those few people in that room negotiating it. you get more powerful every time it happens. but it's really bad for the american people, a it is one of the mostply disturbing things that i experienced as a member of the united states senate. mark: and it's confounding, because in the republic, you have to wonder how you undo this, how do you unravel this? i get this calls on the radio all the time. what do we do? what do we do? i'm not sure what we do. we can talk about electing the right people. we think we do elect the right people. we have the tea party revolution, majorities now in

the house and the senate. republican president. and it's my understanding this spending bill, even in percentage increases is the largest in modern history, is that right? . >> yes. and look, it's the nature of governments. it's the nature of human beings, as they accumulate power to want to accumulate more power. when they have access to the ability to do something, it's their tendency to do it. if they can. the only way we're going to change this is to make this process, this formula, this barbaric mechanism for funding a $4 trillion government, will no longer work. they do not want them to vote for a measure that's the result of this kind of product. they certainly don't want to vote for increased spending, especially when they themselves don't know and by design cannot know where the spending is going. mark: but isn't it part of the

problem, we have some candidates who run for office some way and govern another way, and it's very difficult for people who are working all day to get through the clutter. to get through the media, even if there are media reports. so one thing goes back home and another thing goes on in washington, d.c. so it's very, very hard to know what to do when you're a voter. isn't this a bigger problem, the difference between constitutionalism and progressivism, the further we get away from the constitution, the more run towards the constitution,s more government written about stensively and so forth, the more this is going to occur? >> yes, without question. the only reason that our republic has survived, the only reason our country has thrived as it has, the reason we have fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known under the constitution has been that to the disagree we -- degree we

have followed the constitution, kept our focus on what government can do, what government is uniquely empowered to do, what this particular government is supposed to be doing and which part of our government is supposed to be acting in which way? the minute we come untethered from that, especially from the structural protections in the constitution, the vertical protection, or the horizontal protection we call separation of powers, one branch that makes the laws, one that enforces them and another that interprets them. when we drift from the principles it becomes very, very difficult to contain the power, the compulsory power from government, that takes money from people, months out of people's work year to sustain it. that becomes a problem. we have to reorient our national political discourse, our dialogue on constitutional principles. this doesn't have to be a partisan issue.

in fact it's not. the constitution is politically neutral. mark: and yet in this context, the modern-day republican party, is it a constitutional party? what is the modern day republican party stand for? >> the republican party purports to be the party of constitutionally limited government and doesn't always govern itself as such. that does have to change. if it doesn't change, the republican party is going to lose mojo. it's going to lose ability to influence voters and to garner votes, and so i think that is the only answer not only for our country, but also for the republican party. i think there is a big opportunity here to make a change to make a difference. you talk about the fact that sometimes people run on one platform and govern differently, not perhaps casting votes in the same style that they had portrayed themselves as candidates. i think it can help to have a name for certain procedures

that people recognize as being contrary to the political governing philosophy of a constitutionalist. and i think this 2232-page omnibus spending bill will help us give a word to that. and i'm hopeful that -- mark: what's the word? >> the word here could be omnibus. we could call it the march 2018 omnibus package. once people remember, that remember how high the stack of papers was. remember the fact it was negotiated in secret by a small handful of legislative leaders, to the exclusion of everyone else, maybe that will make a difference, and maybe they'll communicate that whether it's through their votes, phone calls or a combination of the two. mark: let me ask you this. i've asked this every guest i've had. i would argue we're not so much a representative republic anymore, most of the laws are made by you folks.

i would argue we're not really a federal republic anymore, given the centralization of government and the states that live at behest now of the federal government, even though they created the federal government. and less and less a constitutional republic for reasons like this budget bill and so forth. what are we? >> we are a nation of people that purports to operate under the rule of law. and our governing law, the constitution, says that we are a federal republic, and that we have power that's dispersed among the people, that it's kept close to the people. we don't always live up to that. so yeah, you're right, we've deviated dangerously from the vertical powers and the separation of powers. that doesn't mean it changed the nature of what our government is supposed to be, and certainly doesn't change the fact that each officer of this government has swore an oath to uphold, protect and

defend that very system with the series of structural protections designed to protect the american people from the dangers associated with the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of a few. we can still do this. it is still the law of the land in america that we have these protections. we can restore them. we just have to do it, and that's where voters come into play. mark: how are we doing in this regard? >> not very well. we're doing better, i think, today in many respects than we were a couple of years ago. i think this administration has done a great job of taking out more regulations than it has put in. the commitment to the two to one rule. for every regulation that's added, two need to be taken out is going well. i think it's laudable, and restores the horizontal protection of separation of powers. since the new deal era, since the 30s, congress has been

passing laws as platitudes. we here by delegate to agency x the power to make good lie in area y. and they can make that law and enforce that law entirely within this executive branch bureaucracy. that's wrong. the trump administration sought in promising to drain the swamp, to reduce the power of the administrative bureaucracy, and it's made good progress. i think we need to make a lot more progress on that front and the federalism front. you don't hear as often as you should that the fact that certain things are not federal issues. in fact most things are not. the 10th amendment makes that clear as the text of the original constitution also made that clear. most power is reserved to the states, and we should therefore never start any political discussion with the assumption that if there's a law that needs to be made, it needs to be made by congress. most of the time, that's not the case. mark: when we come back, we're

going to pursue further discussion on the constitution with our great senator, senator mike lee. i want to remind you, you can watch levin tv every week night on crtv.com, give us a call at 844-levin-tv. sign up and join our community there. that's 844-levin-tv. we'll be right back. easily digestible, it makes her favorite entrées even more delightful. fancy feast creamy delights. love is in the details. claritin and relief from of non-drowsy symptoms caused by over 200 allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity and live claritin clear.

i had a very minor fender bender tonight! in an unreasonably narrow fast food drive thru lane. but what a powerful life lesson. and don't worry i have everything handled. i already spoke to our allstate agent, and i know that we have accident forgiveness. which is so smart on your guy's part. like fact that they'll just... forgive you... four weeks without the car. okay, yup. good night. with accident forgiveness your rates won't go up just because of an accident. switching to allstate is worth it.

the dual adjustability of the sleep number bed allows each of you to adjust to your ideal level of firmness, comfort and support... your sleep number setting... for your best. sleep. ever. in the morning, you'll discover the amazing effects the bed is having on your sleep quality... your sleepiq score. and snoring? does your bed do that? only at a sleep number store where queen mattresses start at just $899. and, it's the last chance for clearance savings up to $800 on our most popular beds. ends saturday. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you.

. mark: welcome back. we're here with senator lee. senator lee, a lot of talk about the 2nd amendment lately. the horrible shooting in florida. and we have these horrible shootings from time to time, and it seems like the immediate reaction is to limit the 2nd amendment. the bill of rights, what are they for? what are the bill of rights for? all of them? >> to protect us against the dangerous associated with the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few. for federalism and separation of powers, but it also protects certain substantive rights. certain things are identified that are beyond the reach of any government. based on human historical experience, the drafters of the

bill of rights identified certain areas where government shouldn't be able to act. it's one of the reasons they took off the table. messing with people's religious freedom, or their freedom of expression in the 1st amendment. in the 2nd amendment they wanted to make sure the right to bear arms was protected. we shouldn't likely take away or erode any bill that is protected in the bill of right. mark: when you stand on the senate floor and you hear colleagues debating gun control, debating certain types of guns, many of them debate guns, they don't know much about guns, but talk about it like it's some kind of pork bill. we're talking about the bill of rights, talking about the 2nd amendment. do you stand there and look at them and say to them in your own mind, do you even understand that this is a constitutional right? it's not something which can

you treat like a piece of bolling onny where you are cutting it up. what goes through your mind? >> what triggers the conversations is the commission of a crime. a heinous act. one that usually involves the violation of the simultaneous violation of dozens of laws. and in that circumstance, the impulse that says somebody's violated dozens of laws, we must therefore pass another law, doesn't itself instinctively make me want to join that effort. you add to that the fact that it's constitutionally protected right that we might be being asked to infringe, and also the fact you've got the rights of the law abiding and what a given law might do to interfere with the day to day lives of law-abiding american citizens as compared to what it might do deter or prevent or protect us against violent criminal activity.

and makes for a much more nuanced conversation than many people want to have. i think it's important to have that conversation, rather than instinctively giving into the impulse to create yet another law. mark: when you hear about sanctuary cities and you know about sanctuary cities, back to the constitution again, and federalism, how do you weigh this? federalism, nullification, federal authority, state authority, when it comes to sanctuary cities? . >> sanctuary cities present a particularly interesting set of questions, because of the fact you have cities trying to undo federal policy. constitution does power to congress. it makes federal the power to decide what our laws say concerning immigration and naturalization. that is a federal power, it needs to be a federal power, made a federal power by the constitution itself. for a city to say no, we want to exercise that power and

erode federal authority in this area is wrong. we've added to this mess by setting up all kinds of federal programs that provide all kinds of federal funding for state and local law enforcement for the operations of state and local governments generally, making them in many ways dependent what i heard you refer to as crony federalism, where states and localities come to the federal government on bended knee though they themselves are sovereigns within our system of government. and so what many people have said is that if a state or local government wants to try to undermine the enforcement of federal laws concerning immigration, then perhaps they shouldn't receive federal funds. it seems like a pretty reasonable solution to this, and yet some people freak out about it. but we have to remember that this will have about immigration, and immigration itself is a federal issue not decide based on the patchwork

quilt of state and local localities. mark: this news has been going on since the new deal. courts have upheld it, seems in the trump erat courts have gone wobbly on their own precedent, when it comes to refugees and the power of the president in terms of prosecutorial discretion week had a recent supreme court decision involving arizona where they said the president gets to call the shots, and yet the president apparently doesn't get to call the shots. does it trouble you that there appears to be, at least in the trump era, more and more politicization of the courts by a number of the federal district courts and form shopping in certain parts of the country when it comes to challenging trump initiatives? >> of course, form shopping is disturbing. we're referring to the process by which somebody will go to one court and another court based on a strategy of which judge they think might be more likely to rule in their favor.

that undermines respect for the rule of law, undermines the rule of law itself, and it's troubling. one of the things that enabled that is bad legislative drafting. sometimes that's accidental, sometimes it's very deliberate. in the case where members of congress don't necessarily want to make a difficult choice, they punt and draft something that's really vague and say we'll let the executive branch agency work it out, and there ends up being something of a tug-of-war between executive branch agency, perhaps with input from the white house and power at the time and the courts. and that ends up being a problem, and a problem that could be for the most part avoided if congress did its job in drafting language. mark: but i look at some of these federal judges on the west coast, maryland and so forth, early on in the trump administration, making outrageous decisions, that clearly violated the precedent set forth by the supreme court, and we're always told the

supreme court precedent. the constitution trumps that. in this case, they were one and the same in my view, they made it clear justice kennedy and so forth that the government has the power when it comes to enforcing federal immigration laws. certain federal district judges upholding that, is there a level, my words not yours, of judicial tyranny, that has taken place in this country particularly in the last many decades with the rise of big central government? >> there's certainly been abuse of judicial power, and that's a problem. any time that abuse occurs, it needs to be weeded out, needs to be addressed. fortunately we have a good court system, while it's by no means perfect, we have the opportunity to appeal. the bad news, though, is that in many cases it takes a long time to appeal something and to get a bad ruling overturned. in other cases, the nature of

the dispute has changed entirely by the time that process has the ability to work itself through. saying possession is nine tenths of the law, in many circumstances if a federal district judge issues a bad ruling, it can cost a lot in terms of what's given up, what's surrendered, between the time that decision is issued and the time that the erroneous decision can be corrected on appeal. mark: we'll be right back. ♪ applebee's to go. order online and get $10 off $30. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

order online and get $10 off $30. if your adventure keeps turning into unexpected bathroom trips you may have overactive bladder, or oab. ohhhh... enough already! we need to see a doctor. ask your doctor about myrbetriq® (mirabegron). it treats oab symptoms of urgency, frequency, and leakage. it's the first and only oab treatment in its class. myrbetriq may cause serious allergic reactions. if you experience swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, or difficulty breathing... stop taking myrbetriq and tell your doctor right away. myrbetriq may increase blood pressure. tell your doctor right away if you have trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may affect or be affected by other medications. before taking myrbetriq, tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure, common cold symptoms urinary tract infection, constipation, diarrhea, dizziness, and headache. need some help managing your oab symptoms along the way? ask your doctor if myrbetriq is right for you, and visit myrbetriq.com to learn more.

jushis local miracle ear t at helped andrew hear more of the joy in her voice. just one hearing test is all it took for him to hear more of her laugh... and less of the background noise around him. for helen, just one visit to her local miracle-ear is all it took to learn how she can share more moments with her daughter. just one free hearing test could help you hear more... laughter... music... life. call now! for a limited time, you can get $500 off miracle-ear hearing aids!

here's something you should know. there's a serious virus out there that 1 in 30 boomers has, yet most don't even know it. a virus that's been almost forgotten. it's hepatitis c. hep c can hide in the body for years without symptoms. left untreated it can lead to liver damage, even liver cancer. the only way to know if you have hep c is to ask your healthcare provider for the simple blood test. if you have hep c, it can be cured. for us, it's time to get tested. it's the only way to know for sure.

>> live from america's news headquarters i'm kelly wright in washington. here's what's happening. stormy daniels breaking her silence tonight on "60 minutes" about alleged affair with president trump. former porn star says she was threatened by a man in las vegas to keep quiet about the alleged one-time encounter in 2006. daniels says she was with her then infant daughter when she was approached in a parking lot in 2011. she once invalidated a non-disclosure for which she received $130,000. president denies having an affair with daniels. the men's final four, kansas secured the final spot with dramatic overtime victory over duke, and loyola chicago continues cinderella run over michigan. the ramblers are the fourth 11th seed to make college's

final four. i'm kelly wright. now back to "life, liberty & levin." . mark: the sanctuary city idea nullification, these are words that were used in the confederacy, nullification, secession. do you find it odd the left is talking about these things, particularly california, a very blue state where we have multiple sanctuary cities. in fact, the governor announced the whole state is a sanctuary state and the various secession movements going on in that state? do you find it odd that now the left is using the language of the confederacy? >> i find it odd, deeply troubling and contrary to the constitution if everything the left has professed in the past to hold near and dear. as much as anything i find it to be a remarkable moment. a teachable moment to paraphrase barack obama. a moment when we can say, okay,

let's talk about what is appropriate for the federal government. let's talk about whether everything needs to be at the federal level. in this case it does, in the case of laws governing immigration and naturalization, those are federal issues, the constitution says so. but we can use this as a pivot point to say let's talk about whether there are, in fact, dangers associated with allowing excessive power to accumulate in the hands of the few. or too much power to be pushed to washington, d.c. that's really what they're saying. so in a sense maybe they're making an argument for federalism. they don't realize it, they're misguided, reaching the wrong conclusion here, but ultimately they're trying in their own way to make an argument for federalism. mark: are they doing that or saying we'll take whatever road we can take to get what we want? i think it's more that. >> i think there are some people on the left who genuinely, sincerely are

concerned about the accumulation of power within the federal government. now maybe they're misguided in doing, that maybe just trying to sand up for the administrative state. i don't know. i assume some of them are open to the idea, perhaps more now than any time in recent memory, to the idea that maybe we shouldn't put this much power in washington. maybe we shouldn't have all of our eggs or this many of our eggs in washington's basket. they ought to be open to that more now than they ever have been in the past. mark: as the united states senator, what do you do, if the state succeeds in passing some kind of a proposition to secede? didn't we fight a civil war over this? i thought we did. what happens under those circumstances? >> bad things. we don't want to go there. when a state within our union secedes, we know how that ends. it isn't pretty. it can only end in tears and

worse. mark: do you see a rise in level of lawlessness? i mean, i do, i'm curious of your opinion, particularly in the more liberal cities and states and so forth? we talked about sanctuary cities, of course, but also in terms of the mayor of oakland giving a heads-up to illegal aliens, including criminals, that i.c.e. is going to be doing searches and so forth, and also the democrat party. the democrat party is very slow to react to the securing the border to changes in our voting systems, to ensure the integrity of the vote of the american citizens. seems to be almost an ideological commitment to lawlessness or allowing lawlessness to occur to accumulate power. am i wrong about that? >> willful blindness to the law is always distressing, and i think it takes on a more

concerning note when you're talking about the levers of control of our system of government, and that's exactly what we're describing when we refer to the process by which someone gains access to the ballot box. if people are willing to say we don't care who you are or whether you're entitled to vote under the law, we're going to allow you to vote. that's very disturbing. that upped it to send chills up our spine every time we hear something like that. it troubles me greatly that there are those in our country who suggest that the risk of voter fraud is somehow made up, that it doesn't exist. we know that there is fraud that's committed in every part of this country in one way or another. why would it be any different with respect to voter fraud, especially given how many of our society's resources are now

devoted to government. why wouldn't it occur there? and, of course, it does. we ought to be concerned about it. mark: well, you're concerned about it, and i'm concerned about it, but there seems to be a number people who aren't concerned about it and, in fact, they seek to exploit it. so i know there are no easy answers, well, what do you do about it? well, it does become complicated, doesn't it? >> it certainly does, and we have to be careful here too, not to overreact assuming because there say problem that is always involves necessarily a federal solution. one of the worst things we could do is to federalize election law, to federalize the casting of ballots. this is one of the last bastions of state sovereign authority, where states, for the most part conduct their own elections, without excessive interference from the federal government. i don't want to see a uniform system of laws, thrust on the american people. thrust on every state

improperly by the federal government. mark: as a matter of fact, that issue was raised by several of the ratification debates and those streets said, we're not voting for this constitution. if you control the voting process in our state. don't forget crtv, you can watch levin tv every night. give us a call, 844-levin-tv, or check us out, crtv.com.

if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting.

tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. . mark: welcome back. let me ask you about some of your colleagues and what you think about them. ted cruz. >> great guy, i met him shortly after i was elected to the senate, after i had taken office. i felt like i had known him before that, we had common friends, both appellate litigators and i had seen him argue at the supreme court, and he and i share a lot iommon

ideologically. we approached ts job from the standpoint of looking at the constitution and evaluating what it means. he's a good friend and a close ally. mark: and you both actually had to run against the establishment in order to get your nominations. now utah has a very interesting system, the convention system, virginia has it from time to time. that's very difficult system to overcome, how did you do that? >> well, i started giving a series of speeches about the constitution around the state of utah, and it sort of caught hold. it came at a time when people were realizing the federal government was getting too big and too powerful, it was commanding too many resources from our society. it was overreaching in its power. the message caught hold and resonated with a lot of voters and resonated with the convention in the state of utah. now in the convention, i didn't actually clinch the nomination, i had to face a primary, but the incumbent, senator bennett at the time, was defeated at convention, and so i faced a

primary election opponent and won in the primary and then in the general. mark: and that was which year? >> that was 2010. mark: and let me ask you about a couple other senators. rand paul. >> rand paul is also a dear friend and a close ally. i got to know him when he and i were both running for office at the same time in 2010. i was in kentucky on a fund-raising trip, and i met him at a fund-raiser, and i had read somewhere, some columnist had connected the two dots, and identified mike lee in utah and rand paul in kentucky and said if mike lee and rand paul are elected in the senate, they'll become fast friends and we did. he's a very committed libertarian and loves the constitution. mark: bernie sanders? >> bernie sanders is a great guy, he believes passionately on what he believes in. he and i don't agree on every issue to put it mildly.

he describes himself as a progressive independent who caucuses with the democratic party. i am a constitutional conservative. we don't agree very often. occasionally it happens. mark: i would assume like any group, club, organization, there's 100 of you, so some get along better than others. there's these caucuses i guess that you have. these lunches that you have and so forth. give us a little bit of our mind's eye into how this works. i guess there is wheeling and dealing, some senators get angry with senators and some ally with other senators. how does that work? >> it's a little like the supreme court as we were talking about earlier. there are people who are not at all aligned politically ideologically but get along great. the mainstream media would have you believe that democrats and republicans are constantly at

odds with each other, constant bickering. there's this mind-set that the problems in washington are all associated with partisan gridlock, and i don't really think that's the problem. i don't see hatred. i don't see enmity between democrats and republicans based on party affiliation, their ideological orientation. in fact, you don't get to be $21 trillion in debt, you don't get to the point where government spends $4 trillion a year without a whole lot of republicans and a whole lot of democrats -- >> agreeing. >> -- agreeing on a whole lot of things, the idea that the parties are so ideologically at odds isn't true. it's what we get donehat we have to watch. mark: they're very similar in some ways? >> in many respects, yes, too similar, too aligned, too willing to expand the size, the scope, the reach, the cost of the federal government. that has inured to the great

detriment of the american people. mark: i don't think i'd get along with our lunches, i'd be so furious i'd be throwing plates. >> when you run for the united states senate. they'll welcome you with open arms, and contribution to the debate would be greatly appreciated and much needed. mark: thank you, i appreciate that. we'll be right back. i switch to miralax. stimulant laxatives make your body go by forcefully stimulating the nerves in your colon. miralax is different. it works with the water in your body to hydrate and soften. unblocking your system naturally. miralax.

. mark: welcome back, senator, we talked about some of the senators. let's talk about the institution of the senate. used to be that the state legislatures chose the senators or the methods by which the senators were chosen and we get the 17th amendment. a progressive era of republicans, the 16th amendment, the federal income tax and the 17th amendment. that all changed. direct election was considered a populist thing to do, and so the states don't have any representation, state legislatures don't have direct representation in the senate or in congress period, what do you make of that? >> there's no doubt that something changed within our system when the 17th amendment took effect. as you properly observe, the states were no longer represented as states. the state legislatures no longer had their own

representation in the senate. and in many respects, you can trace the expansion of the federal government to that time. it didn't occur immediately, but it did occur eventually. at the end of the day, i don't think that genie is going to go back into the bottle. enough water has passed under the bridge that that is not going back up. that does not mean we can't restore federalism without that. i think people can see, are starting to see and ultimately will see that federalism has to be the answer, that we have to return to constitutionally limited government. mark: you think that's what people want? the election of obama and so forth, do you think people are craving for moving back towards federalism and towards centralization or think we haven't done a very good job of explaining it? >> both, i think there are people craving federalism who understand that's what we're

creating and people who haven't realized that yet but are going to. including many on the left. many on the left who are now complaining all of a sudden about too much power being in washington. when they say that, i say bring on that argument. let's have that discussion, let's talk about the fact that there are dangers inherent in giving too much power to any one part of our government, including and especially the federal government. mark: well, they created it after all. do you really think that congress and the federal government will undo the design that they have created in lieu of aspects of the constitution? >> only when the people demand it. but that's the beauty of our system is that the people are the sovereigns, the people ultimately have the say in what happens with their government, and when the people realize that there is no other solution, there's no other way to get out from under the oppressive yolk of a bloated

federal government that makes many americans work for months out of every year just to pay for federal taxes, that is what will happen. my hope is that that can happen before it gets too much more painful than it already is. but this is an inevitability. mark: or if it becomes too late, because we can vote and vote and vote but can't seem to change the bureaucacy. vote and vote and vote and can't seem to change the courts. that frustrates a lot of people out there. we'll be right back. it's time for the 'sleep number spring clearance event' on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort, your sleep number setting. does your bed do that? it's the last chance for clearance savings up to $800 on our most popular beds. ends saturday. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you.

[thud] [screaming & crying] ♪ [screaming & crying] ♪ [screaming & crying] [phone ping] with esurance photo claims, you could have money for repairs within a day... wow! that was really fast. huh. ...so it doesn't have to hurt for long. hmm. that's insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.

jushis local miracle ear t at helped andrew hear more of the joy in her voice. just one hearing test is all it took for him to hear more of her laugh... and less of the background noise around him. for helen, just one visit to her local miracle-ear is all it took to learn how she can share more moments with her daughter. just one free hearing test could help you hear more... laughter... music... life. call now! for a limited time, you can get $500 off miracle-ear hearing aids!

i think the american people are basically good. we as a people strive to live free, we like freedom not just because we like the way it sounds when we say it, but we

like the things that free people do when they're allowed to be free. that's the beauty of the constitution. mark: you don't think we're headed towards a greater and greater centralization even if we want to be free, it becomes more difficult to be free? >> i think it does become more difficult to be free if we seek to yearn for liberty, but because we have this, in our history, because we have it in our constitution, it is already the law. it is natural for us to return to that which is succeeded, that which has allowed us to prosper in the past. the reason we have become the strongest economy the world has ever known has a whole lot to do with the fact that we've been good at recognizing the limits on government power, and the value of limiting the power of government to dictate how you live your life. i think that's where we will default. that's where we will end up even after we've explored every other alternative.

what winston churchill said about the american people, it's what makes us different. mark: thank you, senator, much appreciated. >> thank you very much. mark: all right, we will see you next week on "life, liberty & levin." [ dog barking ] [ wind howling ] ♪ >> fire! >> last season on "legends and lies"... >> if we are to die... [ screaming ] ...let us die as a free people. >> sir. >> i do not engage in the buying and selling of men for profit. >> "all men are created equal." >> i ain't no slave. i'm a soldier. when this war's over, i'm gonna be a free man, and you will be back in chains. >> not my boy! [ whip cracks ] >> mr. jefferson, what are you writing? >> it's for the congress. it doesn't concern you. >> a declaration is just words. so tell me again why that is worth fiti