changing to laze constitution referendum vote to say yes to scrapping the constitution written during the military dictatorship 40 years ago some politicians will mostly be kept out of the process to write a new on what prompted this change and what happens now this isn't a story. hello welcome to the program. it's been 30 years since chile emerged from a military dictatorship to become a democracy it still governed by a constitution written by general augusto pinochet the military dictator who ruled in the 1970 s. and eighty's but that's about to change an overwhelming 78 percent voted to have a new constitution written and they rejected a proposal to leave that job to the politicians sunday's referendum was the culmination of a year of protests focused on inequality in one of latin america's wealthiest countries we'll bring in our guests in just a moment but 1st all latin america editor lucien human has more from the capital santiago. a massive celebration to mark the end of the last vestige of chile's former military dictatorship. with one chorus this family in the same part of san

draft a new constitution.ically what they have to do now is make sure the whole process of electing new representatives in this assembly will go smoothly. but later on, already in november, presidential elections will be held. his only task is to make sure this process and all the elections to come as the agenda is full for the next couple of months. after that, march, february, 2022, he will be replaced by someone else. for now, he is to step back and make sure thing does well, because his name and reputation in entire political agenda has been completely disturbed, not only by the social protests, by the pandemic, economic problems between the united states and china. for him, he doesn't need to step down, but he needs to make sure everything that is to come, especially the elections the well. >> i would like to go back to marta lagos. there are many expecting this is the silver bullet and this will change things for the better, but it is not as simple as that, particularly with economic problems and the str

the constitution or good constitution that they were implemented. during the country and no rules and no regulations basically that are implemented so for me no i don't see the point of all this. work rorik celebration of the constitution for him i want to play you protesters who are protesting on a law famous day historic day for algeria and that was on top of the faith which is the anniversary of the pink in 1988 democracy protests there is a whole history of protesting in algeria this is what they were saying on that day thinking ahead to the idea of tweaking amending the constitution as have a listen. you don't recognize this system in power and this constitution if passed will plunge us into the abyss just as the processes of those in power plunged us into the abyss we do not recognize them. i swear that whatever they do we will not stop until we achieve independence and i swear that we will continue to fight until this regime falls and this country achieved independence how do you have a. dramatic day family instead but does that represent how

our constitution makes it. clear that you cannot vote or deny public service appointment to someone because of their religious beliefs. we've seen it done, we seen it tried especially over the last congress, we sought done at the committee with the nomination of russ votes to be deputy director of the office management and budget. when a colleague of ours basically said because of his deeply held christian beliefs that he was not qualified to be a public servant in this count country. i hope the american people are hearing what is happening in some of these debate. amy coney barrett was attacked because of her faith but it's not just limited or isolated to her, there are others who are more and more accustomed or who feel more and more emboldened to use a person's faith to deny them their vote to a position in our government. that is an unconstitutional test that some in this chamber are starting to rely on and i hope the american people will usety this opportunity to reject it and get back to the values of our

constituted an emergency, they needed new powers to abolish the constitution.e argument had not been settled with another emergency arose a decade later, the great depression. it once again raised the question of how far the government could go in trying to deal with it. by the time the court had heard the case, it's two year limit had already expired, and the last shots of been fired on the front, two and half years earlier, and the league of nations have been defeated by the senate, and warren harding, not woodrow wilson, lived at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. within a few months, white would be dead and william howard taft will become chief justice. nevertheless, the rental commission stayed in business, and in august 1922, ordered that rents in the chancelton apartment building be reduced. the owners brought suit and when the case reached the supreme court, and opinion was again delivered this time for a unanimous beach the emergency had passed, and then government could no longer exercise the powers that come into being with the war. the great war as you can s

and a vote, the constitution creates no such constitutional duty, it was well within the constitutionalof the senate to advise consent by withholding consent to a nominee and not having any vote and ilya book demonstrates a lot of history of no votes that way please stop if you want to shift the conversation to what is normal practice, what's abnormal practice that you need historical context like the one this book provides but that's the point i think needs to be that's the most important take away from this conversation is that there is no constitutional problem with president nominating the senate confirming order of the congress deciding to change the number of the supreme court justices in order to do so called pack the court. >> what are some of the lessons we can take from the historical experience with court packing proposals and can you give us your sense of how that may unfold now in real time? >> assured. historically there is no magic to number nine we had 150 years of the nine justice court the constitution doesn't specify the number of justices. each expansion was historic

constitution passed, that is true.t is important and it's actually quite significant to look at the question of justice barrett and regionalism because in effect the originalist approach is essentially freezing the legal analysis and perhaps the factual analysis to 1789 when the constitution was passed, ignoring and not paying attention to how the society, our values, norms and policies have evolved since then. the troubling effect and it's all most a necessary fact is that if you are freezing your analysis in 1789, the farther away you get from 1789, the more intention the law is going to be with the way people actually live their lives. that's what we are going to see with justice barrett particularly around the affordable care act and environmentalism. there is a report that says 76% of the time she has ruled in favor of corporations and not with respect to people. that's not just a concern to environmental activists. that's a concern to everybody. it's very much like the coronavirus situation. environmentalism and

of the constitution it was written during the. more than 30 years ago it was written for people who was not. by the people in. event in a time where there were not free press me international observers so it's a legacy of the day to receive and there are many things many public policies that cannot be taken that they cannot take place because of this constitution so they may know social changes the need are in a way blocked because of this constitution. well spain has declared a new state of emergency to battle a major research of her surgeons rather of coronavirus cases it's the 2nd state of emergency in spain after one was imposed in march to contain the 1st wave spanish prime minister petro sanchez made the announcement in the last hour saying that the measure goes into effect today and it will include an 11 pm to 6 am nationwide curfew a declaration will give spain's regions the power to impose even greater restrictions on movement and closer regional borders to travel well here's a bit more of what spain's prime minister had

give this constitution doesn't represent us it's a constitution that suits them because they wrote it to serve their interests these rich people who have hotels commissions and millions while we are here starving. but the movement has been plagued by disunity and the lack of organization most protesters advocated peaceful demonstrations to watch. the revolutionaries agreed to make this a peaceful protest without is collision and they are voicing their demands in a peaceful way. but others decided to cross the barricades to the green zone in an attempt to lay siege to parliament riot police used tear gas to repel them resulting in several life injuries a government spokesman said. dozens of security forces were also injured when demonstrators threw stones petrol bombs and homemade hand grenades. but. one of the security forces present on the 3 barricades and atop the buildings didn't carry firearms the instructions were very clear and frank and until this moment there was high commitment from the side of the security forces to protect the protesters because the prime minister has calle

constitution, longest lasting constitution in the world because it's written at a letter of generality specific enough to protect rights but general enough to be lasting. so that when you're talking about the constable banging at your door and in 1791 as a search or seizure, now we can apply it as the court did in carpenter versus the united states to cell phones. so the fourth amendment is a principle. it protects against unreason ap searches and seizures but doesn't catalog instances in which and unreasonable semp aar seizure could take place. take the principle and apply to modern technology like cell phones, what if technological advances enable someone with superman x-ray vision to simply see in your house? no need to knock on the door and go in. i think that could still be analyzed under the fourth amendment. >> so i think this is a useful place to explain to the american people again, what originalism is and why it's a mistake to view it as a republican position? i think that originalism is a part of a jurisprudential debate not a part of a policy continuum between republicans a

united states the 24th amendment to the constitution was ratified with the assassination of president kennedy with strong bipartisan support. congress has a duty to take all necessary action with that continuity of government and with that democracy for the future that is why a today it is my honor to welcome congressman a constitutional scholar jamie raskin from maryland introducing legislation to establish a commissiono to discharge the duties facing the judgment of the voters which shows the need for us to create a process for future presidents and then to strengthen the guardrails in the constitution to ensure stability and continuity of government in times of crisis the 20th amendment has a path if the president suffers a crippling problem and is unable to discharge the powers and duties of hissc office and transfers the powers. specifically section four. to set up the independent body to confront such a crisis. and then to lay out the process the president's incapacity this honors the standing commission with medical experts selected in a bipartisan and bicameral way. this must

they are not following the constitution. lee: by the same token, a judge who fails to grant the dispersion and the grant -- a judge who granted have probably done an equally bad thing. is that right? judge barrett: yes. sen. lee: does the constitution sandy thing about the facts of the supreme court? judge barrett: the constitution does not. that is open to congress. it has been nine for about 150 years. that is a matter of statute. statutory, a statutory decision. nonethelesssion that could have some bearing on constitutional issues. correct? judge barrett: there would be more decision-makers? if we abandoned the long-standing historical practice and tradition of having nine justices, could that have ?n impact judge barrett: it is hard for me to understand what specific constitutional question you're asking. sen. lee: there are strong why over theieve last more than a century and a half we have left that number at nine. as you point out, there's nothing in the constitution that requires it. we could come up with any number

trump who intend on shredding that constitution is what is wrong here. mcconnell and graham rushed this nominee through, didn't give her a chance for america to understand what she is all about because she couldn't hardly answer the question, she didn't want to answer questions during her confirmation hearing but the sad part about it, mitch mcconnell may have had intentions unpacking the court themselves, they want to use the word packing the court, they intended on packing the court but what they didn't do is underestimated donald trump and his hard headedness. what he is doing now, he's losing the election so what he's doing now is having all these rallies, i know i am going to lose but many of you get sick as i can so it will be a messed up situation. that is a shame. that is the part about the constitution this gentleman didn't talk about, hardheaded man like donald trump being put in office but the thing is just like constitutional right for mitch mcconnell and lindsey graham to put her in the position she is in, the door swings both ways. should b

>> the constitution, one reason why is the longest lasting written constitution in the world is because it's written at a level of generality that is specific enough to protect rights but general enough to be lasting. so that when you're talking about the constable banging at your door in 1791, and search and seizure. now we can apply it. carpenter versus united states. cell phones. the fourth amendment is a principle. it protects against unreasonable searches and seizures when he doesn't catalogue the instances in which an unreasonable search or seizure could take place. you take that principle and then you apply it to modern technology, like cell phones or when technological advances enable someone with x-ray vision to see in your house so there's no need to knock on the door. i think i could still be analyzed under the fourth amendment. >> i think this is a useful place to explain to the american people what originalism is and why it's a mistake to view it as a republican position. i think originalism is part of the jurisprudential debate. it's not part of a policy continuum between

until now the constitution has divided us.all work together so that the new constitution is the great framework of unity, stability and future. to other news — spain and italy are introducing tough new restrictions to try and bring a new spike in covid—i9 infections under control. in a moment we'll hear from our correspondent in rome. but first, this report from guy hedgecoe in spain, where the prime minister's approved tighter measures that will be in place for a month. seven months after spain's government introduced a state of emergency to tackle coronavirus, it is doing so again. in the spring, the measure was used as a legal framework to implement a strict national lockdown. this time, the measures will not be quite as tight, although a national curfew is being introduced. translation: the freedom of movement of people is prohibited from 11pm to 6am throughout the country. it will only be possible to circulate in this time zone for the justified reasons established in the regulation. for example, to acquire medicines, to

the 1st thing after we have the new constitution. after it passed the referendum that was the in interference to amend some clause that that that is about the king's authority and that is a worrying sign. donovan i can bangkok also i mean we are looking at a king who is not that popular amongst certainly students certainly the younger end of the population do you think there is a popular mass swelling of support for the for the anti want to movement what i i will not touch upon the popularity 'd of his majesty the king but i think the question that their students are costing 'd upon their reteam as well as the establishment and the government as a whole i think it is something to be look at that whether or not the the core of the proposal is actually demonstrating that there is a problem of popularity against the king. all 'd 'd is it the problem of the rich him as a whole that we are calling upon every form of democracy in this country that we think that the government is problematic and that we think that overall the institution is

the great dissent, watershed in constitutional understanding. the dawn of a new age of judicial review. i'm afraid that my goal for this evening is to unsettle this rare, remaining point of convergence. to be sure there is truth in the conventional story. the enforce conformity of the first world war was tie filling and it was pervasive. the arbitrary application of coercive state power inflicted great personal harms and depleted democratic discourse. as contemporaneous critic alleged, a war ostensibly intended to defeat autocracy abroad, produced domestic repression on an unprecedented scale. yet, our path narrative of tyranny and liberation, misrepresents the history of civil liberties in the united states into fundamental ways. first, as a matter of historical causation, the wartime cases were far less formative for the first amendment then scholars have long assumed. indeed, from the perspective of prewar progressives, the most salient feature of the wartime repression was its persistence after the armistice. the ease with which censorship a

the constitution. reppo raskin -- metal speaker, thank you for inviting me to present to the press this legislation. in times of chaos, we must hold fast to our constitution. the 25th and him -- the 25th amendment is about the continuity of government. tool adopted by overwhelming majorities in the house and senate in 1965 and overwhelming bipartisan majorities of state legislatures, three quarters of whom passed it in 1967. the 25th amendment is designed to guarantee the continuing peaceful transfer of power in a country. the principal authors of the amendment wanted to resolve basic questions. section one establishes if the presidency is vacant, the vice president becomes the president, and believe or not, that was ambiguous at the time. ii specifies that if the vice presidency is vacant, a concurrent majority confirms the vice president. establishes a transfer of power by transmitting to the senate and the speaker of the house a statement establishing a temporary disability, and this withppened mult

constitution should be interpreted as intended by its authors centuries ago her critics fit she won't be moving with the times on religious rights the climate crisis health care abortion and to name a few the senate confirmation of amy coney baratz as u.s. supreme court justice gives a 6 to 3 conservative majority over them more liberal colleagues and that raises concerns over how her philosophy could shape the rulings of america's highest court for decades to come a white house correspondent kimberly help that explains will. with the swearing in of amy coney barrett right here at the white house to the highest court in the united states the supreme court the makeup the ideological makeup of 8 that court has now shifted decidedly to the right on the political spectrum in other words conservative in potential rulings that may unfold in the area of abortion rights religious freedom and even health care in fact almost immediately after the u.s. election on november 3rd there is going to be at test to see just how conservative this new court is with the ruling that's expected on november

we'll keep the same constitution and make the necessary reforms to it. no voters insist the government working within the present constitution will help those left behind since the magna carta was adopted yes voters say start from scratch with the participation of the people and let the world see what chilean democracy 2.0 looks like. and joining us from the chilean capital sunday i'll go is correspondent johan hello to you johann so explain to us why so many people are opposed to the current constitution and why was this issue important enough to have a referendum on it. so you understand how important this referendum is we had to go back in time i mean this constitution that they'd back to 30 years ago they'd back to the day before was the finish it was a written. for people that were not elected it was people who was choose by i was the pinochet and they made this constitution more than 30 years ago when there were there were there were not free press in the ne there are other other free institutions are an organization so it was under a dictatorship

because the constitution made in 1980 set it's almost it was more like a political constitution because set a wave of. economic system if i remember correctly columbia tried something like this in about 991 and it had very mixed results just because you rewrite the constitution doesn't really give anyone a guarantee that that is going to solve all the problems that chile is now facing. and they they they had this constitution it one of the things seen in colombia it's the spite of the fact that they voted in everything and there was a. i think. political parties but dissipate in that way in chile they had to in inch make sure that there are a lot of voices who are to take part of the assembly because now in this referendum also we vote if it wants an assembly or some other kind of fascinating mix with the congress but he wants by 80 percent and a national assembly which actually gives parents he a gender parity it could integrate in indigenous people so we have to integrate more voices you know that does not happen in the same things that happen in colombia for instance really interesti

and so you have this divergence of constitutional theories. on what's different now than 1962 when kennedy nominated byron white question for 15 minutes about his football career the last time a supreme court justice had played in the nfl while a student at yale law school. but things have changed and the combination of these trends diversion interpretive theories at a time when the parties are more ideologically sorted and that will not change back overnight. and potential reform efforts and term limits and restructuring the court and expanding the court and to change on the hearings or how that confirmation process itself works and since the core is so important the only way to reduce the tension and then to repel the constitutional order and the people within washington that is debating and deciding the remaining policy value clashes with the administrative it is agencies. so now in the long term i don't have any previously undiscovered bullets and with that toxic cloud that envelops as the rest of our public discourse. and that will take d

why did you choose to single him out for criticism in that constitutional xhen tah constitutional commentary article? >> i was writing about the majority opinion and chief justice roberts was the author of the opinion. so i was simply discussing what the five justice majority adopted as its reasoning, and i'd like to emphasize again i was not attacking chief justice roberts or impugning his character or anything of that sort. it was an academic critique and i want to emphasize, you know, just given this line of questions you're asking that, you know, i am standing before the committee today, saying that i have the integrity to act consistently with my oath and apply the law as the law, to approach the aca and every other statute without bias, and i've not made any commitments or deals or anything like that. i'm not here on a mission to destroy the affordable care act. i'm just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law. >> and i -- look, i think it is important that folks watching understand that i believe your views are sincere and ernestly held and i'm not trying to suggest there

in times of chaos, we must hold fast to our constitution. the 25th amendment is about the stability of the presidency and the continuity of the office. it is a tool adopted by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the house and senate in 1965, and overwhelming bipartisan majorities of state legislators, three quarters of whom passed it in 1967. the 25th amendment is designed to guarantee the continuing, peaceful transfer of power in our country. the principal authors of the amendment, like senators birch --and robert f kennedy, kennedy,e and robert f wanted to resolve basic questions about stability, continuity and succession in the office of the president. section one established that if the presidency is vacant, the vice president becomes the president. and believe it or not, that was ambiguous at the time. section two establishes that if the vice presidency is vacant, the president nominates a vice president, and by concurrent majority vote of the house and senate, that nominee becomes the vice president. section three established a proce

the framers of the constitution have article five, which goes to a constitutional amendment, and that is the proper place to lead to racial integration of schools. also spoke about the separation of powers. then they also spoke about tradition, or what professor bobbitt referred to as the people's of the constitution. and they say that the decision disregards the sort of respect for the parental control of education. here, they cite the pierce versus society of sisters decision from the 1920's, which says that the child is not the mere creature of the state. and they say that this decision is at odds with that decision. the final argument that they made was a consequentialist one. they say that if brown is actually implanted that it's going to lead to chaos -- implemented that it's going to lead to chaos and confusion, and that it may even lead to the closing of the public school systems as a whole. as i suggest, the southern manifesto overwhelmingly issued -- issued -- eschewed the rhetoric at the time. this is one way they did slip up, however. and they write the following, "brown i

the constitution, one of the reasons it's the longest lasting constitutions in the world is that it's written at a level of generality specific enough to tech -- to protect rights but general enough to be lacking. when you are talking about the constable banging at your door in 1791 as a search or seizure, we can apply it to cell phones. so the fourth amendment is a principal that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but it does not catalog the instances in which an unreasonable search or seizure could take place. so you take that principle and apply it to modern technology like cell phones or what if technical advances allow someone with x-ray vision to see in your house? there's no need to knock on the doors and go n. that could still be analyzed under the fourth amendment. sasse: this is a good place to explain what original-ism is and say it is a republic -- republican position. it's not part of a policy provision between republicans and democrats. it's something for useful -- something useful for three branches of government. maybe it's useful to back up and say w

constitution of the united states. it is always head -- it has always been gratifying for me, that the rules are what unify us. this is a comfort to people. it is not about who is in power. it's about a process that is bipartisan, based in the constitution, giving congress the power to do this at a time when people understand there is necessity for it. again, to your question, it is not about any of us making a decision about whether or not the 25th amendment should be invoked. that's not the point. that's not up to us. raskin'sack to mr. point. put yourself in this situation. should any of you suffer a stroke or covid or go through ventilation, and are not capable of making decisions for your family. unforeseen, accidental, whatever happens. wouldn't you have liked to have had a plan in advance for your family, even if it is temporary? god willing. even if it is temporary. that would be in place. that's what this is. reporter: on a related note, do you think -- reporter: do you think president trump has an altered sta

iraq i just will attempt suits old policy into the constitution and that's not the role of constitution the role of a concept to just provide a framework under which those reforms can be undertaken and that's the really most pressing challenge facing chile right now that colombia has tried this experiment in the 1990 s. with mixed results how can chill a better or different me think. well it's going to be a challenge it's going to be a real challenge to do this differently and that's why in my view i think the mixed assembly is best because then you'll have members of congress who have some experience with legislating in with the political system but also the representation of the people so in this sense it's essential that what the constitution focuses on is a minimalist approach that is to say what constitutions are designed and what they're supposed to do constitutionally are supposed to protect minorities and they're also going to britain to protect against the crease dismissal jory so in this sense what the constitution needs to do is minimally guarantee those rights and provide a

we'll keep the same constitution and make the necessary reforms to it. no voters insist the government working within the present constitution will help those left behind since the magna carta was adopted yes voters say start from scratch with the participation of the people and let the world see what chile and democracy 2.0 looks like. and joining us from the chilean capital sunday our go is correspondent johan hello to you johann so explain to us why so many people are opposed to the current constitution and why was this issue important enough to have a referendum on it. do you understand how important this referendum is we had to go back in time i mean this constitution that they'd back to 30 years ago they'd back to the big though she was the british it was a written. for people that were not elected it was people who was choose by i was the pinochet and they made this constitution more than 30 years ago when their war there were not free press me. neither are there other free institutions are an organisation so it was under a dictatorship and of cou

until now the constitution has divided us we must all work together so that the new constitution is the great framework of unity and stability. long lines and strict pandemic controls were a feature of voting day people or even urged to bring their own pens. the day has its roots in street protests that erupted late last year but it increases to public transport fares. it soon turned into a much bigger movement frustrated by inequality in shalane society. the current constitution was implemented during the dictatorship of pinochet and many see it as something that prevents attempts to address poverty and inequality. it symbolizes the injustice that this country suffered and how the people rebelled against the constitution this puts an end to the dictatorship of pinochet and his chile's transformation to democracy. the plebiscite not only asked if the constitution should be scrapped but who should rewrite it. to lane strongly supported having it rewritten by a group of elected citizens rather than a mixture of politicians and citizens once the members are chosen they will begin drafting

few hours left to cost that ballot in a historic referendum on whether to change the country's constitution a vote as a result of fierce anti-government protests which of consume the country since last year at the heart of the unrest lingering inequality enshrined in the current constitution which was enacted decades ago during the pinochet dictatorship where more than $14000000.00 people eligible to vote including the president sebastian pinera who caused his vote in the capital santiago the been long queues of people outside polling stations and sold. as a controlling and treat with strict sanitary measures because of the crown of our demick our latin america has only seen human has more now. message impossible to miss displayed in full each of these presidential palace approve a new constitution for a better future it says. on the other side of the street that the lean as it is joins the celebration so that her daughter she says could live in chile with dignity take care of whatever our constitution is our original sin it regulates all the laws what we can and cannot have and clearly it'

stalin's constitution.ant to read you a few thing from this and tell me if it sounds familiar to what in democrats, biden senate candidates and so forth have been running on in this 110 page manifesto. let's see if there's any similarities are you ready? article 118 in stalin constitution. citizens of the ussr have right to work that is guaranteed right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with quantity and quality. the right to work is in short by socialist organization of the national economy. the steady growth of the productive forces of soviet society, e religious of the possibilities of economic crisis and abolition of unemployment sound familiar aoc? article 119, citizens in the ussr have right to rest and leisure the right to rest and leisure ensured by introduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers maybe family leave or something of that sort. the institution of annual vacations with full pay for workers and employees. and provision of a

i will keep the same constitution and make the necessary reforms to it. no voters insist the government working within the present constitution will help those left behind since the magna carta was adopted yes voters say start from scratch with the participation of the people and let the world see what chilean democracy 2.0 looks like. i'm sure it was not at all more about the referendum is the reporter benjamin of ours group of benjamin why are people so dissatisfied how silly is run they are dissatisfied and this is a dissatisfaction that has been growing over the years it's not just with the current government because on one side you have to lay that has been praised internationally as a key leader off latin america when you look into development for example when you look at other indicators that's one side but the other side of the story is this increasing inequality when it comes to public health care system when it comes to education so those are a lot of problems that are currently in the chilean society and a lot of them are just fed up and we hav

so that is why they were voting not to have a new constitution.e roles of elites and politicians, let us quickly talk about president sebastian pinera, who was very much the object of anger during those protests last year and early this year. he stayed neutral on theissue this year. he stayed neutral on the issue of changing the referendum, what do you think its future is going to be in this process now? i think he wa nts to this process now? i think he wants to see it through. he's just made a televised speech to the whole of chile where he is saying that democracy has triumphed, that piece has triumphed, that piece has triumphed over violence, that people should be able to celebrate, but go home peacefully and not have the kind of violent protests we saw a week ago on the anniversary of the unrest. i think he wants to deliver this new constitution in a safe and non—violent way, and that he is hoping he will be able to do that and maybe restore some of his credibility, because there has been a lot of criticism towards him. jane chambers in santia

that's the pessimistic view but right now the prospect of drafting a new constitution with a popular input is seen as a major triumph by those who are hoping to set chile's democracy on a new more socially equal path. and as spring in a new c.n.n. has live for us from a polling station in santiago to see how this referendum of course was one of the main demands of protesters a year ago but it's also happening this fall today happening in the time of coronavirus tellus for the turnout been like. yes it certainly is well it's been a very very strong turnout indeed we are inside of of of a school where people are voting in an upper middle class neighborhood of santiago you don't see that many people behind me because people are kept outside they're only allowed to come in a few at a time they must come in with their own pencils glue in crenshaw's they have to use . hand sanitizers when they come in when they come out keep social distancing pretty much it's worked pretty well so far because this is a country that's had a huge outbreak of coronavirus so that's very much on people's minds

in the constitution, in the meaning of a term in the constitution, the constitution would be as long as the u.s. code. it just doesn't make sense. the real problem with the originalist theory -- this is judge barrett. and i know she's intelligent, capable, law professor, judge for only three years, by the way, but three years. the real problem is the originalist theory to which she subscribes, and she says she subscribes to it, allows no room for moral or ethical growth. everything is frozen in 1787 or 1868 if you're talking about the 14th amendment. jefferson got this. jefferson wasn't one of the framers. he was in tbrans at the time -- france at the time the constitution was written, but he's certainly one of the founders of the country, the declaration of independence, and a successful president. he wrote an interesting letter in 1816 on exactly this point. exactly this point. and here's what jefferson said. i'm certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. that's the way i feel. but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progre

i am jeffrey rosen, president and ceo of this wonderful constitution, the national constitution center. we recite our inspiring mission statement to prepare for the discussion ahead. national constitution center is the only institution in america chartered by congress to increase awareness and understanding of the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis. i want to share with you some upcoming programs. on october 12th, we have a discussion of the most contentious presidential elections in american history. particularly 1876 and on october 15th we will be joined by robert putnam who discusses his new book the upside, how america came together a century ago and how we can do it again. you can register for these programs or watch them live at constitution center.org. we will take questions throughout the program so please put them in the q and a box. i will ask them after we have a chance to chat for a bit. it is a great pleasure to introduce our panel in a mathematical order. adam cox is professor of law at nyu. before that he was a professor at the university of chicago law school, the

until now the constitution has divided us.y we must all work together so that the new constitution is the great framework of unity, stability and future. our latin america correspondent, katy watson, explains what happens next. there is a clear path forward but it will be a long drawn out process , but it will be a long drawn out process, so but it will be a long drawn out process, so by april there will be the body drawn up, to drive the they will be voting for that in april, and there will bea that in april, and there will be a referendum with the new d raft be a referendum with the new draft of the constitution in 2022, so we are talking a long process. in the meantime there will also be presidential elections and that is one of the criticisms of rewriting the constitution, those who do not wa nt to constitution, those who do not want to change were and said it would bring a lot of instability and uncertainty in a country that has actually flourished economically, the poverty gap has fallen, the poverty gap has fallen, the

to amend the articles of confederation the constitution that we live under today is really constitution $2.00 is the united states constitution $1.00 with the articles of confederation and it was an attempt at creating a country that essentially failed it was a massive failure because of the lack of centralized power and when they came together to try to result that and wound up drafting a constitution as i said earlier they disagreed over a number of things and one of the primary disagreements that they had was over slavery this is the state the southern states that were primarily involved with a system of humans left chattel slavery. we're very protective of that system and very reluctant to give it up and northern states that saw it as an important and immoral practice and who had other disagreements with it really wanted to get rid of it and essentially there was no way to resolve that the speech and it became pretty clear among these drafters and founders that the only way that they were going to be able to form a country was essentially to not address the issue of slavery which in