constitution no longer is.ere can be a degree, though i realize none quite far enough, in which reverence can inhibit nothing very creative change. >> thank you for that. dorothea i think we'll mc the questions. >> i well, but i first want to thank both of you for the conversation. it was really wonderful to listen in on. i'm glad, also, that miami you've got linda to talk a little bit about the craft. it is such an absorbing book because of this marriage between place and people and the ideas. it is all quite wonderful. there are a few questions here in the queue. i will start to pull from them, beginning with one who have been patiently sitting here from before the beginning -- >> i noticed, i am impressed! >> this comes from john nash, asking in ways do you believe a written constitution has advantages over an unwritten constitution, as we have here in the uk welcome john thumb all the way from. britain >> well, i have to say the divergence between a written constitution and an unwritten constitution is ofte

in what ways do you believe the written constitution has advantages over unwritten constitutions?>> the difference is often more rhetorical and many politicians [inaudible] conversely of course in the uk but there are lots of important [inaudible] they are available to tell interested citizens [inaudible] [inaudible] with the most. >> yes. picking up on these words they advocate modernity or is there any access itself or if it is more useful rather than ask those categories. thank you for this wonderful talk. >> that again is a huge theoretical strategy. i use the modern word and realize it is almost a clichÉ because there are many using references for the most [inaudible] to be identified and i credit saying it is now clear no state can be modern and suspect full without a written constitution. that isn't necessarily true. that said, to define what the state is and again it ultimately failed but one of the things is the aspect of their own indigenous culture to have their cities and also saying we have a constitution. you can see they don't realize it in the way that it is now th

it's not of the constitution. it's not required by the constitution. under the court's decision, it's very difficult, questions of when to regulate abortion. host: thank you bot ♪ >> washington journal. every day we are taking your calls, live, on the air. speaking about what impacts you. the recent supreme court epa ruling, and the impact on other federal agencies. and then from universities's center of politics, talks about election 2022. live, wednesday morning on c-span. and c-span now. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. ♪ >> c-span now is your free mobile app keeping you up with what's happening in washington, live and on-demand. white house event, the courts, campaigns, and more all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span networks and tons of podcasts. c-span is available at the apple store and google play. your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of

so far they, it, the constitution. the traditions were so proud of that they created after the after the arab spring. it's given several free and fair elections to new series delivered those, but it's not delivered as we just touched on before, the sort of jobs and the dignity and the food that unit is looking that unit in the looking for. is there any hope this new version giving more power to the present will make things on life any better for transients? little mean the constitution doesn't say anything about those issues. i mean at a very, very basic level. if you look at the, the 2014 constitution and that's not a false tuition and ms. new proposed constitution, they all provide for associate economic rights of the all ready people wide for the free health care and quality education and other. so speaking of rights, but none of those rights are directly enforceable in the courts or 3 and the other mechanisms into which is we've been the tradition here. i'm going to court will never receive a dispute relation to th

constitution. 14 is yeah, it will further expand the president's power as what reducing parliament. but what it and the political deadlock, and why do somebody, there's use constitutions to strengthen their powers. this is inside story. ah, hello, welcome to the program. i am hashim, i had butler says he has president ice i yet has released a new draft constitution that will give him what critic score royal powers it will be voted on in a referendum on july the 25th. if past the president will be given ultimate authority over the government and judiciary and parliament's powers will be significantly weakened, president sayed would be able to present draft laws and has so responsibility for treaties, budgets, and appointing and sacking. ministers and judges. and the government will have to answer to him. the president was served 2 terms of 5 years each, but those terms could be extended if there's an immediate danger to the state. from tennis alicia walkman has more on the most controversial parts o

constitution. because for centuries human beings had lived with theocracy and holy crusades and inquisitions and witchcraft trials and all that. it was the virginians who insisted that everybody be allowed to worship exactly as he or she pleased. the question of faith was upbeat -- between the person and god. the question of faith was between a person and god. it has to do with reason and facts and data and not superstition and conspiracy so anyway we owe a debt of gratitude to the virginians. the course, the history of your state is important to the fate of our republic. i hope you guys will continually -- continue in that way. i wanted to start is by telling a little story what is. the story he was a famously absent-minded guy and he got on the train at union station up in d.c. headed north and he couldn't find his ticket. he was looking all over the place for it and the conductor came down the aisle getting everybody's ticket and he was very upset. he was looking at the seat and the seat pocket

it would be ridiculous to appeal to the authority of the constitution to overthrow the constitution. as pointed out in the great book a necessary evil, abraham lincoln teased out the distinction between the natural right of revolution which exists outside of the government, and the claim that there is a constitutional right of insurrection. lincoln said, in his first inaugural address, whenever people grow weary of existing government, they can exercise the right of amending it, or the new revolutionary right to -- their natural revolutionary right to overthrow it. but the revolutionary right cannot be a constitutional right. as lincoln put it, it is safe to assert that no proper ever had a provision to destroy itself, except by some action not provided in the instrument itself. that should be obvious to everyone. there's not even a constitutional right to nonviolent civil disobedience. when dr. king and my former colleague john lewis, a late beloved colleague, when they went to protest, manifestly unjust unequal arrangements deemed unconstitutional, they still submitted to arrest, n

constitution. and even if they consider it a coo, i support it. important thing is that there is an honest person, i support this constitution where the crew, as they call it, i'll participate in the referendum and i agree with k said we are with him in his victory over the islamists and the new assembly in hughes island in it, it is not possible to talk about the application of democracy when people are hungry. poverty is increasing and crime is high him. it is also not possible to talk about rural democracy before achieving food and public security. achieving self sufficiency and food and good education. then it's possible to talk about it many justified democracy without even understanding what it means. when is let's bring in our guests from june as a means sanusi as a political analyst and journalist from syracuse, new york is mohammed dia hm. army, a political scientist and researcher at syracuse as universities, maxwell school, and also from tunis zayed. our alley is a constitutional law spe

how do you identify a constitutional right that is not spelled out in the constitution. what is the role of the administrative state, when congress creates an agency. how much authority as a giving that agency, and how can you measure that? those are big issues. i reject the idea that this court is somehow animated by a partisan spirit that they are trying to achieve partisan ends. i could tell you that in the 15 years that i was on the circuit, i never once saw any of my colleagues make a decision influenced by their prior partisan allegiances. did we disagree? yes, vigorously. but they are legal issues. they have consequences. but the decisions are not driven by the partisan agenda to advance the republican party over the democratic party. i did not see anything like that on the circuit, and i don't believe that explains the debates that are going on at the supreme court. justices spoke to this issue and they had very good advice. they said and our opinions. -- read our opinions. when you do, you will see people trying to write clearly for us to understand, grappling w

take us up to the federal constitution. which you discuss the debates over national power and slavery in among the many fresh and arresting learnings from your chapters about the constitution you reject on the part of the framers. perhaps that really it was a fear of democracy, in particular a fear of paper money in massachusetts and shays rebellion led to the calling of the convention and your superb catalog. you say it all goes back to rhode island and rhode island is a quickening or example of this race for paper money represented the future that they were trying to fight against. tell us as much of that story as you can taking us up to the federal convention >> in the revolution of 15 independent states you start on with that in the articles of confederation is a treaty among the states . it's likethe eu today . virginia, to jefferson is my country so if you take it in can e terms you understand the articles of confederation. it's a treaty just like the treaty of lisbon which isthe basis for the eu . something had happe

united states constitution. and i've written, indeed the center piece of that, the independent legislature theory. and so, from the outset of the execution of the plan, which began months and months before the election of 2020, the former president and his supporters and allies and in particular, his legal advisors, they were pursuing the independent state legislature theory through the federal court and eventually through the supreme court of the united states. so in short, as i have conceived the plan, and others can conceive it differently, but that at least up until december of 2020, when the supreme court, it did not decide the independent state legislature doctrine, but it declined to decide the independent state legislature theory. up until that point, at least arguably, the plan as conceived and executed to that point was lawful. but in my conception, once the supreme court -- and it was a divided supreme court and much of the declination of the case played out in public opinion where at least three just

i'm sure what i think about both appointments is actually the legal constitution.nd what about it if it should look like this? well, you have already said and given quotes, actually, when is the reason for the appointment? the fact that this is someone's friend, and not the professional skills and characteristics of a person, this says a lot. thank god, of course, we have departed from the practice of the previous government . of political power when we had a person without a legal education as a general prosecutor, now we have a general prosecutor with a person without a specialized education, that is, he is a lawyer , but he is not a specialist, at least as far as i know, in criminal law, not, uh, the prosecutor general. do you understand that this is a procedural figure and is he makes procedural decisions and here it is important to be well, to have appropriate experience. to be honest, i do not know how long mr. kostin will cope with this, but the question is not even about the fact that the commission for positions has recognized him as unsuitable for the pos

our alley is a constitutional law specialist and a founder of the arab association of constitutional law. a warm welcome to all zaid . i'll begin with you. how does this new constitution differ from the one of 2014? well as if there is a large number of respects. so 1st of all, it differs in the way in which was written. the 2014 constitution was written in a process that was far more inclusive than this current text. this current text was written theoretically, pursuant to a consultation and the work of the commission. but that. busy ultimately, what happened is, up on the problem received. the commission's work. a different version was published, so we don't actually know who drafted the final version. it might have been the present himself, american, someone else from a small group of people. but in any event, the consultation and the work of the commission has to do with the federal texts that was ultimately circulated or the 2014 cars. she was job to pursue into a fairly long. busy negotiated process, i don't want to describe it to lot to returns with a strong how to turn proble

how do you identify a constitutional right that is not spelled out in the constitution.hat is the role of the administrative state, when congress creates an agency. how much authority as a giving that agency, and how can you rush that it those are political consequences. i reject the idea that this court is somehow animated by a partisan spirit that they are trying to achieve partisan ends. i could tell you that in the 15 years that i was on the circuit, i never once saw any of my pollick takes -- colleagues make a decision influenced by their prior partisan allegiances. did we disagree? yes. vigorously. how we read the statue, and what is the relationship between an agency and one that is crated by congress. these are issues, but they are legal issues. they have consequences. but the decisions are not driven by the partisan agenda to advance the republican party over the democratic party. i did not see anything like that on the circuit, and i don't leave that explains the debates that are going on at the supreme court. justices spoke to this issue and they had very good

in fact, 1820 the constitutional convention in new york they revived in the constitution. mark vanburen who becomes the first american politician as the president, he did nothing he never had any great speech, he never negotiated a great treaty he was simply the most stupid politician that america had ever seen he organize a new york party that brought him into prominence. in that convention he said washington and jefferson he says forget about them their aristocrats, they have nothing to do with democrats. that was one of the great arguments of the antifederalists. the whole system is aristocratic it's creating a government which will benefit at the expense of the many. mark vanburen almost single-handedly is lincoln who makes the founders that we talk about, he is the one who says the man that created the declaration of independence, the document that makes the blood of blood in the flesh of the flesh of all of these immigrants that are coming for america with the founders, the flesh of the flesh of the people who drop the document and the other documents by implication

the threat of a deep constitutional crisis and an illegal anti-constitutional coup dressed in a pseudo-legal i must say that it was this amendment that valentina tereshkova made . when did they find out? increased as a percentage the number of people ready to vote for amendments to the constitution by 22%. forward. think who signed this song. maybe you think that this is a team of many thousands of the likhachev plant or kamaz workers, or maybe a huge team of builders and the crimean bridge or personnel of cruisers to moscow, or maybe these are nuclear scientists or these are those scientists who invent hypersonic missiles, or maybe they are workers villages or doctors, teachers, miners, right? no. they didn't sign this song, i'll be back prilepin prilepin i continue to write a list of lawyers and those who joined , i list only those whom azar himself knows ilya aizenberg mikhail amnuel grigory akhedzhakova leah albats evgenia arkhangelsky alexander arkhangelsky andrey bakhnov whether they are safe andrey bykov dmitry vitukhnovskaya alina vishnevskaya marina gelman alexander genis, alexander

the original constitution of the united states of america. provides for a government with three main branches each with special functions uncle jim says, this is how they work. the constitution provides that the law shall be made by the legislative branch. carried out by the executive branch and interpreted by a third branch of the government the judicial branch to make certain no law violates the constitution. legislative executive judicial these are the three main branches of our federal government now bill. let's go take a look at one of them. well, we went on to take a look at each of the three branches to see how it works. our first stop was the capital building. that's where the legislative branch or congress meets uncle. jim was anxious to tell me first-hand. just what congress does after all he's a congressman. he explained it to me this way. the capital is that heart of our system of representative government bill the members of congress who meet there make our laws that they can act only according to powers granted them by the const

kansas has a constitution saying that the constitution does not have anything on abortion. the proper place for that to happen is with the people of the state themselves to change their constitution. it should not be the courts that are changing the constitution and the state but the people of the state. different states have different processes for that but they have to follow those processes and have justices read their own political views into the state constitution itself to address some of these major issues. host: this is why nita from north carolina. good morning. juanita are you with us? caller: thank you for taking my call. yes, i am here. host: go ahead with your comment or question, we are listening. caller: thank you. thank you for taking my call. how do you feel about this large miscarriage of justice and often repeated that the lower level, a very innocent, naive girl worked at a 7-eleven. she came to work on a very busy saturday night and was told that she had to train a new employee. the policy was that if there was a missing lottery ticket they were to repo

that is not the world the constitution promises. the constitution places its trust in the people. abortion is a heart issue --: the constitution provides certain aspects of autonomy but in luxembourg going from general concepts of autonomy to her right is not how this court traditionally does due process analysis. the right to abortion is not granted in the text. it is grounded on abstract context this court has rejected. >> you say this is the only constitutional right that involves the taking of a life. what does -- what difference does that make in your analysis? >> a number of differences. one is it marks out the profound ramifications of this area which in many other areas, assisted suicide, it marks it out as a unique area where the court has taken the issue to the people and it implicates life and marks off how much of a break the jurisprudence is. a clarified version of the undue burden standard. no standard other than the rational basis of view. i would say if the court were not inclined to overrule casey, it would be undue burden untethered by any viability rule. >> i as

not in the constitution. is anyone in america comfortable with giving giving the government whether it's state local or federal the power to make that decision for us? i don't think anyone is that's what's at stake with roe versus wade. church and state prior to 50 years ago on roe versus wade it was against the law. for a woman to have an abortion well with roe versus wade it became legal or allowable. let's say well, even before row it depend. ed on state even before row it depend a state what roe versus wade is about is constraining the power of states to make that decision for a pregnant woman right that it's a hard decision, but it's not a decision. for government off to make it's a personal decision. that's really what it's about. it's about confining the power of government. it's more about that than it is about. what should the individual woman do about her personal circumstances and it's been framed improperly in my view. i think, you know the debate has been too much around the woman versus the fetu

who know the constitution anticipates their art the bill of rights and the full host of constitutional rights so it's a real tough issue and the contentious issue. how do you figure out was not specifically mentioned in there constitution is in that debate we have had for many years and thely dobbs decision illustrates how vaccine of initiatives and how difficult the issue is. quand what the consequences are for when the court renders a decision and obviously this case the court said it's not a constitutional right and needs to be debated in legislatures and in congress. i think we are seeing those two issues play out. very significant moral and political issues intersecting with the very difficult question of how do you identify rights that are protected by the constitution that aren't spelled out. >> how do you identify that judge? is that constitution a living document? >> pate with having since at least the last 60 years or so. we have a court right now that makes it clear the supreme justices of the court are not comfortable with the idea of the open-ended clauses of the constitut

only one institution, the constitutional court, can give an opinion. to the constitution and the lawccordingly, you give such reasons to the president himself, and here you can argue for a very long time, but he did it reasonably, he did it irrationally, but in principle, in principle, the president who leads the country which, in particular, is fighting to prove that democracy is an effective state system fighting against a totalitarian country should, ideally, in principle, not depart from the constitution, but let's go back to the past and remember how the verkhovna rada was dissolved, for example, previously, or how it was dissolved the central election commission or how many problems are there actually due to the breaking of the judicial system? we got that here, well, if we were to answer your question together, can the current government say so, seeing certain inconsistencies with the constitution, take such a step? does not agree with the constitution at all, is it possible to talk about a violation of the law now? no are there certain things that do not correspond to the con

sheila has awoken yes to the new constitution approval. i approve when i look like that if they got the law. so seattle in one of the characteristics of chillers society is that it occupies public spaces political bureau. one of these neurons are fans of media communication in themselves. and from them we feel the palace fighting with what's happening or what we handle. what's happening is that on september the 4th, chileans will go to the polls to decide whether or not to ratify a new constitution who started in 2019, when of the use the simmering and over glowing social inequality. a simple hike in the cost of metro fairs lit the few millions of trillions took to the streets, demanding an end to the free market system that had made commodities other things like health care education, pensions at their expense to lead the charge. they voted in to the 1st session as president in 50 years. gabrielle body on the promise of change change premised on one narrative thread. one unifying story targeting the current constitution which enshrined ne

in their own state constitution. now the litigation in florida avows what happens there when a republican-controlled legislature tries to take away a right that a more liberal judiciary deemed protected by the florida constitution explicit right to privacy. tom: darrell, do you want to raise this issue of states protection? darrell: this says nothing about the problems about the protection not being nationwide and what the legislative fix is. the parent in me says that what we might see is a whole new round of abortion rights politics playing out in state judicial races. that's because state judicial races in most states are statewide races. so you cannot gerrymander an outcome with respect to the elected judiciary and some of the states and await the state legislature might be one thing that seems apparent to me is that what we might see is a abortion restricting legislation as we have seen already. i'm kind of wondering what you think the future is when we talk about state constitution rights to abortion. as people

their beef is with the constitution. the court was clear the constitution means what it says. this will allow the taking of an unborn child's life right up until and they are so pro- abortion that they are willing to engage in all kinds of efforts to intimidate the highest court in the land. it started a while back and said this. on the steps of the united states supreme court. and i want to tell you gorsuch and kavanaugh you released a whirlwind and will pay the price. you don't know what will happen if you go forward on these decisions. intimidation continued when the chair man of this committee 15 months ago introduced legislation to not one, two, three, but for associate justices to the united states supreme court. the intimidation continued when this committee in the left in the concerted effort targeted justice thomas and his wife when they went after them repeatedly. we had a hearing on it here in this committee. and then of course the intimidation reached something we've never seen. something that's never happened before. the leaking of a draft opinion by the court. ne

so i think that's an example of how you get a major change in constitutional law or statement about constitutional principle because you have doubts and you're not certain about what the answer should be and i think he carried that through in in other aspects of his judicial career, you know one thing when he would hold jury trials or write opinions. especially as a circuit judge he would often say yeah. i'm not sure if i'm right. i've done the best i can. this is the conclusion i've come to but maybe i'm wrong. you know and and you don't really hear any people saying that nowadays, i mean really anywhere in the judiciary. i think it's kind of a refreshing thing and and reflects kind of well on his sort of sensibility as a judge that he probably, you know carried over perhaps you carried it over from wilson. i can't say completely fascinating what a wonderful discovery of bush road, washington and changing his mind and you really have emphasized the importance of core field and coriell. so i'm going to read the central paragraph that was quoted so often during the debates over the 14th amendment a

even water is to be nationalized under a constitutional rule change. i'll be glad to quit the chileans know the story. and michel do, has been at the center of the country, the political life since the 1800s. during the 19 seventy's, it was paid by the c i to funded propaganda campaign to bring down the socialist government of president survival in the when he was a, the throne in the $973.00 military coup led by general b. no chit, the paper notoriously covered up the brutality of the dictates ship that followed. mass torture disappearances death. when she finally managed to push through the cone version to the constitution in 1980 and miss cordial childed its implementation. with the law change. after the eighty's, the media did start opening up and there were oppositional papers. but how did the system work on the media depended on government advertising, survive, and the state obviously privileged coolio and cetera. and this is carried on into the democratic period because the government know these outlets have a big influence on public opinion. an

bootstrapping them onto the constitution even though the constitution says nothing about them roe versus wade perfect example of this constitution says nothing. about abortion it's not just that it doesn't contain the word, but it contains no language referring to the concept of abortion. and what that means is that it's it's up to the people's elected lawmakers and typically that's going to mean at the state and local level to decide these things. but in 1973 seven of nine lawyers wearing black robes occupying that building just a few hundred yards from here decided that they could make it part of the constitution even though it's not in there. and so they did. so what we're seeing now is the predictable foreseeable result of that 49 years later. we've realized that this is not a traditionally manageable standard. we've realized that it finds no foothold in hundreds of years of anglo-american precedent leading up to the constitution is nothing in the constitution about it. it's and and it's subject to these multifarious inconsistent applications. so none of these things suggest that thi

we're unified by one constitution and one rule of law, and then the values under our constitution. an aspiration. it's a challenge to us. the constitution shouldn't be some kind of fetish document. it should be the living commitment that we all have to make democracy work in service of the common good. that is the constitution that comes out of the civil war and reconstruction. that is the constitution that we've been fighting for since then. and we've got to keep fighting for it. crowd: trump! trump! trump! trump! trump! trump! trump! trump! trump! trump! (crowd applauding) chief justice roberts: please raise your right hand and repeat after me, i, donald john trump, do solemnly swear. president trump: i, donald john trump, do solemnly swear. man: who is free? crowd: no one is free. man: who is free? crowd: no one is free. president trump: to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. so help me, god. chief justice roberts: congratulations, mr. president. man: yeah! ♪ (protesters chattering) ♪ (bomb exploding) (bomb exploding) man: fuck you, man. woman: wh