because we know because we can read the federalist papers that hamilton was really the having a court, have something like the last word as to what the constitution means. and why? because he thought, i cannot really think of anyone else that can do it. if we give that kind of power to the president, he will become a tyrant. if we give the park -- power to congress -- well, wait a minute, they will have just passed the law and it would ot doing if it were not popular. and you expect elected politicians to say that the law they just passed was popular -- that was popular is unconstitutional? think again. they are not likely to say it very often. theret 3Ñ is only one place lefo go. that is this group of rather obscure, sort of bureaucratic type people called judges. few have heard of them. they do not have much power, not for the person or the sword. -- the purse or the sword. and they probably will not get carried away with this too often. and that is his argument. but what is interesting to me is no where, once you accept that, does hamilton address the obvious question. if these peo

alexander hamilton's numberr78+ for some collaboration.hamilton and several comments on the importance of mmrit in the selection process and the necessity of choosing a man who are best qualified for their respective offices. he was hardly more specific than the document he was expanding. integrity and the knowledge of the laws acquired through laborious study -- he of law school in mind -- were his only expressed elements of the general criterion of merit. when jennifer invited me to deliver this talk, the chief asked, how did you know you'd be giving this talk on appointment right when we were in the midst of considering them? i have to say it was purely arbitrary and maybe a tad capricious. i was elated to get the call. i had written and spoken on this topic for years, going back to my dissertation, which was 1/4 of a century ago. i have read volumes on the roles of the president and senate in court nominations. speaking for the supreme court historical society, at the supreme court, might require speaking about the court. so i inquired

in the federalist papers, obviously people like hamilton and madison and jay, they envisioned that this was part of their argument as to why the constitution should be adopted. madison said the powers delegated by this proposed constitution are few and defined. those which are to remain in the state government are numerous and indefinite. and why? because powers reserved to the states will extend to all the objects which concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people. in federalist 32, hamilton said the thing when he simply said that any attempt on the part of the national government to abridge any state power would be a violent assumption of power and wanted by any article or clause of the constitution. indeed, when hamilton was arguing on whether to add a bill of rights to the constitution itself, he asked the question, why should we prohibit that which cannot be done? the assumption was there would be limitations on what the federal government can do, not so on the states. now the final one from federalist 51 by madison said that the dependence on the people is, no doubt,

because we know because we can read the federalist papers that hamilton was really the having a court, have something like the last word as to what the constitution means. and why? because he thought, i cannot really think of anyone else that can do it. if we give that kind of power to the president, he will become a tyrant. if we give the park -- power to congress -- well, wait a minute, they will have just passed the law and it would ot doing if it were not popular. and you expect elected politicians to say that the law they just passed was popular -- that was popular is unconstitutional? think again. they are not likely to say it very often. theret 3Ñ is only one place lefo go. that is this group of rather obscure, sort of bureaucratic type people called judges. few have heard of them. they do not have much power, not for the person or the sword. -- the purse or the sword. and they probably will not get carried away with this too often. and that is his argument. but what is interesting to me is no where, once you accept that, does hamilton address the obvious question. if these peo

i think that was hamiltons objection to the bill of rights, that if you delineate certain rights and you do not name one, someone will come along and say, we do not have that right because you did not name it. luckily, the framers came along and did not agree with that position. it is easy to disagree with basic positions. they have adhered to other established -- they have stopped adhering to established standards. >> a bunch of them are refusing to look at legislative history at all. >> justice scalia has done that. in the voting rights act case, in some of these cases, going back to the religious freedom restoration act -- the court has said this, and i think it is improper, congress did not establish a sufficient record. if congress decides that we want to do a or b, it should not be up to the court to decide that we did not have a good enough record. we may be right or wrong. it could be an intelligent or an intelligent decision, but that is for the voters to decide. -- or unintelligent decision, but that is for the voters to decide. the court says, you did not establish enough

where she would become later dean in charles hamilton houston professor of law. while at harvard, her article "presidential administration" was named the year's top scholar little article by the american bar association section on administrate i be law ann regulatory practice. she was nominatenated on 2009 to be solicitor general. i'm proud our nation's woman deep solicitor general has such deep roots in massachusetts. if confirmed, she would be the first in the history of our court. as solicitor general, she frequently represents the united states before the supreme court and she's argued several high profile cases before the court and was recently victoriorious in the holder versus humanitarian law project case which held that congress's prohibition of material support and resources to foreign terrorist organizations is constitutional. she's undown thely a brilliant woman whom has served her country in a variety of capacities and has made significant contributions to massachusetts and i certainly thank her for that. and this committee, as you know, mr. chairman

among his other accomplishments, hamilton wrote the first of the 85 federalist papers. in the first line of that document, he laid out why the united states needed a new form of government. it was not because the founders had any doubts about the basic idea of democracy. instead it was, as he put it, because of the "unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government." there it is in the very first line of our founding narrative, a practical concern about the inefficiency of the federal government. it is that enduring struggle to create a federal government that is of, by, and for the people, and that accomplishes its gold -- its goals in a cost- efficient, effective manner, that i want to talk about today. we spend too -- too often in washington, we spend time debating a policy without thinking about how to implement it. but execution matters a lot. let's take the recovery act. this is one of the largest pieces of domestic legislation in recent memory. it was designed to jump-start economic activity and prevent another great depression -- gr

host: in "in the atlantic" lee hamilton said that intelligence was not feasible based on the president's leadership. he writes -- guest: i think what they are referring to is the unfortunate public discussion then got into concerning who would appoint filed chiefs. if possible, i would like to avoid those types of public spats. issue, when it occurred, it was+ taken to the white house, and they decided in favor of the cia. that was a bad on come for an agency to be overruled by a so- called subordinate agency. host: and on an issue that was not so mucc -- guest: i decided to make it an issue. i decided cia chiefs would be by representatives. caller: i wanted to make a comment on what you said about israel. i just wanted to say, your comment is bias against israel. israel can invade countries and the u.s. just turn their head the other way. guest: when i was mbassador of the united nations, if you look at the record of the general assembly, sometimee there were 40, 50 resolution and waiting to condemn israel for one thing or another. we were trying to introduce some balance into those thi

mike connors, booz allen hamilton. in the next 24 months given your priorities and the fact that you've alluded to the dynamic nature of border security, do we have the proper mix of people processing technology now with the changing nature of sbi net and other programs? where do we want to be in 24 months in terms of border patrol personnel, mobile radars, the whole system of border security, especially as threat compression occurs and you close off certain routes, and then the narcotics traffickers come up with semi-submersibles, small airplanes, and other types of means to circumvent our systems? thank you. >> i think that is actually a pretty good question for all of us given all of our relevant3 and look, border security requires manpower. it requires technology. it requires infrastructure. it requires properly trained law enforcement at all levels who are working together. it requires prioritization because we really want to focus on, as john morton said, for example, removal of criminal aliens who pose a danger

luckily the framers did agree with hamilton. it is difficult to address this basic principle such as construing legislation broadly, adhering to well established statutory language, and avoiding broad constitutional rules when it not necessary. >> a bunch of them refused to let that legislative history at all. -- refused to look at legislative history at all. >> in the voting rights, some cases going back to the religious restoration act, i think ittis improper for the court to say this, but congress did not establish a sufficient record. if congress decides and we want to do this or that, it should not be a to the court to decide we did not have a good enough record. we might be right or wrong, but that is what for the vote is to check. it is our prerogative to say sell and the voters do not like it, they can say next election. they say we did not establish a definite precedent. we battled over 10,000 or 50,000 pages of hearing records. i cochaired hearing after hearing after hearing to establish a broad record for renewing sec

the hamilton county senator is dusty rhodes. i am a very independent and i look at their character. did not care what the race or religion or sex. when i see as sleazy campaign like a gubernatorial campaign with their present governor strickland attacking cases, i'd vote against that. >> thank you. brian sandoval getting 56% over given to is mired in his own personal scandal. c-span is the only place where you concede the speeches in their entirety. we are awaiting word from other candidates declaring victory. more of your phone calls and reaction to these primaries. 12 states holding elections. calling from california, could morning. -- good evening. >> i think jerry brown sounds like it better candidate. and i did not like her speech today. i thought it was really fake. i thought -- i trust democrats more than republicans in general. i think the speech seemed very fate in the way she talked. >> all of these speeches are available on our website at c- span.org. >> i want to start off the call by saying thank you for c-span and god bless america, humanity, and our world. i would lik

i think that was hamiltons objection to the bill of rights, that if you delineate certain rights and you do not name one, someone will come along and say, we do not have that right becae you did not name it. luckily, the framers came along and did not agree with that position. it is easy to disagree with basic positions. they have adhered to other established -- they have stopped adhering to established standards. >> a bunch of them are refusing to look at legislative history at all. >> justice scalia has done that. in the voting rights act case, in some of these cases, going back to the religious freedom restoration act -- the court has said this, and i think it is improper, congress did not establish a sufficient record. if congress decides that we want to do a or b, it should not be up to the court to decide that we did not have a good enough record. we may be right or wrong. it could be an intelligent or an intelligent decision, but that is for the voters to decide. -- o unintelligent decision, but that is for the voters to decide. the court says, you did not establish enough of

in hamilton county we have a wonderful county hospital, but what really surprised me was the number of people of all races and colors desperately needing medical help. i think what president obama is asking is quite reasonable from what i have seen and what i just left yesterday. there are certain things in society we cannot cut off, that are not subject to the deficit knife. no matter how hawkish one might want to be. one more thing about the moratorium -- when i heard that the gas pipe had exploded a day or two ago in proximity to the rig, frrnkly, in my working life i would have done anything needed to take care of myself and my family also, but i would also have expected my employer -- horizon or whoever they were, i would expect them to provide a place safe for me to work. i think the president and i agree 100% to least find out what is going on with these companies. why these things are happening? if this one gas pipe blew, what is to say that others will not do the same thing? host: yesterday, to congressional leaders asking congress to move ahead on an additional $50 billion th

host: carmine is an independent in hamilton, montana. please go ahead. caller: the guy that just called probably believe that the north koreans bombed it, too. we found out yesterday that money is much more important than the lives of the people, for the people who run the show down there. i worked on eggs out -- exxon valdez for two years in san diego. our sister ship company was using 11 supertankers for exxon. and we were using 11. of those 22, only one of them hit the ground and that was the exxon valdez. and that was the only one that ever, ever was led off the waves with a double bottom. that was the only ship that went aground. and we never got to put the double bottom in. and i remembered therefore those who did not want to touch -- are remember there were those who did not want to touch the story. host: carmine, wrap up your comments. caller: we are having a mass extinction right now and this is just going to speed it up. host: you're watching live video from the bp website of the deep water a rise in spill. -- verizon spill. -- deep water horiz

host: next up is hamilton, ohio. ronald, democrats line. you are on. are you there? caller: about the oil spill, i heard every -- people say they should get every ship out there in the whole world. do you realize how hard it is to turn and maneuver a ship and you have all of them in that one area? you will have more accidents. you really have to consider how the coast guard is trying to coordinate all of this. as this bill gets bigger, they bring in more ships. that is the only way they can do it. host: next up, now pleasant, iowa. anthony, republican line. caller: i think the firing of general mcchrystal was unnecessary. but he also made comments that were unnecessary. but i would like to get general -- i think he would make a good addition to it and the republican ticket in 2012. military man, nobody else in the republican bill has more foreign policy experience as general mcchrystal. he would add eight -- to the ticket to mitt romney or pawlenty, who already have a good grasp of the economy. host: anthony collings from the caucus state of iowa. south bend, indiana

this time, alexander hamilton and several comments on the importance of merit in the selection process and the necessity "choosing men who are best qualified for their respective offices. he was more specific than the document he was expanding. integrity and the knowledge of lost acquire through long and laborious steady were his only expressed elements of the general criteria of merit. when jennifer lowe invited me to deliver this talk on supreme court appointments, she asked how i would know that i would be piven this talk when we were -pconsidering a new justice. i said it was arbitrary. i was elated to get the call. i have written and spoken on this topic four years going back century ago.tation a quarter-%- i have read volumes on the role of the president and the senate in nominations. it occurred to me that speaking for the supreme court historical society at the supreme court might require speaking about the court. i inquired of jennifer, is there a particular approach would like -pme to take? she responded rather regal the, what role has the court played in appointments? has it

host: about budget activity, one wrote lee hamilton had been critical about more intelligence reform. he testified that another round of intelligence reform was not politically or practically feasible for the dni's ability to run. i took that to be a comment aimed at the white house. when the dni decide something about policy, the white house should back them up. they have instead played a mediator between the cia and the odni. did you see any of this? guest: they are referring to the unfortunate public discussion about who would appoint station chiefs in the field. i would have personally of -- preferred to avoid that kind of a public spat the possible. the commentator is right.3 between the cia and the odni occurred, it was taken to the white house. the national security adviser decided in the favor of the cia. that was the worst outcome for an agency that is a cabinet level organization, the d and nine -- the dni to be overruled. you like to try to avoid that i chose not to make an issue of that when i was a director of national intelligence. i simply in decided that theme -pcia st

to the political rights and the constitution because in hamilton's memorable words, the judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or the wealth of the society and can take no active resolution whatever. it may truly be said to have neither force nor will but merly judgment. unfortunately, some members of the supreme court today seem to embrace the activist role. we saw it just last month in the case of graham versus florida, a 5-4 decision overturning the judgment of the florida legislature at allowed the possibility of a life sentence for robberies. three justices, justices stevens, ginsburg and sotomayor, explained that their interpretation of the constitution could change year to year and wi "will never stop" changing. sometimes, judicial activist create new rights and sometime these actively undermine the constitution in the process. for example, we can see the different approaches to constitutional interpretation just today in the court's decision in mcdonald versus city of chicago. the five justices who voted to apply the

the first secretary of the treasury and one of our founding fathers, alexander hamilton, was born in the caribbean. former general and secretary of state colln powell, and sidney poitier, and harry belafonte. there re many similarities in the history of the united states and the countries of the caribbean. united states and the countries of the caribbean both have endured the trials of slavery, colonialism, and struggle for independence. the separate countries of the caribbean share a diverse racial ethnic, cultural, and religious background that is comparable to our multicultural naaion. these similarities are but a few ties that bind our countries together. the countries of the c%ribbean are also important economic partners of the united states and importantly represent the united states third border. these common goals make our countries both strategicically and culturally long-time allies. i ask all my fellow members to join me in celebrating national% caribbean heritage month and recognize the contributions caribbean americans have made to the history of the united states. thank