by, -- we are joined by jeffrey rosen, the president of the national constitution center. thank you for being back. guest: wonderful to be back. host: what was your take on the supreme court's decision? guest: it couldn't be more important. the majority said it is crafting a role for immunity for the ages that is necessary to protect future presidents against political prosecutions by their successors and the defense says this is an invented rule without basis in constitutional text, history or a structure that will imperil democracy in justice jackson's words is a five-alarm fire for the future of america. there are many historic supreme court decisions that it is striking that the majority and the dissent emphasized the historic stakes and have a completely antithetical view of what the constitution requires. host:host: explain presumptive immunity? guest: it means we presume the president has immunity but can be overcome by showing the act is not official in the majority opinion establishes three categories of immunity. one of absolute immunity for activities at the cor

we will hear from jeff rosen now. jeffreyi'm so glad you were inspired to learn more about holmes. did he come up with the result and reason backwards? i don't think that is quite fair to him. check it out, it is the lochner case. he is defending the court's decision to strike down maximum hour laws in new york. he says famously, the constitution does not enact is to herbert spencer's social status, by which he means this arresting citation to a social darwinisthinks that z-faire economics is correct, but holmes says the constitution is not meant to embody my idea of economics or any particular judge's, is made for people with fundamentally different points of view, and therefore i think his basic instinct was to defer as long as he thought a reasonable person could embrace the result. so in lochner, he says i may not agree with these maximum power laws, but because a reasonable legislator could believe that, then he would uphold it. in fact, holmes was not a jeffersonian majoritarian, in the sense that he didn't think the ma

joining me now is jeffrey rosen, ceo of national constitution center, author of many books, including the pursuit of happiness, how classical writers on virtually inspire the life of the founders and defined america. matthew sullivan also joins us, a fellow at the constitutional law center at stanford law school and co-author of the new book, quote, how to still a presidential election. good morning to both of you. jeff rosen, i want to address something at the heart of this issue, that is, there may be various and numerous calls for supreme court reform, but i am imagining none of them should or will involve anything that will affect the judiciary's independence. these are all procedural, or tactical ways that the court can be organized and carry out its work, not influence how they make their decisions. >> that is right, but the difficulty of distinguishing between goes back to the founding. really, we have got to mention here the 1804 impeachment effort of justice samuel chase, the only supreme court justice to have been impeached. he was absolutely a wild campaign for adams, thoma

host: jeffrey rosen we are joined by, -- we are joined by jeffrey rosen, the president of the national constitution center. thank you for being back. guest: wonderful to be back. host: what was your take on the supreme court's decision? guest: it couldn't be more important. the majority said it is crafting a role for immunity for the ages that is necessary to protect future presidents against political prosecutions by their successors and the defense says this is an invented rule without basis in constitutional text, history or a structure that will imperil democracy in justice jackson's words is a five-alarm fire for the future of america. there are many historic supreme court decisions that it is striking that the majority and the dissent emphasized the historic stakes and have a completely antithetical view of what the constitution requires. host:host: explain presumptive immunity? guest: it means we presume the president has immunity but can be overcome by showing the act is not official in the majority opinion establishes three categories of immunity. one of absolute immunity for

please welcome president and ceo of the national constitution center, jeffrey rosen, and editor in chief of the atlantic. jeffrey goldberg. hello, friends. what a thrill to welcome you. to the national constitution center. on presidents day. it has been a wonderful. presidents day. full students and learners, presidential impersonators. and that's all thanks to our friends at citizens, travelers who not only sponsored presidents but have a wonderful civics initiative, inspire their employees to learn about the constitution. and we're so grateful for their sponsorship sponsorship. friends, i also want acknowledge some very special guests in the front row. they're all sitting together. they are pamela, lauren, coyle, rosen and, judge michael luttig. and i must thank judge alluding for having had the vision to bring the first amendment tablet that is shimmery behind us from washington, d.c., to independence mall in philadelphia. it sanctifies this sacred space. and let's just all filled vibe of independence hall and the first amendment and how lucky we are to be here. and thank you, judge l

please welcome president and ceo of the national constitution center, jeffrey rosen, and editor in chief of the atlantic. jeffrey goldberg.

host: jeffrey rosen national constitution president and ceo in the offer of the book "the pursuit of happiness." thank you for coming in. happy fourth of july. guest: remember that the second was when it was votpowered by c. host: we are back talking about young voters and campaign 2024. joining us are david pakman, host of the david pakman show, and tony kinnett's host of the tony kinnett cast. to both of you. -- welcome to both of you. guest: good morning. host: i will ask each of you about your program. what is it about? >> my program started on low-power fm radio a very long time ago. longer than i would like to admit. over time it became a syndicated program. now we have moved completely to online platforms, sort of as a decision about where the audience is. youtube is a big platform. 2.2 million subscribers there and we have an audio podcast that is a progressive political commentary ship. host: tony, what about you? guest: the tony kinnett show started out with me guest hosting on a weekend situation and they did not hate me so they brought me on for a weeknight show. we put t

i want to bring in nbc's ken dilanian outside the supreme court, jeffrey rosen is president and ceo of the national constitution center and a law professor at george washington law school, tim miller host of the bulwark podcast and msnbc political analyst. with me onset, chuck rosen berpg and former senior adviser to attorney general merrick garland, anthony coley. thank you for being here on this very consequential day. high drama, unlike to what we're used to seeing inside the highest court in the land. give us your thoughts on what prompted such a high-octane dissent? rockefeller i could see chief justice roberts say those dissents struck a note of chilling doom and is holy disproportionate to what this decision actually musters forth. the devil is in the details. what you have a decision that grants absolute immunity to presidential acts. if you listen back, you can see the zone of agreement. lawyer for the special counsel acknowledged there were some official acts under the president under article 2 that are immune for prosecution. president trump's lawyer included acts in the jaj

by, -- we are joined by jeffrey rosen

president and his justice department, like the ones that trump had with acting attorney general, jeffrey rosen well, that counts as official quote, readily characterized in light of the nature of the president's official relationship to that office and even when those discussions concern a criminal conspiracy to undo the will of the voters now, roberts foresaw how this decision would land, especially on the other side of the political aisle, like an anchor the ocean floor so he cautioned against the dissents that quote, strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the court actually does today. doom pretty accurately describes the forecast from associate justice sonia sotomayor. she painted a picture of president's entirely unbridled by virtue of these liberties to free, free to essentially act like vladimir putin, hugo chavez, goons of yesteryear posing as leaders. she wrote orders, the navy seals team six to assassinate a political rival immune organizes a military coup to hold onto power. immune takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon immune, immune, immune, immune

and let's go, ladies, gentlemen, please welcome mary sarah michael klarman, jeffrey rosen and moderator doug bradburn. wonderful. thank you, jeff. democracy. well, good morning constitutional principles, ideas for 100. alex, what what is the constitution in mary building you start yeah i this is something i find i spend a lot of time with my talking about is the fact our constitution our notion of a constitution was kind of new genre right is a new idea that you could have a piece of paper and you could write down on that piece of paper. the frame of government and in the period that the framers were working with in 1787, that idea was in transition. so people had begun to write down on pieces of paper charters. they were in england, they were state constitutions what they wanted a frame of government be, what rights they wanted, but no one yet had really begun to think. that was the constitution and. so in this period we see people talking the instrument, the piece of paper and the constitution as the body of government and over time, particularly after ratification, after the new gove

those are among the things to do. >> if you've got a question for jeffrey rosen, the president and ceo of the national constitution center, you can give us a call. our lines are by party. democrats, republicans and independents. you can start calling in now. regarding the other cases against former president trump, including in georgia and the mar-a-lago case in florida, how does this affect those? >> in each of those cases, there will have to be a determination about whether or not the president was being charged on the basis of official acts or acts at the core of his power and he will move to have total immunity to have the charges removed accordingly and the judges in those cases will have to make a fat -- factual decision. >> as far as official, unofficial, is it always a court decides that? how is it decided? does everything get appealed? doesn't it seem like it is an opinion? >> absolutely. the dissent says this new test has one clear effect and that is to empower courts to diminish the power of congress to regulate the executive and to exalt the executive and the ability of cou

december of 2020, president trump in the late at night called in the deputy attorney general, jeffrey rosenr officials and pressured him to get on board with the trump campaign and challenge the results in pennsylvania, georgia and michigan. and rosen refused, and trump refused, threatened to fire him. the court says that is core constitutional, protected presidential activity, and it says what chief justice roberts says is that because as president, the donald trump can fire anybody he wants in the executive branch, that cannot be criminalized, even if it was done as the allegation is in the prosecution's case, to further a conspiracy to overthrow the results because it's firing an executive branch official or demanding action by an executive branch official, it cannot be criminalized. so he totally wins on that count. at the supreme court, and the lower court is going to have to deal with a very high bar that the court writes here, establishes here to prosecute a president. >> and terry, laying out some of those specific examples that will be key as we move ahead here. terry. thank you. i

jeffrey rosen talked about this week's supreme court ruling on former president trump's immunity claim and other key decisions on this recent term and progressive commentator david pacman and the conservative commentator will talk about social media in politics and young voters in campaign 2024. c-span's washington journal, join in the conversation live at 7:00 eastern tuesday morning on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. friday night, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of c-span's campaign coverage providing a one stop shop to discover what the candidates are saying to voters across the country. friday, we'll give you a sneak peek at the democratic convention in chicago and speak with d.n.c. executive alex hornbrook about the message and d.n.c. executive director christy george with a preview of the convention and the organization efforts to raise funding involving the community and eric kinkade of the convention and visitor's bureau in its efforts to connect local businesses to the convention and watch the campaign trail preview of the republican national c