one the first great social scientists, and as such, one the key interests that comes through his jurisprudence which is absolutely wonderful stuff, richly textured, a tough read, but a terrific one, is how do societies reproduce themselves? the only sis is designed to show at every point how in fact a regime perpetuates itself, its rule, and all the rest of it. now, the point is there's a paradox built into this sort of realism if you like to think of it like that, but the more effective any period of rule is, whether it's the tartars or the futile regime or what have you, the better able it is to main tape the rules of justice and to secure regularity in the rules of justice. the more that in in fact people sense what is just and have a sense of what is fair will move round, and any government which then wishes to preserve itself is actually on the long term going to have to respond to that shift in the sensibility, the sensibility of fairness, justice, the sensibility of what it is the government can provide, and if it doesn't, it's going to be in trouble, and i think it may be that there is

jurisprudence,s that is how the case would be viewed. that is not how it was viewed at the time. >> how do we know that? >> the language from the sentence that you read discussing whether the presence or absence of the state objection mattered, the court said there was no objection from the state. if this was not so, the appellant has no standing to raise any objection under the amendment. >> let's assume in this hypothetical that the federal government sets the price. someone is accused of violating the price. in that defendant come in and say it is unconstitutional because prices have to be set by the state? can the defendant say that in the commandeering claim? >> that is the kind of claim today we would concelebrate -- conceptualize as an enumerated powers claim. >> give me a hypothetical of a defendant where it would be a pure anti-commandeering claim that you say they have a standing for. >> imagine back to justice kennedy's question. i wanted to answer the part that i thought distinguished a commandeering case from what justice ke

govr innocence or these folk that is have islam through their veins and want an islamic system of jurisprudence? >> this is a unique revolution, you have both, those that want democracy, they launched it on facebook, they want a more democratic one. at the same time, you have those who are taking advantage of it the muslim brotherhood who are competing, they can speed up the process, hold the elections earlier and form a government. >> do you get as sense, that christians are a tiny minority in all of these middle east countries in north africa, including, what does this mean? is this what you are seeing on the streets of cairo, tunisia, is this good for christians. in these countrys? >> it could go either way. we saw ominous signs back in the fall when there is a vicious attack against christian church in baghdad. then we saw on the 31st of january in the coptic church in alexandria. if the sex lar secular or democratic youth then christian minorities could thrive. the muslim brotherhood win the day, it is going to be tough nuchlt new for the christians watching the broadcast all across the mi

you quote him repeatedly as a source for the courts wickerby-filburn jurisprudence under the commerce law. is that the case it necessarily reflects his view as an original matter as a matter of first principles or are those views made in recognition of the fact he's bound by stare decises. >> that's a good question and i don't know the answer. it could be he's reflecting stare decises. he cast the critical vote for the position that sustained my argument and not yours. >> he couldn't have been more wrong, could he? >> thank you. >> thank you very much, senator chairman. i'm taking a different tact than mr. lee in terms of the practicality of these decisions. if you look at people who i think mr. kroger is well aware of this who already small businesses taking advantage of the discounts that they're getting and the fact that you've got people who are -- kids who are getting to keep their insurance that are preexisting conditions and states who are now struggling to figure out what they're going to do in light of these decisions. so my question, i know senator durbin asked this of profe

and bobby claimed that there was no justice in the american jurisprudence system. therefore, at that point, he said i'm not going to pay taxes anymore. i don't believe in america. it's a corrupt government. there's some questions in the front here. >> good evening. i just want to thank you for delivering to us the second book. i have the first one that you wrote. many the themes you are saying right now, when he was playing speed chess. he was saying, i want to crush you. i enjoy your book. i found it very interesting. thank you for, you know, the second part of it. chess world needed the second part. >> thank you, thank you, thank you. let's get one over here. then we'll come back to you. >> yeah, were there ever any clinical, mental issues that were attributed to him given his statements that he made? >> no psychiatrist that i know ever said anything along that line. and i interviewed a number of psychiatrists that knew him. the latest being dr. magnum goolesson who was with him. the doctor said, and i'll give awe -- i'll give you a quote. you find it in the book

bobby claimed there was no justice in the american jurisprudence system and therefore at that point he said i won't pay taxes anymore. i don't believe in america. this corrupt government. >> thank you for delivering to us the book and the first one you wrote and many things you are saying now. he kept losing. i enjoy your book. found it very interesting. and thank you for the second part of it. the second part of bobby fischer's life. >> let's get one over here and come back to you. >> were there ever any critical mental issues attributed to him given his statements that he made? >> no psychiatrist that i know ever said anything along that line and i interviewed a number of psychiatrists, the latest being dr. magnus in reykjavik who was with bobby in the last months of his life. i will give you a quote that you he said he was disturbed, he was paranoid but he was not schizophrenic and he was not psychotic. he was the director of the largest mental institution in iceland. very reputable man. he came from a troubled style that was mixed up. but clinically he could not say that he was par

eventually it was thrown out of court, and bobby claimed there was no justice in the american jurisprudence system, and so therefore at that point, he said i'm not paying taxes anymore. i don't believe in america. it's a corrupt government. >> good evening, frank. i just want to thank you for giving to us the second book. i have the first one you wrote, and many of the things you're saying now, when he was giving speeches and that's i want to cross you, he kept losing, and i enjoy your book. it's interesting, and thank you for the second part of it. >> thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. one over here, and then we'll come back to you. >> were there ever any clinical, mental issues that were attributed to him given his statements that he made? >> no psychiatrist that i know ever said anything along that line, and i interviewed a number of psychiatrists who knew him, the latest being dr. magnus who was with bobby during the last months of his life. that doctor said, and i'll give you the quote that's in the book, "he was disturbed, paranoid, but he was not schizophrenic or psychotic."

you quote him repeatedly as a source for the courts wickerby-filburn jurisprudence under the commerce law. is that the case it necessarily reflects his view as an original matter as a matter of first principles or are those views made in recognition of the fact he's bound by stare decises. >> that's a good question and i don't know the answer. it could be he's reflecting stare decises. he cast the critical vote for the position that sustained my argument and not yours. >> he couldn't have been more wrong, could he? >> thank you. >> thank you very much, senator chairman. i'm taking a different tact than mr. lee in terms of the practicality of these decisions. if you look at people who i think mr. kroger is well aware of this who already small businesses taking advantage of

and nil neglected series of student lecture notes taken between 1762 and 1763 of his lectures on jurisprudence. these are the only places in which smith speaks to us now, and it seemed to me that these were going to be placed at the center of smith's biography. and what it meant was that my biography was going to have to be an intellectual biography, a biography of a philosopher seen through the making of different sorts of texts; lectures on one hand, great philosophical texts on the other. there was another problem, another preparatory problem that i had to address early on, and that is the meaning of philosophy. it's all very well to say smith saw himself as a philosopher, but what did philosophy mean in the context of his own life, his own culture? now, smith's particular trade, um, as a philosopher was moral philosophy. and by the time -- and the moral philosophy in which he was trained and the moral philosophy tradition, um, in which he was raised, the european moral philosophy tradition in which he was raised presented moral philosophy as what some people called the queen of the science

get back into the sort of principled -- nonprincipled distinctions of debyilied commerce clause jurisprudence prior to the 1930's. >> mr. barnett? >> it has never been done before, senator. and the fact is even though everyone might be said to one day you need health care, the bill itself exempts people from buying -- health insurance is not the same thing as health care. everyone doesn't go in the insurance market and the bill exempts people for religious reasons from having to obtain health insurance. so clearly even congress recognized not everyone has to obtain health insurance just because they may or may not one day seek medical care. so the fact that medical care is inevitability which it isn't for everyone, but to the extent it's likely doesn't mean insurance, a completely different product, is an inevitability. >> nor, my understanding is that the very first congress required every adult free male to purchase and equip themselves with muskets, with ammunition, with even certain forms of dress to carry the weapons with them. it is true that -- >> but you got to admit -- >> it's been a

and bobby claimed that there was no justice in the american jurisprudence system and so, therefore, at that point he said i'm not going to pay any taxes anymore. i don't believe in america. it's a corrupt government. >> some questions on the front here. >> i just want to thank you for delivering to us the second book. i have the first one you wrote and many of the things you are saying right now when he was playing speed cheese and i was laughing we were saying i want to cross you and he kept losing to him. i enjoyed your book and i found it interesting. the chess world needs bobby's fisher. >> thank you, thank you, thank you. we'll get one over here and we'll get back to you. >> there were any clinical, mental issues that were attributed to him given his statements that he made? >> no psychiatrist that i know ever said anything along that line. and i interviewed a number of psychiatrists who knew him. the latest being dr. magnus schoolson in rekijeh who was bobby during the last months of his life. dr. schoolson said and i'll give you quote -- you'll find it in the book, he said he wa

you quote him repeatedly as a source for the courts wickerby-filburn jurisprudence under the commerce law. is that the case it necessarily reflects his view as an original matter as a matter of firsprciples or are those views made in recognition of the fact he's bound by stare decises. >> that's a good question and i don't know the answer. it could be he's reflecting stare decises. he cast the critical vote for the position that sustained my argument and not yours. >> he couldn't have been more wrong, could he? >> thank you. >> thank you very much, senator chairman. i'm taking a different tact than mr. lee in terms of the practicality of these decisions. if you look at people who i think mr. kroger is well aware of this who already small businesses taking advantage of the discounts that they're getting and the fact that you've got people who are -- kids who are getting to keep their insurance that are preexisting conditions and states who are now struggling to figure out what they're going to do in light of these decisions. so my question, i know senator durbin asked this of professor

you quote him repeatedly as a source for the courts wickerby-filburn jurisprudence under the commerce law. is that the case it necessarily reflects his view as an original matter as a matter of first principles or are those views made in recognition of the fact he's bound by stare decises. >> that's a good question and i don't know the answer. it could be he's reflecting stare decises. he cast the critical vote for the position that sustained my argument and not yours. >> he couldn't have been more wrong, could he? >> thank you. >> thank you very much, senator chairman. i'm taking a different tact than mr. lee in terms of the practicality of these decisions. if you look at people who i think mr. kroger is well aware of this who already small businesses taking advantage of the discounts that they're getting and the fact that you've got people who are -- ds who are getting to keep their insurance that are preexisting conditions and states who are now struggling to figure out what they're going to do in light of these decisions. so my question, i know senator durbin asked this of profess

chemistry, statistics, biochemistry, public health, environmental studies, forensic science, and jurisprudence. in the course of our two year study, the fbi provided us with approximately 9600 pages of materials. with the release of this report, all of these materials are now available to the public. over the past 19 months, the committee focused its efforts on the review and consideration of these materials along with presentations by the fbi and doj officials and by scientists who worked -- whose work informed the investigation. despite our repeated requests throughout the study for all relevant material, in november 2010 the fbi identified additional materials for the committee to review and requested the opportunity to brief the committee again. after serious consideration of this request, we agreed to see these materials and hold another committee meeting. this additional intervention, included in the 9600 pages, provided greater insight into the scientific organization of the investigation and provided new information about overseas samples. it also resulted in the addition of a new sect

it is the defenders of the act who are seeking to extend the court's commerce clause jurisprudence passed what it currently is. as professor barnett pointed out, they've only suggested that activities that affect interstate commerce can be regulated under the commerce clause. they've never suggested congress can compel people to engage in certain activities to offset the economic effects of another part of the law. to get back to senator durbin's questionthey never suggested they can compel from feldburn to grow weed. they've never suggested again, as i pointed in my testimony they can require mr. filburn's neighbors to buy his crops to counteract the effects of limiting the wheat he can grow. i think those distinctions are loyally semantics and are relatively obvious to most people. >> unless you want to add. >> senator grassley, i think the very notion what is involved heris, quote, inactivity can be called into question. if you're sitting alone in the woods doing nothing, it doesn't apply to you. you have to go out and enter the national economy, earn $18,000 for a couple in order to b

he serves at the center for constitutional jurisprudence, the public-interest law firm affiliated with the claremont institute and he also serves as the chairman of the federalist society of separation of powers practice group. and in the role of moderator interlocutor tonight is jim newton, editor-at-large of the "los angeles times." his columns i sure many of you know. his 21 years he's worked as a reporter, editor, bureau chief and from 2007 through 2009 and presently editor of the editorial pages. he's the author of justice for all, oral morgan and the nation he made, the critically acclaimed best-selling biography of the former chief justice in california governor and dwight d. eisenhower which we all hope including jim will be published this year. please welcome speed and john eastman to the public library. thank you. [applause] my name is jim newton. it's nice to have all of you here. it's a special treat to have the two panelists here as noted these are two eminent constitutional scholars who disagree about everything in the constitution. i would like to just add it up front i

chemistry, statistics, biochemistry, public health, environmental studies, forensic science and jurisprudence. in the course of the two-year study the fbi provided us with approximately 9600 pages of materials. with the least of the report, all of these materials are now available to the public. over the past 19 months the committee focused its efforts on the review and consideration of these materials along with presentation by the fbi and the doj and scientists whose work informed the investigations. despite the repeated request throughout the study for all relevant material, in november of 2010, the fbi identified additional materials for the committee to review and requested the opportunity to brief the committee again. after serious consideration of the request, we agreed to see the materials and hold another meeting. this additional information included in the 9600 pages provided greater insight into the scientific organizations of the investigation and provided new information about overseas samples. it also resulted in the addition of the new section in the report and the new findings

he served as the director for constitutional jurisprudence, and he also serves for the federal society of separation of powers practice group. the moderator is jim newton, who is editor at large of "the los angeles times." in his 21 years he has worked as a editor, bureau chief, and a reporter, and is currently editor of the editorial pages. he is the author of a critically-acclaimed best selling the biography, and he is finishing a presidential biography of dwight d. eisenhower, which we hope will be published this year. please join me in welcoming jim newton, erwin chemerinsky, and john eastman. thank you. [applause] >> good evening. my name is jim newton. welcome. it is a special treat to have my call panelists here. as noted, these are two eminent constitutional scholars to disagree about everything in the constitution care -- constitution. i would like to admit that i am not completely neutral. my biography is entitled justice for all. it is safe to say that if i were forced to write on justice scalia, i would not give it the same title. [laughter] that said, i will do my best not

but there was independent judicial review, which is a very important part of our historical jurisprudence and i think should be guarded and protected. i think in the fear after 9/11, we didn't debate these things fullly. i think we should have a debate. and there's a wide range of people on both the left and the right who do believe in civil liberties. i think it's time we do review these. i will stand up in the next several months and try to promote the discussion of this, and i think it's a good time to review and revisit the patriot act. i will vote against the extension of the patriot act because i don't think that it is doing full justice to the fourth amendment, and i think it is very important that we have judicial review before we allow government to investigate and search our private lives. thank you, and i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i ask to speak for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, come to the floor as the chair