of law. he's a graduate of yale college and yale law school. joey siu is a hong kong american activist. and an adviser to the alliance on china. she's participated in hong kong's prodemocracy movement through organizing local grassroots campaigns and to her international advocacy for hong kong. as an advocate, for the people of hong kong, she's testified before the u.s. congress, spoken at the uk parliament in the united nations in geneva and delivered briefings on the european union office at the european union office of the united nations. samuel chu is the founding and managing director of hong kong democracy council, a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting hong kong's basic freedoms, autonomy and the rule of law. on july 31st, 2020, chinese state made reported that the hong kong authorities has issued arrest warrants against him under the new national security law making him the first american citizen to be targeted. he's the son of a leading prodemocracy activist who co-led an

to interpret the law.ginalism and textualism are two that many people hear in the headlines, but don't fully understand what they mean. as i understand from yr book, "a republic, if you can keep it," originalism dealsith the intent of the founders in the meaning of the constitution, and textualism deals with t words in statute. did i get it right? >> pretty good. i give you a-minus, margaret. >> how would you -- how would you improve? >> so, i'd say they're really two things of the same idea. one talks about the constitution; the other, statutes. they're labels that have been chosen really by opponents. opponents of originalism call it "originalism." i call it just the enduring constitution, and treating law the way we've always treated legal documents. so, whether it's the constitution or a statute, how should a judge go about interpreting it? and th're really two competing schools of thought. one is, you should follow the original meaning -- the original public meaning of that document. what was it under

her law degree is from the american university's washington college of law. she is the inaugural fellow for the historical society of new york. we will be talking about her new book, "threat of dissent: a history of ideological exclusion & deportation in the united states." published this past july by harvard university press, julia will begin by telling us something about the book and then we will begin a conversation. julia? the screen is yours. dr. kraut: i am delighted to join you. thank you for inviting me to talk about the "threat of dissent." do is start with talking about my arguments as well as highlights in the book. dissent" is a legal, social, and political history of the threat of expulsion and barring of foreign noncitizens from the united states based on their political beliefs, associations, and expressions. it is a chronological narrative, 1798 and takein all the way through to the war on terror and the trump administration. this verye history of unique intersection of immigration and first amendment law in history. what i find is that these

it must in effect void the law.of justices of yesterday and today, the court should be cautious in such actions. it must void a law only if a decision requires it. most observers feel the court has sometimes forgotten this rule of caution. often mentioned as an example is the dred scott decision. dred scott was a slave, but his master, an army surgeon, took him to the northwest territories, where slavery was banned by an act of congress under the missouri compromise. presumably, dred scott was now free. but later, he was taken back to the south and sold. dred scott then sued for his freedom in federal court. the case went to the united states supreme court. chief justice tani read the decision. he said that a negro, even if free, could not be a citizen in the meaning of the constitution, therefore dred scott could not sue in federal court. this seemed to settle it. but tani went further. he said, the constitution makes no distinction between slave property and other property. no word in the constitution gives congre

i was in law school. [laughing] that was actually my introduction to antitrust law, was the u.s. versus microsoft. it's been a long time. it's a big, big deal that we finally turned the corner and it's really only the beginning. only beginning of what we're going to see coming against google and then we also have the ftc is expected to sue facebook in the next month or two. we left states attorney generals adding to the google case with their investigations into other aspects of google's monopoly power and anticompetitive behavior. it's a huge deal. >> host: why is it that it took 20 years? i mean, google has been huge successful company for a long time. probably about that long, right? and facebook is newer of course, but how do you explain if monopolies are such a problem in the economy, why would we go 20 years without a case against a big company? >> guest: well, i mean, as i was saying before the judges had really made it very difficult to prevail and i'm sure sherman act case isn't the one sicko after monopolization. just another part of the sherman act called section one a

in our courts we want a government of laws and not of men. what is my proposal, it is simply this whenever a judge or justice of any federal court has reached the age of 70, and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension a new member shall be appointed by the president, then an office with the approval as required by the constitution of senate of the united states and. >> a justice reaches 70, if he does not retire, and additional justice is added for women if he does retire the number returns to nine. in 1937, there were six justices over 70. thus under the proposed law, the president would be able to appoint six extra. if the older justices, decided to retire. the total number would return to nine. throughout the land debate began. the newsreels covered the story. >> roosevelt's plan to change the supreme court has been the biggest publication since slavery. bringing this statement on the supreme court himself by chief justice hughes. >> the justices of these federal supreme court, part not merely successors, an import

it's not just one law or a handful of laws, it's hundreds of laws that are amended and strengthened overtime. >> can you speak a little bit about the laws that codified slavery here in virginia, or anywhere? >> alright. well, before we talked about the laws, there are a couple of cases that set a precedent. what is in 1640, and it involves three men who were incertitude, one was african mother by the name of john punch, the other european descent, and scotch men. so they were all in servitude. they ran from virginia to maryland, they were caughtt and returned to virginia. so they all committed the same crime. they were runways. they got caught together. they did the same thing. you begin to see racial differences in treatment with the case. where victor and james gregory were made to serve their original owner one additional year and the colony of virginia three years. john was me to serve his owner and his owners assides or ears for the rest of his natural life wherever they lived. >> and john punch was black? >> john punch was black. he's referenced as african in this record. you've anothe

that is the law. the law does not always reflect real life. factors ensure that coverture on the ground was not as restrictive as the letter law. wealthted to pass their through their daughters to devise legal ways to keep money and property out of the hands of sons in-laws. the demand of everyday life and commerce play their own part. i woman could not make a contract, plenty of bid -- women did business and trade, either on their own or for their husbands. rent businesses beside their leg with the local community acting as monitor ended orser. at the law said one thing, there was a lot more latitude. we must assume that the husband had a right to marital relations at will, there was probably a great deal of negotiation about secs -- sex. referenced the long-standing "more of coverture, generous and favorable to them than their ancestors." she understood power. so much do not put power into the hands of the husband, remember all men would be tyrants if they could. she even referred to the shame of marital rape and physical abuse, when she sai

the law of the land, the supreme law of the land. the alternative is a law that forever uncertain. no more stable, no more reliable and popular opinion of the time. >> opinions change, mores change and words don't. >> so coming out you set it up and you said between 1803 and 1905 there's not much difference in how we're interpreting and looking at the constitution even though there are big changes in the way the world works if you look atthe early 1800s , you have just the role of the executive. george washington for example is a different president and teddy roosevelt who comes in the 1900s is different from what we see today. so what, you come down on the side of original is him and explain why that's the way we should be looking atthis document . >> i think justice cavanaugh captured it. things, there are times when the constitution has to be updated . it's, we've had 27 amendments, the first 10 were passed in the 2 years after the constitution itself was ratified . they were added and then the other 17 outcome along in the last 140 years or so. and because sometimes very import

good and also to the laws they had written.ere at the beginning of the american story is the idea of government by the consent and by the governed, the idea of self-government. pilgrims anticipated another generation of americans, the generations of 1776. we are grateful to have a brilliant scholar to help us understand more about this remarkable document, how the concepts of freedom and equality grew in the soil of religious liberty. dr. william d.l. and is the chief operating officer of the center for urban renewal and education. he is the emeritus dean of james madison college and emeritus professor of political science at michigan state university. he is a member of the mackinac center board of scholars, and has been since 1995. " george author of washington, america's first progressive." collections of such as george washington, and he has published numerous articles on political philosophy and american political thought. williamin welcoming dr. allen. allen: we begin with the obvious, which is to say, the presence of the

the law of the land. the supreme law of the land. the alternative is a law forever uncertain no more stable and no more reliable than popular opinion at the time. opinions change in ways change and the words do not use of between 1803 and 1905 there wasn't much difference but there are big changes the way the world works if you look at the early 18 hundreds, you how the role of the executive, george washington is a very different president dan roosevelt the 19 hundreds and very different from today. you come down on the side of a regionalism and explain that's the why one --dash the way we should be looking at the document. >> i think justice kavanaugh captured it. there are times the constitution has to be updated. twenty-seven amendments. the first ten were past two years after the constitution was ratified. the other 17 of come along in the last 140 years. because very important matters arise there is a widespread view the constitution needs to be re- amended. as the professor said, it is time to amend the constitution it was mean

but, they value laws. and we look at, you know, the principles of a bible that is undergirded by various faith. what this date constitutions look like. and what the u.s. constitution, separation of powers, all of the things that they got, you know, from moses. the ultimate lawgiver. whether or not you were a believer, you-the idea of america and what it stood for. and i think that, i think today, what is missing is that, people have reached a point where their search, it's all about me. it is all about what benefits my group. there is no sense that there is something bigger than all of us as individuals. and that we have to come together to achieve anything. but, to be united as a nation, to build a nation. it cannot be about me and what benefits my individual group or my family. i had to give up something. for the good of the common, for everyone. for the common good. we have lost the sense of that. >> absolutely splendid point, dr. swain. because think about it. these pilgrims in that boat, they can't af

it must void the law. in the opinion of justices of yesterday and today, the court should be cautious in such actions. most observers feel that the court has forgotten this rule of caution mentioned as an example is the decision called the dread scott decision. dread scott was a slave. bus his master took him to the northwest territory where he was banned under the missouri compromise. he was presumably now free. later he was taken back to the south and sold. he then sued for his freedom in federal court. the case went to the united states supreme court and the justice read the decision. he said a negro could not be free. this seemed to settle it. but he went further. he said "the constitution makes no distinction between slave property and other property. no word in the constitution gives congress a greater power over slave property. it's only power is the power coupled with the duty of protecting the owner in his rights. it is the opinion of the court that an act of congress that prevents a citizen from

school of law. he's an expert in the relationship of international law to constitutional law. he's published on china's relationship with international law. lawr to joining the hofstra school faculty committee served as a clerk of the fifth circuit court of appeals and is a fellow and lecturer in law at the university of virginia school of law. he's a graduate of yale college and yale law school. joey is a hong kong american activist. and an advisor to the inter-parliamentary alliance on china. she's participated in hong kong's pro-democracy movement through organizing local grassroots campaigns and to her international advocacy for hong kong. as an advocate for the people of hong kong, she has testified before the u.s. congress, spoken at the uk parliament and the united nations in geneva and delivered briefings on the european union delegation office at the european union office of the united nations. samuel chu is the founding and managing director of hong kong democracy council, a non-profit org

things like equal protection of the law or do you process of the law are -- were not defined in 1787. they didn't have a lot of regard for trying to figure out what the understanding was of all those questions. no, it was not a court that was dominated by notions of originalism now as the way it is now. >> these questions become important in understanding the decisions the court ended up making. we'll come back to them as the events play out. just as this week, the morning after the election in 2000, neither candidate al gore nor george w. bush had achieved 270 electoral college votes. president bush, then governor bush won 246 electoral votes. president vice al gore, 18 states plus d.c. with 260, and the focus then turned to florida, which at the time had 25, now 29 electoral college votes. so, the teams -- can we assume they had established legal strategies long before election day? >> no. no. i actually -- i think both sides were sort of left scrambling because -- you can never -- you know, susan, when i think back about it, then it was obvious, i suppose even then, that the single

we were able to offer 16 laws and i was chief democratic co-sponsor on 11 other laws. american manufacturing jobs is a priority for me having grown up and representing the southside of chicago. we were able to get signed into law the customs training enhance. act to stop illegal goods coming into the country. the small aircraft rescythelyization act to help american aviation manufacturers. the steel and aluminum energy conservation an technology competitiveness act re-authorization to help these manufacturers thrive. and numerous buy america provisions we were able to get into transportation and other laws. but the one i'm most proud of is the american manufacturing and competitiveness act which took five years to get done but resulted in a first comprehensive american manufacturing strategy plan to be produced by the federal government since alexander hamilton. it's a good plan. i'm hope they feel biden administration considers its recommendations. to protect the environment against climate change we got the bright energy savings act into lew. to protect victims of se

but under jefferson the law was repealed and six years later the law was changed to seven.37 because of the growth of the country the number was increased to nine. and in 1863 under lincoln to ten. then an act of 1866 provided for clearly political reasons that the next three vacancies should not be filled. but the number had only dropped to eight when a new law in 1869 changed it to nine. thus it stood until roosevelt in 1937 proposed a new change. in congress? people while critical of the court were just as critical of the plan. meanwhile, in the lower courts legal battles against new deal measures continued. several suits attacked social security. to the new deal these were of special concern. already at offices set up to administer the new law 26 million social security numbers had been established. on january 1st, 1937 26 million employees had begun to build up credits toward old age benefits. the first applications for benefits were being received and processed. with all this machinery this huge new organization plently have to be dismantled? eventually the supreme co

have a law school question for you. this is fair because neither one of us went to law school. can the president pardon himself? >> unclear. part of the -- >> okay. >> -- thing about the -- two things about the pardon, right, the pardon power is plenary. it's in the constitution. it's not a complicated thing. the president can pardon people. but the one thing that's never been tested is the president trying to pardon himself, and the way that we learn the extent of new law is by trying it and seeing if you can get away with it and so he'd be the test case. and if i were him, i wouldn't count on that. >> so, my reading of the constitution is that the president can pardon himself, but who cares what we think when laurence tribe is going to join me later in this hour? >> nice. >> harvard constitutional law expert. the world's leading expert on this question. and he has a very definitive opinion, very, very clear. he leaves -- for him, there's no question about this. it's very, very clear to him. >> well, then he should definitely get "the last word" here and not me. >> he's going

--itive law, diving law divine law, and how they can come into conflict. put in your notes that freedom of religion gives you the right to worship so long as the way violatehip does not criminal laws. example. you another there was a religious group out of miami -- i forget the name, and you don't need to make notes on this. 20, 30 years ago. they said during our religious services -- i think they were eating hallucinogenic mushrooms. then we go into a state and we are better able to communicate with god. some of their practitioners were arrested and convicted under illegal drug use laws. they appealed it and said it's freedom of religion. the courts were very clear, you cannot do in the name of religion things which violate the local norms. >> [indiscernible] government experiment with those psychedelic drugs? there is declassified documents of the government experimenting with psychedelics like mushrooms, dmt. prof. prevas: give me that louder. o that --n they not d prof. prevas: who is they? >> the people in miami. but the government can experiment with

.ositive law and divine law how could they come into conflict? what in your notes, freedom of religion gives you the right to worship. so long as the way you worship laws.ot violate criminal i will give you another example. there was a religious group out of miami. i forget the name of the group. you don't need to make notes on this. 20, 30 years ago. they said, during our religious -- i think they were eating hallucinogenic mushrooms. because then we go into a state and we are better able to communicate with god. and of course, some of their practitioners were arrested and convicted under eu legal drug use laws. said -- appealed it and illegal drug use clause. and they appealed it and said freedom of religion. you cannot do things that violate the local norms. how can the government experiment? there are declassified documents of the government experimenting with psychedelic mushrooms. prof. prevas: say that again. take your mask down for a second. >> how can they not do that? prof. prevas: who is they? >> the people of miami. the people of the

does not get impacted by these 3000 laws at all m.s.p. has existed from the 1960 the new government in the last in the last 5 years or so has done what with the existence of various exotic there is no question of doing of it that i missed these no but you also need to understand that m.s.p. works better as an administrator mechanism that early good instrument because of very objective the very purpose of chemistry is to tweak it a constant intervals to give the benefit to the promise that in times when there is a bump up production and they tend to get less so the very purpose of m.s.p. is to make it that he likes the bill and if it does my out in a litigant purpose and authority in a litigious process that well up us will get to peek it but at the same time we have repeatedly assured that m m s p p system built continue it will remain unaffected by something and in any case if you look at the fact the percent of the farmers today sell outside the empathy m.s.p. the ones protesting as well if you look at the protest why the quality politi

>> famous harvard law professor. one of the best known and highly regarded liberal law professors of his era. he's written great constitutional law textbooks. i remember him early on as an advocate in the supreme court. he had some very good arguments and some not so good arguments. the good thing about him was he was so smart that there was a certain amount of cases or the justice would just sit back and listen to him. which way they do not do this too often. there is a fairly liberal law professor. he would not necessarily going to have a lot of sway with the conservative justices. he in many cases, he would run into a real clash with rehnquist and scalia and conservative members of the court. >> the court has i hope most c-span listeners know do not allow videos of the proceedings. even at the time there were audiotape-ing, we have a clip of both tunnels in and lawrence tribe. it's about a minute long. making their arguments before the 2000 court from bush versus palm beach county canvassing authority. let's liste

i would sit there and the new laws there are 3 laws yes one goes with the our commerce and the. it's called farmers' produce trade and commerce act now this comes under the constitution's concordant list part occurred and there are 6 or 7 points which are covered in this law interstate and interstate trading are produced is free is allowed but if we did without any kind of cess duties or excedrin yes electronic trading is permitted trade dollars must trade a bit up bankcard bankcard is a. personal accounting number electronic registration are traitors is essential if we're told are terrified getting into. not today libyan creates no market fees price information system should be in place and a dispute resolution is in place this is the 1st act the 2nd act is far most important under protection agreement act this is price esurance and problem services bill. farmers and a sponsor may enter this is a contract. they can enter into an agreement litter fix price with quality grade standards etc then the response of douglas $1.00 serving is to pick the product at the pre-decided price

but how is the law do not mention of people? so that is central to the farms concerns, which is the minimum support price, but in the street, the m.s.b. is basically obese. get into price for the government or perhaps to farmers. the new laws do not mention this bomblets feel that gradually they got one to flip back on those possibility of providing this price as well. prince state will look at leaving them in the lurch and as soon as the government wants to meet farm farmers, leaders today, do you think looking at all this pressure coming from the street, really? are they due to give in to these protests by giving in to the protest strike not get hot in david's going tracting, the law is drawing back a lot completely. the government has in fact, at least said that they're not be doing that. so then we'll have to be some give from either side, probably if the farmers agree to a new law, which in fact at least it's began to cry for them missing in the got laws that are needs stroll over people. but it's all part of, you know, bac

laws. so that's the one idea i have for this speech. our country needs a united states senate to work across party lines to force broad agreements on hard issues, creating laws that most of us have voted for and that a diverse country will accept. in the 1930's we needed a senate to create social security. after world war ii the united nations, in the 60, medicare, 1978 to ratify the panama canal treaty. in 2013, more recently, to tie interest rates for student loans, saving student borrowers hundreds of billions of dollars in the last several years. in 2015, to fix no child left behind. that bill had 100 alligators in the swamp. "the wall street journal" said when we finished that it was the largest evolution of power from washington to the states in 25 years. when president obama signed it, he said it was a christmas miracle because in the end 85 senators voted for it. in 2016, as senator mcconnell mentioned the 21st century cures act moving medical miracles faster into patients and docto

i would the new laws, there are 3 laws. yes, one goes with the our commerce and the it's called farmers' produce trade and commerce act. now this comes under the constitution's concordant list park occurred and there are 6 or 7 points which are covered in this law. interstate, and interstate trading are produced is free, is allowed part of me did without any kind of cess duties, etc. yes. electronic trading is permitted. trade on earth must trade a bit up band card. bank card is a personal accounting number. electronic registration are traitors is essential if we're told are terrified of getting into bed meant not to be. libyan creates no market fees, price information system should be in place and a dispute resolution is in place. this is the 1st act. the 2nd act is far most important under protection agreement act. this is price as surance and farm services. bill. farmers and a sponsor may enter. this is a contract. they can enter into an agreement with the fixed price, with quality grade standards, etc. then the response

can you could impact the law for me. i mean there i completely agree in terms of. we do need to find new strategies we've been reliant on not just the arab world but just on the globe generally to try and bring about change for palestinians and that's just because we've been crippled. financially we've been crippled socially politically that we have to rely on the outside world but i don't agree with the fact that this doesn't add pressure it takes away from putting pressure on israel as if that incentive is even there that's the case and i think it's a very false assumption in the end these are regions trying to maintain themselves that these are reaching that are oppressing their own people and populations very violently so to expect otherwise would be just naive. from palestinians and the world. the ambiguity is always a pleasure having will come a tricky on the street thank you very much thank you to all of our guests tonight since insight into protests that were happening in india close to the end and also on the gaza strip as well thank you want to listen lis

there are six or seven points covered in this law.rastate and interstate trading of produce is free and allowed without any kinds of duties. traders must trade with a personal accounting number. electronic registration is essential. no market fees. dispute resolution is in place. this is the first act. the second act is the farmers protection act. this is price assurance and farm service. this is a contract farming act. farmers can enter the agreement with a fixed price, with quality grade standards, and pay two thirds of the amount immediately. this is what is most important. acquiring ownership of the land of the farmer. insurance to be provided and a procedure is set. the third one is the essential commodities act. this allows the government to regulate the supply of certain food items. this document may be enforced only if there is a steep price rise. if the price more than doubles on a perishable or 50% on a nonperishable. >> thank you very much. why are many farmers so nervous about what are essentially free-market reforms of fa

, , equal protection of te law.hat includes immigrants, aliens, visitors, not just citizens. so you have varying gradations of equality but the whole question of personhood is not explained in the 14th amendment. it has become of course very controversial nowadays. >> i think we have time for one more question, and given that we have so many educators and students joining us today, this question that i will read for our final is from kate who asks, what do you see as the most pressing challenge for students of history? >> well, you know, i know a lot of teachers of history, pre-collegiate. i have run as you know many summer seminars sponsored by the gilder lehrman institute for high school and middle school teachers with you come to columbia university spent a week with me and some other scholars, professor martha jones from johns hopkins university, and others i think the biggest challenge honestly is there isn't enough teaching of history. we could say, hey, this teaching is not so good, this teaching is very good

saying this is incompatible with international human rights law and they've called the whole law to be written we know at the moment. that only one part of that law is going to be written that is article $24.00 but protesters say that that's not enough. so i would just get him in court and tear gas here just to have a look it's just been released by the police officers as they're trying to control the situation so the firefighters can do their job have you know many of the people who are against article 24 and the global security will say the problem we think is that there has been this is semi issues in terms of violence within the police force and if succes can't say for example that filling police officers will be no evil to show police brutality and not be problematic just outside the bank that was completely smashed up by some of the demonstrators you can see that a scooter or a motorcycle outside was there the bank itself was smashed people went inside they took the furniture from inside the bank brought it out and then they set these fires up outside the bank you see completely

the law of the land of prey to the supreme law of the land. the alternative is a lot that's forever uncertain, no more stable, no more reliable than popular opinion at the time. and opinions change rated the words do not change. tony: you set it up and you said, between 1803 and 1905, there's not much difference. how were looking interpreted, big changes in the way for the world works. if you look at the early 18 hundreds, you have the roles of the executive pray to george washington, is a very different president than roosevelt. a very than what we see today. and so, you come down on the side of the regionalism rated explain why that is the way we should be looking at the documents. douglas: think justice kavanaugh captured it. there are times when the constitution has to be updated. the 27 amendments. the 3110 it was updated in the 313 years. in the other 17 of them along last 140 years or so. because sometimes very important matters arise, is a widespread view that the constitution needs to be amended. as the professor said, it's hard to am

law.are a washington lawyer or whatever, you do not know that, so you need to get people and all the states, get them very much up to speed. then your strategy, again, become sort of like, where is your candidate? is the ahead or behind? that determines a lot of the legal strategy from then on out. >> two other notes about the 2000 legal team. first of all, as you mentioned, the bush team was led by former secretary of state james baker and al gore selective former secretary of state warren christopher to be the head of his legal team. how important was it to, i think, public confidence in the process to have two people of the stature at the head of the legal teams? >> both of them, as you say, we're sort of impressive people. sort of wise man of their time and their party. very different approach, a very different strategy. james baker was very much standing before the cameras being very public and saying, as i said, governor bush has one, it's time for this to end. warren christopher was

law of salvage, anyone who rescued a ship from danger was entitled to a portion of its cargo.in port, the commanding officer of the washington contacted the federal marshal and requested a hearing at the u.s. district court for connecticut in order to file a claim of salvage. he and the crew intended to cement a claim for rescuing the ship and its cargo including the enslaved africans. on august 29, the case entered the federal judicial system when u.s. district court judge andrew judson convened a court of inquiry on board the ship washington in new london harbor. he along with the u.s. marshal, the clerk of courts, and a group of observers heard testimony from the two spanish planters about the ships voyage from cuba. the planters, jose ruiz and pedro montes testified that each had purchased a group of slaves and have anna, then chartered on the ship to carry the slaves to plantations along the coast of cuba. several nights out of havana, the enslaved men freed themselves and in their struggle to take command of the ship, killed the captain and his crew. forcedders of the re

president in 2008, the country responded by voter id laws the present laws. and then we elected donald trump. we are at a crossroads. who are we going to be. at the heart of it all it's always been this moral question. who do we take ourselves to be. >> join the conversation with your calls, tweets, textnd facebook messages. and then at 9:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, national review correspondentevin williamson, big white ghetto, everyday lives of white working-class americans. he's interviewed by washington examiner columnist seen in contributor. >> watch book tv on "c-span2". this weekend. south carolina senator tim scott, little justice reform bill and working across the aisle with his democratic colleagues. senator scott said in for conversation hosted by the manhattan institute. this is 20 minutes. >> welcome to the manhattan institute cement cast. i am james, senior fellow the institute for policy research and director of legal policy for the institute . today's guest is sponsored in cooperation with manhattan institute's new policing and public safet

congress makes laws, but the president can veto them.the court declares them unconstitutional. congress can overrule the president, with a two thirds majority. or initiate the overruling of the court, by proposing a constitutional amendment. the president can appoint justices, but he can't remove them. everywhere the checks and balances are at work, the key to the courts rule in this plan is reveal enactght to of the president, or congress. and decide whether it is keeping with the constitution. it also reviews some decisions of state courts, and lower federal courts. you can see now that this white marble temple, is more than just a court. it is a vital part of the american government. a place where the mighty visit, kings, princes, prime ministers. does it seem a far cry from all of this, to apply to birds over farmland? a modest nebraska teacher? a prisoner behind bars? yet, they like queens and prime minister may have business in this marble temple, a business born the day that troubles strikes them. these birds started their journey

just and equal laws. what relationship of their theology did this idea of just and equal laws. >> certainly. we need to take that question up. but let me preface your remarks by saying to you that there's no one who isn't a person of faith. there are different faiths. so the great theme in life is to get the good faith, the right faith. but having said that, i want to remind us once again to place it as much as possible in historical context. so the body politic being envisioned in the mayflower compact was, in fact, not because of the beginning. but it also was not the end. within a quarter century, you had the emergence of the body of liberties. in massachusetts, you had in a relative timeframe the fundamental orders of connecticut. there's a chain of development he here. what's being evidenced in this chain of development is a conviction that they could deliberately construct the organization of society to suit the mission, which they did not form deliberately, which they saw as a calling upon them. th

we were able to offer 16 laws and i was chief democratic co-sponsor on 11 other laws. american manufacturing jobs is a priority for me having grown up and representing the southside of chicago. we were able to get signed into law the customs training enhance. act to stop illegal goods coming into the country. the small aircraft rescythelyization act to help american aviation manufacturers. the steel and aluminum energy conservation an technology competitiveness act re-authorization to help these manufacturers thrive. and numerous buy america provisions we were able to get into transportation and other laws. but the one i'm most proud of is the american manufacturing and competitiveness act which took five years to get done but resulted in a first comprehensive american manufacturing strategy plan to be produced by the federal government since alexander hamilton. it's a good plan. i'm hope they feel biden administration considers its recommendations. to protect the environment against climate change we got the bright energy savings act into lew. to protect victims of se

law. we can't ignore the reality that when we speak of refugees, the policy of the trump administration on refugees is dramatic -- a dramatic departure from what we have done since world war ii. since the enactment of the refugee act of 1980, for example, the united states has resettled an average of 80,000 refugees per year. however, in the midst of the worst refugee crisis in the history of the world, the trump administration has set record low refugee admission targets four years in a row, culminating in the lowest level of refugees in history, 15,000. how many refugees has the united states admitted from hong kong in the last year? zero. not one. the trump administration is also decimated legal protections for hong kongers and other innocent victims who flee our borders. hong kongers could be denied asylum if they go through other states before entering the united states. the administration's reactions do not evidence support for the hong kong democracy movement. they only punish victi

now the government insists that the farmers are misunderstanding the intent of the law. however the farmers say they haven't faced water cannon and baton charges for a cause they don't pass they are adamant they will not give up till the more the government backs down. and joining me for more now is david drucker he's a farmer himself and chairman of the. farmers organization in india good to have you on the program now despite assurances from the government to the contrary farmers are still convinced that they will be washed off under the new farm laws why is that. so you areas governments over the last many many years in a bid to keep food inflation in control have artificially suppressed farmgate prices for years and literally for decades and now the majority of farmers who are not getting the short prices want to short answers for their produce while the few farmers who get a short prices are worried that they will lose the benefits now these fears are not unfounded in the run up to these 33 acts that have been formulated by by the parliament there have been many ind

paul received his law degree from stanford law school, where member of the stanford law review. he clerked for a member of the u.s. court of appeals and received his masters in public policy from george washington university. he also holds a bachelors of arts degree in philosophy from washington university in virginia, where of course he graduated summa kolodny with honors in philosophy. ladies and settlement, my colleague, paul larkin. you for that thank wonderful introduction, and thank you to our audience. you have numerous demands on your time and numerous opportunities how you all spend it. on behalf of heritage and myself, i want to thank you for taking part of your day to listen to a discussion in which we have several scholars, legal and history who will address slavery and the constitution permitted but this is a contemporary issue. from the day the new york times magazine published the 1619 project a year ago, the opinions expressed in network touched nerves in american historical and political scholarship as well as in american life. projectis of the 1619 was the true