marshall. thurgood marshall had seen how the law could subjugate blacks. thurgood marshall i know, look at those black butlers in the white house, and his mindset was, i'm going to keep using the law to elevate you. and that to me is why i love the majesty and mystery of history. [applause] >> with that, thank you very much. [applause] spent let's thank judge marbley and wil haygood for a great conversation. we have time for a quick couple of questions from the audience. i know you want to take this opportunity to talk to mr. haygood, asking that question. we have microphones in the aisle ways for anyone who would like to ask a question of mr. haygood or of judge marbley. speak now. all right. yes, we have someone. no, on down -- come on down, ma'am. >> hamilton houston, before him there was what, hastings? william hastings. how do you think, because you heard about hastings kind of more radical than houston, and by the way, i want to say this giunta great-nephew of robert carter. >> yes, great new york -- >> his sister just died last you can 99 years old. she was my great

marshall. thurgood marshall has seen how the law can subjugate blacks. thurgood marshallknow, looked at those black butlers in the white house and his mindset was i'm going to keep using the law to elevate your. that, to me, is why i love the majesty and mystery of history. [applause]. >> with that, thank you very much. [applause]. >> lets thank will hagood for an engrossing conversation. we are running a bit long, but we have time for a couple of questions from the audience. i know you want to take this opportunity to talk to mr. haygood, asking the question. we have microphones in the what i-- i always where you can ask a question of mr. haygood. speak now. all rights. yes, we have someone. come on down. >> before him there was hastings , william hastings, how do you think-- because you heard about hastings kind of more radical than houston and by the way i'm the great-nephew of robert carter. >> yes, great new yorker. >> his sister just died last year, 99 years old. >> thank you for being here. >> anyway, i am saying that because today i said to couple friends last wee

marshall decided what that became historic? >> we are taking marshall's ordering of the issues. here is the first issue to take. can john marshall sit? marshall said no, he should have excused himself. he has firsthand knowledge. oes the court have the power to hear the case? if it doesn't, it is a bunch of people in robes telling other folks what to do without authority. from a modern point of view, john marshall inverted everything to school a -- score a bunch of political points against jefferson. at the end of the day he will pull back and say even though what jefferson and madison have done is illegal in all these ways, at the end of the day, it turns out we don't have jurisdiction because of congressional statutes that could be read as giving us jurisdiction is nconstitutional and our job is to give credence to the constitution even at the expense of a congressional statute. from a modern point of view, if that was true, he probably hould have decided that at the very beginning in the first or very beginning in the first or second question. before that, he should have id am i entitled to hear the case, recusal? host: he we

marshall came up to attack. nick vannett, the tight end backfield. >> mike: that action across the face keeps those linebackers where they are, they can't go outside, you're trying to use marshall's speed -- >> ed: but that was awesome job by marcus oliver, the tight end, knocked him into the play. >> mike: very high, very short. that's pretty good field position after a 35-yard punt. they'll start near their own 43 yard line. >> ed: and there's kevin wilson don't talk with me. but, this is four downs. you're going four downs every time if you're indiana. you got to make sure your quarterback knows that, don't take a sack, if it's third and six, you can't take a big sack. there's kevin johns, the offensive coordinator, has called a nice game. with quarterback diamont. >> mike: 15 tries and indiana has never beaten a number one ranked team. five of those were ohio state. they're one possession away from tying this game. diamont to the 48 yard line. the clock will run. marked back at 47. still a gain of three. >> ed: that's where kevin johns feels, the way we're going to do this run game with diamont, has a good feel of it. not quite the arm of sudfeld, but good change of offensive

marshall came up to attack. nick vannett, the tight end backfield. >> mike: that action across the face keeps those linebackers where they are, they can't go outside, you're trying to use marshall's speed -- >> ed: but that was awesome job by marcus oliver, the tight end, knocked him into the play. >> mike: very high, very short. that's pretty good field position after a 35-yard punt. they'll start near their own 43 yard line. >> ed: and there's kevin wilson telling, get with your guys, but, this is four downs. you're going four downs every time if you're indiana. you got to make sure your quarterback knows that, don't take a sack, if it's third and six, you can't take a big sack. there's kevin johns, the offensive coordinator, has called a nice game. with quarterback diamont. >> mike: 15 tries and indiana has never beaten a number one ranked team. five of those were ohio state. they're one possession away from tying this game. diamont to the 48 yard line. the clock will run. marked back at 47. still a gain of three. >> ed: that's where kevin johns feels, the way we're going to do this run game with diamont, has a good feel of it. not quite the arm of sudfeld, but good change of

marshall to the rescue. marshall came and got most of those who have been convicted off. one night marshallas getting out of town with a couple of other lawyers and was stopped by the local sheriff. they told him one time that he had been speeding. he said he wasn't. they told him him to keep going. and they stopped mcginn. >> the 2nd time was to check for drinking. >> alcohol. you have been drinking, and they stopped or 3rd time and said you can't drive the car anymore. then they went about 15 yards and they were stopped and everyone was told to get up marshall and they finally told marshall to get out saying he was being arrested for drunk driving. there was a river in this tennessee town. the share of put thurgood marshall in the back of the car and started heading off to the river's. the lawyers who were out of the car quickly found another ride is a news man was following them. they quickly hoppedthey quickly hopped in the car and followed the car toward the river's, and the sheriffs got scared that they would be found out, so they took him on into town. hehe survived that night by the

marshall came up to attack. nick vannett, the tight end knocked him back in the backfield. >> mike: that action across the face keeps those linebackers where they are, they can't go outside, you're trying to use marshall's -- >> ed: but that was awesome job by marcus oliver, the tight end, knocked him into the play. >> mike: very high, very short. that's pretty good field position after a 35-yard punt. they'll start near their own 43 yard line. >> ed: and there's kevin wilson telling, get with your guys, don't talk with me. but, this is four downs. you're going four downs every time if you're indiana. you got to make sure your quarterback knows that, don't take a sack, if it's third and six, you can't take a big sack. there's kevin johns, the offensive coordinator, has called a nice game. with quarterback diamont. >> mike: 15 tries and indiana has never beaten a number one ranked team. five of those were ohio state. they're one possession away from tying this game. diamont to the 48 yard line. the clock will run. marked back at 47. still a gain of three. >> ed: that's where kevin johns feels, the way we're going to do this run game with diamont, has a good feel of it. not quite the arm of sudfeld, but g

marshall came up to attack. nick vannett, the tight end knocked him back in the backfield. >> mike: that action across the face keeps those linebackers where they are, they can't go outside, you're trying to use marshall's speed -- >> ed: but that was awesome job by marcus oliver, the tight end, knocked him into the play. >> mike: very high, very short. that's pretty good field position after a 35-yard punt. they'll start near their own 43 yard line. >> ed: and there's kevin wilson telling, get with your guys, don't talk with me. but, this is four downs. you're going four downs every time if you're indiana. you got to make sure your quarterback knows that, don't take a sack, if it's third and six, you can't take a big sack. there's kevin johns, the offensive coordinator, has called a nice game. with quarterback diamont. >> mike: 15 tries and indiana has never beaten a number one ranked team. five of those were ohio state. they're one possession away from tying this game. diamont to the 48 yard line. the clock will run. marked back at 47. still a gain of three. >> ed: that's where kevin johns feels, the way we're going to do this run game with diamont, has a good feel of it. not quite the arm of sudfeld,

marshall, signs them and seals them. remember the proverb, delivered. none other than john marshall's brother, james marshall, who is a new appointee. host: suffice it to say, jefferson is not happy about the flooding of the judiciary and this stays with him for the rest of his life. we will show you the letter he wrote to abigail adams expressing his frustration with the appointments. expressing his frustration with the appointments. >> welcome to the historical society. this is a home to a remarkable collection of a quarter million manuscript pages, 300 years of an american family experience. john and abigail adams have their papers here in the archival boxes with correspondence, diaries, memoirs, stories of being farmers, citizens concerned about the future of the american government and system. you can read 1200 letters exchanged by john and abigail adams that tell how the revolution got transformed into a republic. with thomas jefferson, today, we are taking a look at one of my favorite letters, written from thomas jefferson to abigail adams. a family tragedy wrought together jefferson and adams. she wr

rich eisen along with marshall marshall, steve mariucci and michael irvin. rob gronkowski is soon to visit our set on "the mazda postgame show." the patriots are putting the bang thing on everybody they are seeing right now. led by number 1, who appears to

marshall came up to attack. nick vannett, the tight end knocked him back in the backfield. >> mike: that action across the face keeps those linebackers where they are, they can't go outside, you're trying to use marshall's -- >> ed: but that was awesome job by marcus oliver, the tight end, knocked him into the play. >> mike: very high, very short. that's pretty good field position after a 35-yard punt. they'll start near their own 43 yard line. >> ed: and there's kevin wilson telling, get with your guys, don't talk with me. but, this is four downs. you're going four downs every time if you're indiana. you got to make sure your quarterback knows that, don't take a sack, if it's third and six, you can't take a big sack. there's kevin johns, the offensive coordinator, has called a nice game. with quarterback diamont. >> mike: 15 tries and indiana has never beaten a number one ranked team. five of those were ohio state. they're one possession away from tying this game. diamont to the 48 yard line. the clock will run. marked back at 47. still a gain of three. >> ed: that's where kevin johns feels, the way we're going to do this run game with diamont, has a good feel of it. not quite the arm of sudfeld, but g

marshall. please come to the stage. [applause] c thank you. have a seat. [laughter] and now for the book. there have been an excess of 20 biographies written about thurgood marshall so sub or what was the impetus or showdown which tells justice marshalltory through the context of the confirmation process? >> well, while there have been multiple hooks on marshall with this book i'm hoping that well someone once came to duke ellington and said that they were going to make a song and that they were going to rerecord a song bed dizzy gillespie had made and duke said, don't. dizzy has closed the door on that song. so i lied, i'm hoping that people will pick up my book and someone else comes to them with an idea to write a book about thurgood marshall that they will say don't, wil haygood has closed the door on that. [applause] what i think though, what really was a magnet to me was that marshall's hearings were five days stretched over 12 days and his nomination sat in limbo for six weeks. before marshall the supreme court had been all white. before him, no nominees hearings has lasted more than a day. so with southerners leading the charge i knew that there was great drama and dad and i wanted to figure out why that happened and why they

rich eisen along with marshall marshall, steve mariucci and michael irvin. rob gronkowski is soon to visit our set on "the mazda postgame show." bang thing on everybody they are seeing right now. led by number 1, who appears to be picked -- ticked off at the football world. michael: news flash. maurl: he's ticked off but he's playing at a high level. we saw it. they're up 30-some odd points and brady misses a read and he's on the ground slamming the football, hitting the ground. next play he hits edelman for a touchdown. that is the trivep that's driving this team and i believe it's not that he's upset. i believe this is who tom brady is. he wants to be perfect. michael: he's not upset, he's just doing what he does with the football. press onward to the metal. the last five days, 60-92 for 711 yards. six touchdowns and no interceptions. and how many wins? two. that's right. exactly. steve: we could talk tom brady all night. i'm going to audible a little bit. let's talk about this defense because they lost a bunch of players in the off-season but this defense

marshall. >> marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution. wroteamous decision, he marbury versus madison. >> is probably the most famous course -- case the course ever decide. akil amar and cliff sloan. premieres this" monday at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. -- copy your cases of of the companion book. addition to the series, we spoke with bob goodlatte about some of the cases featured in the program and how they are relevant today. and the relationship between the supreme court and congress. bob goodlatte, i want to start in our conversation in understanding the role of your committee and the supreme court. what is your responsibility? rep. goodlatte: the judiciary committee was established in 1813. a couple years ago, we celebrated the 200th anniversary. it deals with an array of issues, but one of the things i love most is it deals with the u.s. constitution, the amendments to the constitution. any new amendments that are introduced are referred to the judiciary committee. in other areas, we are constantly trying to refer back to the constitution for guidance on what is appropriate legislation and what is not. when i became chairman of the we had a rule in the house of representatives that required you introduced a bill, you had to cite constitutional authority for legislation. that continues an existing congress. bill, member introduces a they have to point to a section of the constitution that justifies that. of course, every member gets to look at it. the committee suggested to leadership it would be good to read the constitution. we did that for the very first of the the beginning congress in 2011. we have done it twice more since then. very strong bipartisan support. dozens, over 100 members usually come down and read pieces of the constitution. i asked my staff when we started doing it to check and see when the last time the united states constitution was right on the floor of the house of representatives in its entirety by anyone. by anyone. was 1800out that it and never. it had never been read before. we are trying to promote in stressed -- interest in the constitution. host: in regard to how the constitution lays out responsibilities of the court, what is your understanding of what the framers had in mind for the supreme court? rep. goodlatte: the framers had in mind the supreme court would resolve specific disputes that themongress designated to and the constitution designated to them. original jurisdiction is set forth in article three. then anything else that congress may add or take away. one of the earliest decisions bury versus madison, which involved john marshall deciding a rather small case that involved a maryland federalist appointed in the of the adams administration to a justice of the peace position. a lot of them were done just as adams was leaving office. and the responsibility of getting the actual appointments delivered to the people so it was official they were a justice of the peace was running behind time. they do not get them all done. and so the outgoing secretary of who interestingly also happened to the john marshall, he said the new secretary of state will have to finish delivering them. the jefferson administration did not like getting these decisions and did not deliver anymore. ury suited james madison -- sued james madison for compelling of the delivery of the appointment. that is what came to the supreme court. he decided it in an interesting way that has had ramifications all through the last 200-plus years. they determined he was entitled to the appointment. that madison had an obligation to deliver it. but then he dec

rich eisen along with marshall marshall, steve mariucci and michael irvin. rob gronkowski is soon to visit our set on "the mazda postgame show." the patriots are putting the bang thing on everybody they are led by number 1, who appears to be picked -- ticked off at the football world. michael: news flash. maurl: he's ticked off but he's playing at a high level. we saw it. they're up 30-some odd points and brady misses a read and he's on the ground slamming the football, hitting the ground. next play he hits edelman for a touchdown. that is the trivep that's driving this team and i believe it's not that he's upset. i believe this is who tom brady is. he wants to be perfect. michael: he's not upset, he's just doing what he does with the football. press onward to the metal. the last five days, 60-92 for 711 yards. six touchdowns and no interceptions. and how many wins? two. that's right. exactly. steve: we could talk tom brady all night. i'm going to audible a little bit. let's talk about this defense because they lost a bunch of players in the off-season but t

rich eisen along with marshall marshall, steve mariucci and michael irvin.ronkowski is soon to visit our set on "the mazda postgame show." the patriots are putting the bang thing on everybody they are seeing right now. led by number 1, who appears to be picked -- ticked off at the football world. michael: news flash. maurl: he's ticked off but he's playing at a high level. we saw it. they're up 30-some odd points and brady misses a read and he's on the ground slamming the football, hitting the ground. next play he hits edelman for a touchdown. that is the trivep that's driving this team and i believe it's not that he's upset. i believe this is who tom brady is. he wants to be perfect. michael: he's not upset, he's just doing what he does with the football. press onward to the metal. the last five days, 60-92 for 711 yards. six touchdowns and no interceptions. and how many wins? two. that's right. exactly. steve: we could talk tom brady all night. i'm going to audible a little bit. let's talk about this defense because they lost a bunch of players in the off-

rich eisen along with marshall marshall, steve mariucci and michael irvin. rob gronkowski is soon to visit our set on "the mazda postgame show." the patriots are putting the bang thing on everybody they are seeing right now. led by number 1, who appears to be picked --icked off at the football world. michael: newew flash. maurl: he's ticked off but he's playing at a high level. we saw it. they're up 30-some odd points and brady misses a read and he's on the ground slamming the football, hitting the ground. next play he hits edelman for a touchdown. that is the trivep that's driving this team and i believe it's not that he's upset. i believe this is who tom brady is. he wants to be perfect. michael: he's not upset, he's just doing what he does with the football. press onward to the metal. the last five days, 60-92 for 711 yards. six touchdowns and no interceptions. and how many wins? two. that's right. exactly. steve: we could talk tom brady all night. i'm going to audible a little bit. let's talal about this defefse because they l lt a bunch of ayers in the

rich eisen along with marshall marshall, steve mariucci and michael irvin.ronkowski is soon to visit our set on "the mazda postgame show." the patriots are putting the ua bang thing on everybody they are seeing right now. led by number 1, who appears to be picked -- ticked off at the football world. michael: news flash. maurl: he's ticked off but he's playing at a high level. we saw it. they're up 30-some odd points and brady misses a read and he's on the ground slamming the football, hitting the ground. next play he hits edelman for a touchdown. that is the trivep that's driving this team and i believe it's not that he's upset. i believe this is who tom brady is. he wants to be perfect. michael: he's not upset, he's just doing what he does with the football. press onward to the metal. the last five days, 60-92 for 711 yards. six touchdowns and no interceptions. and how many wins? two. that's right. exactly. steve: we could talk tom brady all night. i'm going to audible a little bit. let's talk about this defense because they lost a bunch of players in the o

marshall. john marshall established the courts as the interpreter of the constitution. v. madison is probably the most famous case ever decided. >> joining the discussion, yell yale law school professor akhil reed -- the plaintiffs, lawyers, and cases.s in these "landmark cases" premieres live at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. while you watch, order the copy of "landmark cases" at c-span.org/landmarkcases. long, american history tv is featuring santa rosa, california, the seat of sonoma county, famous for its wine industry. cableer with our comcast partners, c-span cities tour staff recently visited many side the city's rich history. learn more about santa rosa all weekend here on american history tv. charles: jack london was one of the highest-paid writers. he is one of the authors that was right throughout the world, including the soviet union and russia at the time, japan -- he was translated into language after language. people found his writing compelling. he was deeply concerned about the human condition, and much of what he wrote about, whil

marshall. he is even mentioned as one of the people trying to nose himself in to this really complicated situation. but for, right as adam's administration is ending. jes yes, john marshall is both the secretary of state and the incumbent. >> adams nominates marshall and he gets confirmed by the senate, in late january 1801, becomes chief justice in phenomenon 1fe 1801, and john marshall is a lame duck appointment by the outgoing president. confirmed by the outgoing federalist senate. >> so the new president coming in, he has a majority in congress and learns that john adams finds a way to continue his point of view within the federal structure by the judiciary, tell us what did john adams do? >> john adams, who was somewhat bitter in nursing grievances about the defeat, he is determined to make as many appointments as he can before he leaves office and this is throughout the federal government, whether you are talking about the united states attorneys or postmasters. with the judiciary in particular, this out going lame duck congress, passes a new judiciary act, that creates a new level in the federal courts in 16 new judgeships and they do it late inip]Ñ their time as a outgoing congress. john adams is feverishly feeling those posts nominating p

marshall being in this theater at some point in time. everyone came to this theater on long street during that period of time. so, this is an intersection between history and our future. when thurgood marshall, there-- thurgood marshall helped set the path for the future of our country in many ways. he helped set the path for all of us here tonight, to enjoy the fruits of democracy and the greatness of our constitution. he was a true american that did so many good things to lift up our nation. lincoln theater, hagood, marshall all the one time, in one place in the city of columbus. how fitting. [applause]. >> that the son of columbus, he is our son, picks his city in this theater where thurgood marshall probably spent time on the streets of long street and mount vernon avenue. tonight, you are going to hear about the lowdown with the showdown. [laughter] >> thank you. [applause]. >> the one thing i forgot to tell you is that i spent 16 years as president of the king arts complex and now i have spent six years of the chairman of this board and it's great to have the two institutions collaborate and this is first of many to come. it is my distinct honor and pleasure to give you a brief overview of the will hagood. alth

marshall. theohn marshall established court as the interpreter of the constitution. his famous decision he wrote in marbury versus madison -- >> marbury versus madison is probably the most famous case the supreme court ever decided. >> joining the discussion is yale law school professor and author. whooring the life and times were the plaintiffs, lawyers, and justices in these cases. from live this monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on you watch, order your copy of the companion book. it is available for $8.95 and shipping. now we will hear from former vice president al gore from this week's washington ideas forum. it explores a range of topics, including race and culture, violence injustice, and health and technology. [applause] james: good morning. margaret very much emma thank you all for coming. thank you all for coming. thanks so much to vice president al gore for joining us. he has done a lot of traveling so thanks for making the effort. as i promised yesterday, the vice president has nothing to talk about you might

marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution. and his famous decision that he wrote in marbury versus madison. famousrobably the most case this court ever decided. .> join the discussion landmark cases, exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people who were the plaintiffs, lawyers, and justices in these cases. it prepares this monday at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background while you watch, krder your copy of landmar cases at c-span.org. >> now we would hear from former vice president al gore from this week's washington ideas forum hosted by the atlantic and aspen institute. it explores a range of topics, violence injustice, health, and technology. james: thank you all for coming. thanks so much to vice president al gore for joining us. he has done a lot of traveling so thanks for making the effort. as i promised yesterday, the vice president has nothing to talk about you might not be expecting. there are things you probably will expect, given his political

marshall. john marshall establish the court as the interpreter of the constitution. his famous decision he wrote in marbury versus madison. versus madison is probably the most famous case that this course -- this court ever decided. >> a yellow law school professor will join the discussion. , exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people who are the plaintiffs, lawyers, and justices in these cases. it premieres live this monday at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each case, order your copy of landmark $.95 at thedollars website. >> located on the national mall in washington, d.c., the national gallery of art was a gift to the american people from andrew mellon, who served as treasury secretary from 1920 12 1932. we visit the museum to learn about early american portrait painting. in this program we feature the work of gilbert stuart. his unfinished portrait of george washington is the image on the one dollar bill. dianne: hello, i am dianne stephens from the national gallery of art. who

marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution. in his famous decision he wrote in marbury v. madison. madison isv. probably the most famous case this court ever decided. >> joining the discussion is ofil reed amar, and author "the great decision," cliff sloan. landmark cases premieres live this monday at 9:00 p.m. et on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of "landmark cases" companion book. it is available for $8.95 plus shipping on c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> 2012 presidential candidate mitt romney talked about ideas at the washington ideas for them. he cohosted the event which politicalether figures and journalists. this is 30 minutes. ♪ >> you get the couch. >> all right. governor romney, thank you very much for joining us. i'm hoping we can do a little politics and a little policy over the time that we have with you. i would love to start out with the state of grace on the republic -- state of race on the republican side. easy topic. ronald reagan had his 11th command

marshall. marshall took up the idea of the bakeshop to one of those kinds of salons that they were trying to solve the problem of. when he put that article in the cause the kind of attention to be drawn. it was the gilder committee that really got behind the bakeshop. work?t the legislation did have an impact on conditions? >> i don't know. do you know? >> i don't know. with respect to the baker's themselves it did and didn't. by 1913, most bakeries in new working 10 hours a week roughly. it was mostly because of collective bargaining. with respect to health of the different question, else it was hard to tell because all we had were the records of the factory inspectors. and they just report the number of inspections they make in the violation. 1913 you have, by inspectors calling for complete renovation. maybe >> i will follow up. i was going to mention the union. most union shops are already working 10 hours. the law is aimed at nonunion shops. while with the unions want to invest their scarce resources in passing a lot of benefits people that are not members of their union? it usually because they're trying to address competition. the same reason why they supported maximum hours and minimum wage for women because in those days women -- we they were all white and all-male. you have to think with the unions are being unusually altruistic if they're are actually supporting legislation that is going to restrict nonunion bakeshop's. it turns out that these small shops were not prounion and not easy to organize and unions didn't like them very much area why would you restrict this how would you get a competitive advantage by stripping their maximum hours? the reason is that they're small enough to many evidence, you have to minute pretty much run the clock. it's a very long process. bakeshop'som-and-pop couldn't afford which shift workers with a larger industrialize bakeshop's could. if you shift workers you could work eight hours shift that if you have just one or two employees that would have to work on your hours area was away to suppress competition from the ethnic mom-and-pop bakeshop's. asked howour viewers much did brett cost relatively and how much of it was profit? and also with the baker's generally the owners? >> that depends. first i don't know the cost or profit. owners,pect to building the answer to that account confiscated. there were two kinds of industries. the other was the bread baking industry which tended to be small and was not recognized. 98% of bakeries were not mechanized. whether they were owners or not depends a little on where the bakery was. it was a small bakery in a small that they were bakeries in tenement houses there probably just workers. >> in a minute we will meet the man who gave his name to the case and he was the owner. we were number collars online lets you the questions first. >> african new york. >> high good evening. to comment on two points. holmes junior wrote a dissenting opinion. as i'm sure you're also aware justice holmes is one of the most widely cited u.s. supreme court justices in history. principally i believe for his clear and present danger opinion i would like to contrast justice holmes with your book the structure of liberty were you when it's relationship between libertarianism and classical liberalism. would you say that's as you indicate in your book the private adjudication and enforcement of law is the only legal system that can provide adequate solutions to problems of interest in power? do you believe justice holmes would sign on to that theory that youstions mark >> find short answer for that pocket a question? >> based on an accurate reading of my book. this is young the scope of this program, but the color has read this book and successfully applied the book to this particular question. but right now what we are concerned about is what the u.s. constitution provides, not what some internet of legal system i talk about in that could provide, and whether the constitution and 14th amendment in particular would be consistent with these health and safety regulations or inconsistent with them. that is really what this program is about. >> baltimore you are on the air, andre. >> good evening. i would like to thank c-span for putting this show on. my question for your guess is that the supreme court ruling -- over rule the court's ruling in lochner? >> it effectively overruled because it rejected the idea of liberty could it also rejected -- idea of liberty. in other words, it rejected the idea that the case placed laissez-faire capitalism into the constitution. question? -- >> hi, your question? >> it seems as if that the uncontested elements of the law would drive undercapitalized bakeries out of business, taking away business opportunity for immigrants that they could use what skills they had. >> you are nodding your head. was there an anti-immigrant element? >> that was a response to one of randy's earlier statements, it even those provisions of the act that were unchallenged as being constitutional had the tendency to drive small businesses out of business. i think it is a good thought that it might have had an anti-immigrant element to it. i never looked into that. there is another book about the lochner case by david bernstein. randy: i'm a big fan of paul's book. david does talk about the anti-immigrant drive, particular anti-germans who were very much distrusted and there was a lot of anti-german sentiment. also the irish tenement, but they were also not in the bakery business. and also the anti-jewish sentiment. the juice and germans -- jews and germans were doing most of the aching in new york. they were still uniformly upheld, because they were health and safety laws. health and safety laws were consistent with the lochner approach to the due process clause. >> let's meet next one of those german bakers affected by this law passed by the is simply of new york. that is joseph lochner. we will hear about his story from his great-grandson. >> joe lochner's probably wasn't the target of the act that was passed, but it was certainly impacted by it. joseph lochner was born in bavaria, germany and 1863. he came to the united states at 24 and ended up in utica, new york and opened up a bakery. they make cakes and cookies and breads and things like that. i have a cousin who talked about how there uncle joe would come to their house every sunday and would bring all kinds of swedes and they talked about how delicious they were. -- sweets and they talked about how delicious they were. some of the old family documents , we came across a contract from 1896 that was a co-agreement between my great-grandfather, joseph lochner, and mr. smither. what it does is i think it is a way to get around the bakeshop act. after joe had been arrested and he took the case to court, every baker in america donated a dollar to the legal defense fund trade my mother -- defense fund. i think it was a test case. the reason i think joe would make got some pathetic defendant is that he was hard-working immigrant from germany, his bakery was on the first floor, not in the basement. it was also very clean. that is what i was always told growing up, which may not have been typical for bakeries of that time. >> randy barnett, you want to start? randy: i want to talk about the germans a little bit. there was a lot of anti-german sentiment. myra v nebraska was a case in which a local statute prohibited the teaching of german in grade school. that's how the anti-german cinema was, at least in brusca. the same -- at least in nebraska. this restriction on the teaching of german also failed. in part because it deprived the people that did german instruction of their livelihood. myer v nebraska case is considered a good law today. and yet it was still decided by the same lochner court on the very same basis that lochner v. new york was decided, and it also involved anti-german sentiment. >> you have to love our viewers. one of them tweeted, retail prices of foodstuffs circa 1900, a loaf of bread cost seven cents. what you want to tell us about how joe lochner found himself at the center of this legal action. was it his idea? paul: they even got henry weismann into the act because they got him to do some of the expecting -- inspecting after the bill was passed. they focused on new york city. that might be another reason why this would have been unusual. i don't know. i wish i would have looked into joseph lochner more when i did the book. he was probably surprised to find himself in court with criminals on the day he was indicted -- or charged with this law. i think he probably was a hardheaded man. i don't think this was a set up case. i think it was a test case, as his grandson says, but people have said that there was another case earlier, in that case would involve a tobacco manufacturing, which was done in the slums, usually in the home of people living in tenement houses. randy: cigars. paul: right, cigars. it was done in the slums. usually a whole family was working, all living in the same tobacco they were working on. interestingly enough, the jacobs -- the man charged with violating that -- but the more unusual thing was that he was represented by a lawyer called the "prince of the american bar." it is kind of curious that this cigar maker could end up with one of the top lawyers in the nation representing him. that wasn't the case in lochner. lochner had a regular lawyer who made some serious mistakes. >> we will go to the next part of our story. he appeals his conviction under the bakeshop law. >> and it was a criminal conviction. i think he was incarcerated for. >> fined $50 the second time. >> he didn't want to pay. >> that's why he probably had to go to jail. what can you tell us about his pursuit in the newark -- new york case? randy: he just refused to play. his attorney said that he refused to play because the act he was charged with did not constitute a crime. i think that was because he intended to take it to the appeals court. i think that is the only reason he would do that. he was hardheaded. then it went to the appellate division of the supreme court of illinois -- of new york, which is the first level of appeal in new york. they are the conviction was upheld by a vote of 3-2. that was the first time his attorney raised the issue of liberty of contract. he used the terms "right to pursue a lawful profession" in this brief. it went 3-2, and he appealed to the next level. at that level, the new york court of appeals, they won by a vote of 5-4 -- no, 5-3. a majority of the judges in new york decided that this law -- >> lochner lost. the law one. next we will visit the new york state of appeals courtroom to learn more about that part of joe lochner's story. >> welcome to the new york court of appeals courtroom. this is the very court room in which people against lochner would've been heard. the case was decided in 1904. the case was on appeal. we have the very set up in which the attorneys would have appeared. this site would've been the appellant, joseph lochner's people. the respondent being the attorney general sitting here. the lawyer for lochner joseph lochner would have begun right here, facing the bench, and would have begun with words something like, "may it please the court. i am asking the court to reverse his conviction because my client was denied due process in that he was denied the right to enter into a contract to purchase labor and to set whatever working hours he, my client, had with the employee." he would have made that argument right here. the judges would undoubtedly have engaged him in questions, following which the attorney for the state, the attorney general, would have presented the state's viewpoint, and the argument would've been whether the police power of the state can in effect trump the right of someone to purchase labor and the right of someone to contract freely with labor. these were the two considerations that were in the balance. >> so that is the court that joe lochner faced and lost on appeal. the next was the supreme court. we will learn about that. matthew is watching us in blago, california. >> i want to thank c-span for doing this. i went back to something mr. barnett said earlier about how the unions were pushing for the restriction as a way to suppress the smaller mom-and-pop bakeshop. i went to underground -- undergrad at berkeley and had a constitutional law professor -- for the same justification that suppress these mom-and-pop bake shops, working so much more hours and they could not keep up. i don't know if you have any thoughts on that. randy: it is the other half of the same thing i was talking about. you are right. the more industrialized larger bakeries they could afford shift workers had money to suppress competition, and so did the workers who unionized, and they had a mutual interest in suppressing the competition, low-priced competition. paul: they may have had a mutual interest, and may have acquiesced, but they had nothing to do it the law. i have read everything i could, and i find nothing in there that shows that either unions or large businesses were involved in passing the law. what i found is that the law was passed because of a for two inches moment. henry weismann is a lucky man. they just so happened that he ended up becoming the head of the bakers union at the same time that the gilder committee was in power, doing it survey. it was the power of these individuals, i call those people mainstream reformers -- they favored ameliorating the problems of poverty in the tenement houses, and they had just enough strength in the political system in new york at that time that they could get a law like this past. the unions could not have done that. they were split into three groups, had no power, had no money, had no ability to influence the legislature. which -- you mentioned levi morton, he was not the important policy. it was, plat, who around the state with an iron fist and was favorable to business. unions were not to get anything out of him. but the mainstream reformers might, because there were enough republicans to thwart those democrats in tammany hall in new york city. >> next is a call from steve watching us in dallas. >> i love your series. my question doesn't pertain directly to -- but i was wondering about the factory fire in new york city. to what degree did that speed up the development of labor union movement in this country? particularly about working conditions, did that help labor unions and their movement growing in america? paul: i couldn't answer that question directly, because i would not know how it's fed up labor unions. i think it drew more attention to the problems of tenement house businesses. >> next is will watching us in lincoln, delaware. >> yes, it is an open question i would like to address to professor barnett. he introduced in his early discussion about competition, about how the landmark case has impacted on competition. he is talked about education, unions, housing. professor barnett, would you please expand on other key economic factors that the lochner v. new york 1905 case impacts? >> i'm not sure what the caller is referring to. >> are you still there? >> yes. about 10 minutes ago, you are talking about how the unions wanted to pursue this landmark case because they were able to restrict competition from mom and pop shops. then you talked about how education would be limited. i'm thinking that you have a reputation as probably one of the foremost libertarian theorists when it comes to constitutional law. what other presidents have followed from this key case? randy: ok. the education piece i was talking about how the local law restricted the teaching of german and how the lochner court struck that law down because it violated due process clause. to distinguish genuine health and safety laws, they had no basis in health and safety, which is what it concluded 5-4 about this law. once that particular line of cases was eventually reversed and west coast hotel and others, that meant all these laws could be passed and there would be no vetting by the supreme court as to whether there was a genuine health and safety rationale for them. it would simply be presumed, and you couldn't contest it. i think one of the things that we need to talk about is that there were two dissenting opinions in the lochner case. not just one. there's the one by justice john harlan. his dissent was that the benefit of the doubt all to go to the legislators in passing the health and safety law, but it was still permissible to present evidence on the reasonableness of the recommendation. there was a record that the supreme court relied on to find out there was no health and safety measure. justice harlan disagreed. given the presumption, he said, that the bakeshop law should be upheld. it was oliver wendell holmes' position that was more radical than that. it would not have allowed proof to be introduced into the court. interestingly, it was not until the warren court that the homes approach of his dissent became the law, when you were not allowed to contest the rationality of a restriction on your liberty. >> you're getting slightly ahead. we have to find out how the case was resolved. how was a joke lochner -- joe lochner able to get the supreme court to take the case? paul: by 1894 or so, he has a falling out with the bakeshop union. normally, i would read these kind of materials like the bakers journal, i would read clips like videotapes and things. this when it's at me was the baker journal itself, this big old book falling apart in my hands, and inside the bakers journal i found an addendum to one month's editorial. it said that lochner had fallen out because he had been skimming money off the top. i'm sorry -- weismann had been skimming money, so he he became a baker. he said he was studying law on the side. he became active in politics a little bit, republican politics, and eventually in 1903, he is charged with practicing law without a license. he admits it. he said he was a practicing, just representing another attorney. 1903 is an important date. he pops up again in the lochner because he gets lochner's original attorney, he asks him to file an appeal to the united states supreme court. the interesting thing is that he filed a document, on intention to in peel to the united states supreme court and filed a $100 fee. he did not file a motion for a writ of error. for those of you who are not lawyers, that was the way a file got to the supreme court. it was in order to send it to the supreme court. if that had been where we stood, this case would have never happened. it would have been deep in the dungeons of the new york courts of appeal. what happened was that weismann took on another attorney. he had argued before the supreme court. he saw the error and he actually got a justice to agree to let the writ of error go through. when i was alerted to the fact that weismann had been charged with practicing law without license, i tried to find out when he got the license. i wrote to the cart -- court charged with determining that, and i asked any name spelling that i could find, no henry weismann was ever licensed to practice law in new york. a, the case was closed to never getting to the court. by the way, weismann never called himself an attorney. he did get the right to argue before the supreme court. >> weismann turns out to be one of the interesting characters in this entire story. he starts out organizing the union, somewhat responsible for passage of the law, then switches sides and takes the case to the supreme court defending lochner. can you tell us a bit about the court? >> it has a reputation of being a conservative court. randy: there are justices put on there by teddy roosevelt, other presidents, and in fact -- it upheld economic regulations before the lochner case, so it wasn't clear that it had a lock on the outcome. it wasn't clear that it was going to come out the way it did. some historians think that in fact justice peckham's opinion was drafted as a dissent. the votes were not as expected or changed during deliberations, and it was quickly adapted to be an a majority -- a majority opinion. dissenting opinions are very clear, people have very favorite dissenting opinions. majority opinions are written by committee and are there to attract votes. if you have a single the center like homes, he can write these impassioned things, well maybe one of the things -- why i like the lochner so well when i was a student. it was written by a dissenting opinion was written, a very clear, senior argument. maybe because it was originally a dissent and was adjusted as part of the 5-4 majority. >> how long had melville fuller been on the court? paul: he's been on the court since the 1880's, so he's been there a while. he definitely -- do you remember him? randy: no. paul: he had been on the court. he had a very strong pro-business views. randy: there are a lot of people who talk about justices as railroad attorneys, because they were responsible for so much of the money and litigation, you could not be a commercial lawyer without being a railroad attorney. paul: i have lived in that time for most of my life. i think not. >> we heard the name oliver wendell holmes, certainly well known by the general public, john marshall harlan, who were the other names of the justices serving the people would know who distinguished themselves? paul: i'm not the best person to ask. he was a nephew of stephen field , connected to a family that had pretty strong ties in america, and pretty strong power in america. the rest that would say, no, joseph mckenna, day, white, none of these people are degree famous. >> rufus to them, offered the opinion that has gone on to be debated since. that's rufus peckham -- rufus peckham authored the opinion that has gone on to be debated since. >> generally conservative views. primarily voted against labor lysacek -- legislation when it comes to restriction. it sounds like lochner's have a good case, but they don't really. they had a hard case going in. most of the cases developed before lochner v. new york were state court opinions. there were only two that were federal court opinions. one upheld an eight hour day for mining and manufacturing. health and safety provision. the other wa

marshall. >> john marshall established that the court as the interpreter of the constitution in the famous decision he wrote in marbury versus madison. >> marbury versus madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. >> joining the discussion, he ye law school professor akhil lamar and cliff sloan. "landmark cases" premieres monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each case, order your copy of the "landmark cases" companion book at c-span.org/landmarkcases. his weekly address, the president discusses economic growth and gives his reaction to a potential government shutdown in december. senator john barrasso of wyoming gives the republican response. he talks about the costs of federal regulations. obama: hi, everybody. yesterday, we learned our businesses created 118,000 jobs in september. that makes 67 straight months of job creation and 13.2 million ne

marshall? >> penny marshall and her family. >> jimmy: garry marshall. >> and we won every question.ke every face-off, we went through every question. and then we lost the game at the end. what the hell's up with that? >> jimmy: it's about the points. you got to score points, simple as that. >> i know. i tried to get -- all robin wanted to do was play fast money. i even tried to bribe them. >> jimmy: who? >> steve. >> jimmy: you can't bribe steve, he's unbribable. >> no, i said, look, she wants to do fast money. you were playing for $25,000 for charity. i said, i'll give you $25,000, just let her play fast money. she could play it in the parking lot, i don't care. you don't even have to air it. i'll just give you $25,000. no, there's not time. >> jimmy: did this come on the heels of you giving your wife that crappy mix tape for her anniversary? sounds like you might need some couples counseling from me. >> you're going to keep bringing that tape up. there were some good songs on that tape. >> jimmy: i'm sure. what, "easy lover" by phil collins and philip bailey? i'm not making this u

marshall there is a flag down. marshall lost the ball. indiana has it! now, we'll check the marker. >> ed: second fumble for jalin marshall>> mike: yeah, he has issues krk krx last year he had the huge game against indiana. the week before, marshall had two fumbles. two here today. it looked like it was going to be put away by ohio state. >> referee: personal foul. on the offense. that penalty is declined. the result of the play is fum e fumble. recovered by indiana. >> mike: so, new life for the hoosiers and great field position to start with. >> ed: as he spins out, just loses control of the ball. that was rashard fant who has been banged up a bit who was fighting with him, just not enough to pull that ball out for marshall. >> mike: very difficult to play a guy who puts the ball consistently in the ground no matter how dynamic he might be. >> ed: they're going to review. now, the question may have been, was he out of bounds? if marshall is touching the ball out of bounds -- >> mike: first, does he step out of bounds? >> ed: the ball is out, still inbounds. let's watch as the play continues. marshall ends up laying down

battles between outgoing president john adams, the new president thomas jefferson, and john marshall. marshallshed the court as the interpreter of the constitution. decision,marbury vs madison. >> landmark cases explores 12 supreme court rulings by revealing the life and times of the plaintiffs and justices and defendants in these cases. .t premieres next week for background on each case as you watch, order your copy of the companion book for $8.95 plus shipping. >> recently, american history tv was at

marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution in his famous decision of >> marbury versus madison. versus madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. >> joined the discussion, a yellow author and professor -- a yale professor and author. exploring 12 supreme court rulings and the people affected by these cases. onight at 5 p.m. eastern c-span3 and c-span radio. of landmarkur copy cases companion book available for $8.95 plus shipping at www.c-span.org/landmarkcases. and just before "landmark ases" tonight on c-span, conversation about ending hunger around the globe. we will hear from prime minister tony blair and warren buffett. from the nation's capital at 7:30 p.m. right here on c-span. right now, today's press briefing with press secretary josh earnest. ernest: good afternoon -- press secretary ernest: good afternoon. i do not have any announcements, so we can go right to questions. kathleen, it is nice to see right up front today. we will also let you start today. i guess i will just go straight to the ttp. you got 90 days at

outgoing president john adams, the now president, thomas jefferson and the chief justice, john marshall. >> marshalltablished the court as terpter of the constitution. in his famous decision he wrote marbury versus madison. >> marbury versus madison is probably the most famous court this court ever decided. >> joining the discussion, yale law school professor akil. marr and cliff sown. exploreing supreme court landmark rulings and exmoring the justices involved in the cases. landmark cases premiers life monday 9:00 p.m. eastern. on c-span3 and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order copy of landmark cases companion book, available for 8.95 plus shipping. at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> foreign relations committee chair bob corker and national security advisor ben rhodes on russia involvement in syria and iran nuclear agreement and u.s.-russian relations this ask part of the aspen institute 7th annual washington ideas forum. it is 35 minutes. >> good morning. it is my honor to be here to talk to the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, bob corker of texas -- >>

marshall. to have seen the law could subjugate blacks. marshall looked at those black butler's is yet his mindset was i will keep using the law to elevate you. and that is why i love the majesty and mystery of history. [applause] >> we're writing long but we have time for a couple of questions. spee refer anyone that would like to ask a question. >>. >> before him hastings it davos davis i and the great nephew of robert carter. >> they give for being here. because today who knew we would be talking today with all the racism in the of murders with the radical race period with a modern day lawyers. so what would it take of that change through bring live fourth to the naacp? >> different lawyers had different strategies a different kind of period in history. maybe the naacp lawyers don't have to try as many of the cases that marshall tried because there are more civil rights lawyers me that to that kind of work is needed very badly with some epic voting rights cases. each generation in finance its own best lawyers. >> and i do think commercial would think about barack obama and clarence thomas? read that as a loaded question. if he was here today he would be very happy about the first family in the white house. no doubt about that. but this isn't the same country from 1967 there are the bills we have to address no doubt about it. >> i would like to know will you put any women in your historical archives? [applause] [laughter] [laughter] that was not the question that i told you to ask. [laughter] yes. there are multiple figures that i am thinking about. but now let me defend myself sugar ray robinson's book major figure was the no warrant because a different but that doesn't quite fully is your question. [laughter] but i thank you for asking. >> a woman to the stage stage, susan? [applause] >> we just want to make

marshall. john marshall establish the court as the interpreter of the constitution. famous decision he wrote in marbury versus madison. versus madison is probably the most famous case that this course -- this court ever decided. >> a yellow law school professor will join the discussion. , exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people who are the plaintiffs, lawyers, and justices in these cases. it premieres live this monday at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each

in sioux city at (712) 252-0211... or send the marshals an e-mail at "siouxlands dot most wanted at u- s- d- o- j dot gov". you can also use the marshals' text a tip program. to text a tip, text the keyword "t- e- n (all in uppercase) 9- 9" and your tip to tip411 (847- 411). remember... the information you provide remains confidential and could put this fugitive behind bars. larry>> when it comes to dieting... most people know they need to avoid fats or carbs... but not much about how much protein they need. coming up after the break in tonight's healthwatch... we'll hear from a mercy medical center dietitian about what to eat... and how to cook it... to make your body needs. diana>> people try to cut the fat out of their diets... but are they getting enough protein? larry>> siouxland news reporter cat taylor met with a dietician to see why enough protein is an important part of healthy living. "protein really is important in your diet; it's one of the three macronutrients. proteins, carbohydrates, and fats are your main macronutrients which means you need the most of those in your diet. so protein is an important building block especi

spared saying he should face no jail time and a special court marshall rather than a general court marshal. soldiers that face special court marshals cannot be sentenced for more than a year. military prosecutors charged bergdahl in march before the enemy while leaving his most and endangering the lives of troops that searched for him. that's a charge that could carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. >> this guy defected. he went to the enemy and gave them aid and comfort and yes, he was tortured and held for five years but it was because he walked away, presented himself to the enemy. >> soldiers were hurt, harmed and killed in the process of missions to find him that we otherwise would not have been doing. he needs to be held fully accountable for it. >> that controversial release drew criticism from republicans and some democrats. some military officials say rega regardless of the recommendation, bergdahl deserted his conrads. whether or not military officials accept these recommendations. eric, backs to you. >> thank you. >>> eric, iranian judges reaching a verdict for a washington post reporter charged with espionage bu

marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution in the famous decision he wrote of marbury versus madison. >> marbury and madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. >> joining the discuss, yale law school professor akehl reed amarch. landmark cases exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people who were the plaintiffs, lawyers and justices in these cases. landmark cases premiers tonight on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. order your copy of landmark companion book for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >>> the supreme court begins a new term today meeting for the first time since a number of high-profile decisions were announced back in june. cases this fall include whether a woman who lost her legs after she attempted to board a european train can sue an american court. affirmative action, union fees and juvenile sentences of life without parole. we heard more about the first day at the court and some of the term cases earlier this morning with a reporter on today's washing

marshall. hazel marshall is a good person. he was resolute but like my staff you never get exactly what you want but everybody enjoyed working with him. dave stewart. he was speaker boehner's negotiator on this. i care a great deal about dave stewart. david is a good man and we all with meyer the work he has done and i hope that the new speaker to be paul ryan will use his talent. nick, leader pelosi's able, able negotiator. at the white house mr. president let me just say a word about speaker pelosi before a move on. i so admire this good woman. she is a stalwart in the house of representatives. she will go down in history as one of the great great leaders about body. i admire her. i appreciate her friendship and extend to anyone within the sound of my voice my appreciation for the work that she did on this bill. at the white house i never indicated the president did a wonderful job on this but he also assigned good outstanding, i can't say enough about these two people die in deeds, one of the white house negotiators and kat

marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution and in the famous decision he wrote marbury versus madison. >> marbury madison is probably the most famous cases court edgar decided. house speaker john boehner has announced he will resign at the end of october after serving almost 25 years as a congressman and four to half years as speaker. republicans have announced their bid to replace him. oversight and government committee chair performed -- the house republican conference will select a new speaker in a closed-door meeting thursday at 8:00 a.m. eastern and on thursday october 29, 0 house members will vote on the floor in open session to officially replace speaker boehner and elect someone who become the 54th person to hold the position. after setting the election for october 29 earlier today speaker boehner released a statement saying in part on october 8 members of the republican caucus will need to elect their nominees for speaker or after the new speaker is elected on october 29 members will select the low rest of their leadership team including majority leader majority whip and republican conference chair. why did speaker boehner decide to postpone those of their leadership elections? >> guest: because they know it's under some pressure from members of the conference to delay down ballot elections until after the speaker has been good. the favorite is majority leader kevin mccarthy. they will nominate him in a closed-door meeting this thursday, october 8 and exactly three weeks from that date october 29 all 435 members of congress will come to the floor of the house and hold a live roll call vote for their next speaker. if leader mccarthy is chosen as speaker of the house he will have the majority leader at such time members can vote for a new majority leader assuming its maturity with steve scalise his position will be open from web triggering another election so members were concerned that there would be elections for members of leadership, not accounting for the fact that the nomination for mr. mccarthy isn't the same as actually electing him on the floor and there's also concern about whether he can get the 218 votes necessary on the floor to even become the speaker in the first place. if that makes sense. a lot of moving parts. >> host: you talk about kevin mccarthy being the presumptive favorite and their couple of other candidates for house speaker. tell us about them and to speak before a pub -- a couple of republican caucuses. why that process? >> guest: we know that mccarthy is the presumptive favorite for speaker of the house. he is being challenged by a rank-and-file florida republican named daniel webster said many of the conservatives like because he talks a lot about process and corroboration and he's new to washington more or less. he's a member of the 2010 class so people like that he is a fresher face in knots oiled by capitol hill if you want to call it that but the new wrinkle in this is the candidacy of oversight and government reform committee chairman jason chaffetz a utah republican has taken on a high-profile role since the start of congress and now "fox news" sunday he announced he would be challenging mccarthy's as well. chaffetz, his argument is that a party can't get the necessary 218 votes on the house floor. there are too many conservatives who don't want to vote for him and all the democrats are going to vote for their leader including nancy pelosi said he's trying to put himself forward as an alternative, if somebody can bridge divides and be a conservative alternative to mr. mccarthy and that's kind of the case he's going to be making in the days ahead. >> host: in the process of the conference meeting this thursday to make their selection, tell us about the house election for speaker. what would that look like wax. >> guest: similar to what we see, almost exactly what we see at the start of every new congress. it's something we see in january. all of the members gather on the floor. the clerk calls everyone's name individually and they stand in the announced their pics for speaker. traditionally the majority party will speak in favor or vote rather in favor of that the nominee who comes out of the conference committee so in this case they nominated boehner inside the conference so that was who you are expected to vote for if you are republican. a minority party votes want their minority leader to be speaker and in their case that would be nancy pelosi. not everybody votes for the nominee inside the conference. we saw that in january. there were about two dozen republicans who voted for someone other than speaker boehner and some of them were punished for it. some of them are facing retribution for not playing with the king so you are going to see some of that and if mr. mccarthy has enough for his nomination on the floor and doesn't get the necessary winning threshold winning 218 votes the house will vote again and keep voting on the second ballot in the third ballot all on roll call vote until somebody gets 218 votes to become speaker of the house. >> host: all of that happening the day before how speaker boehner begins his time in congress on october 30 and leadership election october 29 in following it all is emma dumain who is a reporter for roll call. roll call.com and follow her on emma -- >> guest: thank you. >> adam liptak of "the new york times" joins us on the opening day of the new term the supreme court in want to ask you how much his one term influence by the other? do you 2015 wrap-up of the lassar me the supreme court you wrote a disciplined liberal wing in the last terms of can we expect some sort of pendulum swing the other way? >> guest: icon to do. it's artificial. they decide one case at a time and they decide 70 or so each term. it's artificial where you draw the line but it did seem like in the last term the court's did a lot and a lot of people surprise. the term this year has cases and at this adjust the pendulum will swing the other way, that the rights of the court might have a better year. >> host: the headline on adam licktieg politically charged cases await supreme court has a new session opens and i just want to say your lead on this to set the scene for today the supreme court to the last supreme court term ended with liberal victory. conservatives disarray and bruise relations among the justices ended may 1 which opens on monday marks the start of chief justice john roberts second decade on the court and will reveal whether the last acrimony anomalies or something more lasting. if you want to continue to reading that in "the new york times" that adam licktieg with us as we preview this term. i want to -- >> guest: i like having my pros read. >> host: want to talk about what you mentioned there the justices ideology. there was a chart that one with one of your last stories on that it talks about martin quinn scores on ideology to try to get a visual of this. explain what that is we show this chart. >> guest: to date analysis of voting parties and have a bug in relation to each other and what you see on that chart is the liberals are ideologically very close and there is much more of a gap in some of the conservatives and they often approach cases from a different point of view are and one thing that chart shows is that george w. bush appointees for alito and roberts started essentially identically the same place and toledo trip slightly to the right. robert slightly to the left that that's not to make him a liberal. he's still a very conservatives is the probably because he's the chief because he's a chief justice p. is also influenced by his responsibilities to the institution and that may cause him in some cases to make a more moderate stance. >> host: of course we will see that in some of the cases coming up. in terms of watt buster cases very divisive cases either going to be more this term than last term and how do they compare? >> guest: is a little hard to predict. usually there are about 20 cases decided by 5-4 votes. of the 70 or so, maybe 15 or 20 are that closely divided and of those 5-4's they are not always the same court but mostly they are which is to save for liberals, for conservatives and justice kennedy in the middle swinging one way or the other. >> host: imagine one of those closed cases would be if the supreme court takes up the issue of abortion certainly could be a high-profile issue this term. what are the central cases here? >> guest: really the leading case comes out of texas on the one i would expect them to pay, they'll pick it yet, they haven't had an abortion case since 2007 but this is a case where texas enacted law that says was meant to protect women's health but has the effect of closing 30 of the states 40 abortion clinics because it can comply with some fairly rigorous requirements and whether that law imposes what the supreme court has called an undue burden on the constitutional right to abortion it's a live question and one that as you suggest will closely divide the justices. >> host: is their chance at the justices could dodge the issue that's term? what is the process by which they pick pick the case cases? >> guest: that 7000 times a year people ask the court to take a case. 7000 time they asked the court to take the case. the court takes maybe 1% of those cases, 70 of them and that happens most fridays during the term. the justices sit down and private and whenever case gets for votes he goes on the docket. their nine justices. the four boats to take a case, five votes to win a case and that makes for some strategic page are among the justices because you can imagine there's a case you might be interested in but you may not want to put it on the docket unless you are sure you are going to win. so the court at these conferences decides which cases it's going to take. the texas case, they're all kinds of reasons they will take it in part because they have already intervened after an appeals court allowed these clinics to close to the court stepped down temporarily provisionally on an emergency basis and by a 5-4 vote late kennedy joined the liberals. it said let's put a freeze on it for now. let's let the clinics they open until we decide the case but having taken an interim step it makes it that much more likely that corporal ticket. >> host: what is the name of that case for viewers? >> guest: viewers? >> guest: list if i can remember. i think it's called full women's health versus --. >> host: we preview this term of the supreme court with adam liptak from the ark times supreme court correspondent. john is up great falls montana our line for indepedents. john, good morning. >> caller: good morning guys. hey my question is in the supreme court's actions it seems like it's getting closer to legislation from the bench. what is the counter to it? is there any kind of judicial review or should we just make them political and elect them every four years or is there some kind of counter where we -- the people feel like legislation is coming from the bench? i would like your comments please. >> the constitution does make the supreme court independent. doesn't make it politically accountable. it's not a political branch. gives justices like tenure and is meant to be a countermajoritarian institution which enforces the bill of rights even when the majority of the people might want to do something different. bear in mind there are two kinds of cases. their constitutional cases where the court has the last word and our there are statutory cases where it's interpreting what congress meant so in the affordable care at case the court said they believe the congress meant to have nationwide tax subsidies for health insurance but if congress has a different view congress is free to pass in to pass in a loss of half of the answer to the viewer's question is in statutory cases where it's just analyzing with the words of the congressional statute means if it gets it wrong in and the congress congress can pass another low law. >> host: . >> host: several colors and are for segment talked about term limits as a way to stop the politicization of the supreme court. what is the argument for and against that? >> guest: first of all let's make clear it's an academic argument because you need a constitutional amendment and that's not likely to happen that most supreme court's around the world do have term limits. they often have a single 18 year term. i don't know but that makes courts any less political and i'm not sure that's the right word in the sense that the viewers at talking about but there is something to be said for giving people time limits if only because in the modern era people stay on the court for very long time. justice stevens was 90 when he retired. in the current court three of them are pushing 80 and one of them 78. >> host: al is waiting in chicago illinois line for democrats. al, good morning. >> caller: good morning. you hit on a lot of what i would like to say that i wonder why is the private sector a lot of times you have to retired a certain age and he still might be effective, you possibly could be that seems you are making decisions that they are making i would think that you would want a change in terms of age. some of these guys are just out of step with the american public and i don't know why we are not to the point now where we decide that there should reassert in time that you are on the supreme court and i would like you to comment on that if you would. >> guest: you make a good point. the policy matter that may be a good idea and as i say it may require a constitutional amendment but think about it. it does allow the dead hand of a president long gone like ronald reagan who are still to some extent reflecting his views and you may ask the question in the obama era why do we have the influence of justices from another cultural and political entirety making decisions about the fate of the nation. >> host: scalia's kennedy appointed by reagan and clarence thomas appointed by bush 41, ginsburg and breyer appointed by bill clinton, roberts and alito appointed by george w. bush and of course center -- mayor and -- appointed by president obama. i want to get back to where preview of this term. fischer v. university of texas at austin race-based affirmative action. >> guest: it asked the questions whether public universities can take account of race in deciding who to admit and this is an issue or the roberts court has been making gains. it's generally hostile to any kind of racial classification by the government and public universities are of course the government. this case is on his second trip to the supreme court and there some reason to think affirmative action will emerge from this case bruised and damaged. maybe not destroyed but cut back on. >> host: you mention on the second term of the supreme court. what happened the first time? >> guest: the first time around the court kind of punted. the university of texas has a weird hybrid plan partly race-neutral and partly race conscious and about the appeals court hadn't done a good job taking a close look of whether it was constitutional. when it goes back to the appeals court the appeals court says no it's okay as constitutional in the court decides to hear it again and that is an ominous sign for supporters of affirmative action. i don't think if it was adequate it would have come back to the court. >> host: brad is up next from louisville ohio. >> caller: this is just like any subject today, the media, there are five states the control of our media. florida texas and georgia, that's the south and there are two states on the east coast, new york does "the new york times" and connecticut. that's where your five media outlets are headquartered so when you look at all the daily at two goodies today you see see the southcom i've said this before on the radio show for the tv show the last five have been started by texans. >> host: stick to the supreme court. >> caller: i am come if you would let me finish. because the supreme court is nothing but a slave to the south. it's a slave for war. it's a slave for the manipulation of the oil. it's a slave or illegal immigration and when you get to new york and connecticut and this is where you people always hang up on me in the media to protect the billionaires and the jewish from new york and connecticut. >> host: wreck i want to ask you about the candidate's background on where they go to school. i'm sorry the justices backgrounds. yale, harvard and columbia being the three schools from which the nine justices come from. has there have been any movement in the circle that watches the supreme court to try to get that extended beyond just. >> i think a lot of people in the justices themselves are little wary of what a narrow band of american legal culture they represent and in the last go-round it seemed one of the candidates would die diane wood who had gone to the university of texas and that seemed to count in her favor not enough to get her to nomination but i would think the next time around the presence of a lot -- with broadly and not just to go to these few elite schools because it does send a message to the mac in public and the american legal culture into law students in particular that unless you happen to go to one of those law schools you are not going to make it. >> host: what are the law schools that have a chance next time around? >> guest: there lots and lots of good law schools. columbia by the way barely squeaks and because every single one of the justices went to harvard or yale. justice ginsburg followed her husband to new york city and ended up graduating from columbia but she has a serious harvard component too and then of course the great public universities berkeley virginia and michigan and i'm sure i'm leaving things out and i don't want to offend anybody. there are many good law schools in united states. >> host: and is up next and germantown maryland on the line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning, how are you doing? i wanted to make two comments. one i find it very funny that people complained about the supreme court often seem to fall into the right's definition of who the supreme court is, that they are not elected and interpreting the constitution which is exactly what the constitution says that they should do but i think one of the things that people often don't realize is the number of justices on the supreme court is not actually set in the constitution and that can change i was wondering if he could talk a little bit about the process and if you think it would be likely at all for that to change in the future? >> that's a very good question and the number in fact has bounced around quite a bit but ever since fdr tried to pack the court it seems to have fallen off the political agenda and i would find it very hard to believe that we are going to have anything but nine justices for a long time to come. >> host: how does the process work if presidents and congress in the future wanted to do that? >> guest: at present can depose and congress can pass a law increasing or decreasing the number of justices. it's been done quite a few times in our history. >> host: you mentioned the pack the court effort by fdr. for those less to me with that history can you briefly touch on that? >> guest: he was unhappy with some of the decisions the court was making in the new deal. he said controversial that the court was overworked and he was going to help out and i may not have the details exactly right every time a justice reaches a certain age he would put additional justice on the court and therefore in short order we would would have the court not not of mind but of 13 or something like that. >> host: we are talking with adam liptak of "new york times" supreme court correspondent there. it's officially the 2016 term that starts today, correct? >> guest: well ill and in june of 2016. >> host: ruth is up next arlington virginia line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. you do have a wonderful program but i don't know how you sit there and listen to some of the callers. i am glad you are discussing this and i'm glad he is there giving some of the history of the supreme court because i don't think people understand why it's not elected and what the danger could be if i were elected by the people. i think the federalists called popular elections mob rule which they were concerned about allowing. i think you can see, and the congress what you get sometimes when you have a popular election. event though it might disagree with some of the things the supreme court has then i think people will look at it, the narrow focus of that decision and they concede would they result in the way they do and i would appreciate your comments on that. >> we have a way of thinking about this question because many state supreme courts are elected and when political scientists look at those courts, they find they are more politically accountable but i'm not sure you want clinical accountability so you see justices running for re-election, more likely to impose death sentences. .. h that is a good question about whether that is a good idea. host: going back to some of the cases going before the court this term. case about union fees for nonunion members. guest: it is a big case that could deal a blow to organized labor. the question in the case is whether people who our members of the public unions whether they can opt out a participating in the union. if the court says yes you can opt out and you don't have to be a member of the teachers union but you have to pay the equivalent of dues for collective bargaining. the court has said that is true. collective bargaining you have to pay for. but if the same union is engaged in political activities like putting up as to somds for that to support a candidate, then you don't have to pay for that. this challenge is that. it violates amendment rights to be paid to force for collective bargaining because it itself is political. collective bargaining involves things like seniority and class-size and public spending on education. those are political issues. do not make me pay for that. that is an interesting first amendment argument. should the court agree with it, it will mean a lot of people might stop paying the union due equivalents. it might spend with the economic power of unions and change the landscape organized labor. -- for organized labor. the court has twice indicated that it is very unhappy with this old arrangement they came up with in 1977. there are four or maybe five votes to overturn the arrangement. unions have some good reason to be nervous. host: if you have questions about this case or any cases that may come before the court this term, adam liptak is a great man to ask the questions to. we will go to our lines for republicans, where francis is waiting in tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. the people clearly lead the constitution and wholesome power. article one says all legislative powers should be rested in congress. article six says the constitution laws and treaty, not court rulings or decisions, are the supreme law of the land. particular part of the constitution did marshall give himself and the court judicial review? guest: that is a smart question. the question of judicial review is now widely accepted throughout american society legal culture, but it was a creation of the marshall court. judicial review is not in the constitution in so many words. it is not very hard to find it implied that if the court does have the job of protecting the rights of americans, particularly in the bill of rights, it has to do that by striking down laws that it finds unconstitutional. the caller is right. no particular provision of the constitution calls for judicial review. host: marbury versus madison case, a key case in the concept. guest: i understand c-span will be focusing on that tonight. host: i appreciate that. will be focusing on that in our new series, a 12 part series focusing on the historic supreme decisions starting tonight at 9:00 p.m. on c-span. let us go to leanne in beverly hills, florida, on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i call all of t

marshall-- once, revis's opponent; now, his teammate. >> brandon marshall: put your hands up... >> keteyian: yeah. >> marshall: ...is right there, that'satch it. >> keteyian: yeah, that's a very small window. >> marshall: yeah, no. the quarterbacks and offensive coordinators, head coach, they want to see this space right here... >> keteyian: and if he's here... >> marshall: ..every ball. >> keteyian: physically and mentally, what separates darrelle revis from other elite corners is his obsessive search for the slightest edge, including what poker players call a "tell". it can be a glance by a quarterback or a receiver tugging on his gloves. what's the best tell you've ever found? >> revis: it's probably a receiver grabbing his gloves and... ( laughs ) he's coming off the huddle and he's lining... he's getting ready. and it's, like, "wow, i'm... i'm talking to him. you're getting the ball. you got to be getting the ball." it's... oh, they try to do the slot fade... >> sullivan: when it comes down to preparation and the film study part of it and the cerebral part, it's darrelle revis, and then everyone else. once he declares the hand's c

marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution in his famous decision he wrote of marbury for -- marbury v madison. >> it is probably the most famous case this car ever decided. >> joining the discussion, a schoolmoscow -- gail law professor. exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings. landmark cases premieres live this monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on many happy returns 60 million join in our chorus to music o mamie with music to mamie with love ♪ >> mamie eisenhower new how to manage a staff. her favorite color was pink, hich was in her wardrobe and accessories. mamie eisenhower this sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's original series, "first ladies, influence and image." looking at the private lives of women who influenced the presidency and the white house. on american history tv on c-span3. >> immigration officials testified at a senate hearing to admit more refugees from syria and neighboring countries. witnesses from the department of state and health and human services discussed the screening of the nd costs proposal. senator sessions chairs

marshall. >> yes, spike lee. he's a great guy. he's the grand marshall. the first new york city grand marshall for the race. we are riding down to course from the start to finish with spike. >> are you sleeping at all between now and the race? >> a little bit, just a little bit. >> okay. michael, first year as president and ceo of the new york road runners and you are running the race as well. how do you manage the stress of the event and running 26.2 miles? >> this guy alows me to do that. peter is the race director and being great, that allows me to run. >> what is your favorite thing about the race? >> the people you run and the people aronning the streets in new york. they are inspiring and cheering >> talk about where the race is going, five years, ten years from now, it is now up to 50,000 runners and can it get bigger, not bigger? >> we look at the impact, how many people we get running all year round and impacting kids. we have a great event on race day, kids are running the last two miles of the course. >> you are raising money for team for kids? >> yes. >> they have raised 2600 bucks a piece? >> y

marshall. crooks john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution and his famous decision he wrote marlborough versus madison. the mostprobably famous case of this court ever decided. announcer: yell law school law school- yale professor joining us pretty exploring 12 historic ruling by revealing the lives and people who were the plaintiffs and lawyers and justice is pretty landmark cases premier at 9:00 , as on c-span, c-span3 c-span radio. for background, or your copy of "landmark cases" come paying for $8.95 plus shipping and handling. >> jane chu, chair of the national endowment of arts outlined her plan for the 50th anniversary activities. she spots a national press club breakfast. this is one hour. -- she spoke at a national press club breakfast. that's bloomberg news' breaking news desk here our speaker is a jane chu. chu to be with us on the location of the 50th anniversary of the nea which i understand the actual anniversary day is tomorrow. first, i want to introduce our distinguished head table. this table includes members of the national press club and guests o

or send marshals an e-il at "siouxlands dot t st wanted at u- s- d- o- j dot gov".you can also use the marshals' text a tip program. to text a tip, text the keyword "t- e- n (all in uppercase) 9- 9" and your tip to tip411 (847- 411). remember... the information you provide remains confidential and could put this fugitite behind bars. 3 memory issues affect plenty of pele... but it's not always an irreversible problem.coming up after the break in tonight's healthwatch... what a local memory expert says you 3 have you noticed your memory slipping recently? maybe you just had a stroke or you might have dementia... or *maybe*... as our own siouxland news reporter kayla novak shows us... your brain just hasn't been exercising lately. (**take pkg*g*"w"wl and i like to say, if you e it, you can improve it" this is billi van hunnik. she is a speech therapist with mercy home care. "i work with speech and language disorders, and so i always say you know i work from the neck up, essentially. // and i also work on cognition which would be more like attention and memory, problem solving, planning, things. "

marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution. the famous decision he wrote of marbury versus madison. >> marbury and madison is probably the most famous case the court decided. >> author of "the great decision" cliff sloan. "landmark cases," exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings by revealing the people who were the plaintiffs, lawyers and justices in this case. "landmark cases" premiers live tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order the companion book available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >>> the leaders of canada's three major parties debated foreign policy issues. conservative party leader stephen har ber, new democratic leader thomas mulcair and justin trudeau. the leaders speak in both french and english. some portions of the event do not include english translation. >>> you don't know which of your factories will be demolished. >> russia's political leaders are not just rulers of their nation, they're country's owners. >