senator patrick leahy.et better.e world >> thank you for your time. >> landmark cases series next week with the decisionourt's 1996 with miranda v. arizona. the case gave rise to the warning. 44 mighte court ruled need to by more. and on c-span, c-span 3 c-span radio. ♪ >> c-span presents landmark cases, the book, a guide to our whichrk cases series 12 historic spring decisions. versus arizona and roe v. wade. written by veteran supreme court journalist tony mauro. an imprint of sage publications. availables -- house homeland security security committee chair michael mccaul on the state of homeland security. spoke at the national defense university in washington d.c. on monday. remarks are an hour. >> good afternoon and welcome. the wonderful to be back at national war college. it's such a prized institution. you a privilege to join today no introduce the chairman of the homeland security committee chairman michael mccaul. is currentlyll term.g his sixth in january, he'll enter his theth year as chairman of

senator patrick leahy thank you for giving us time to talk about the landmark sprout case -- supremeourt cases. how do you talk about the role of the supreme court in society today? >> well, the supreme court, depending how they decide, really touched just about everything. we have three branches of government. obviously the president and the congress but the court. their decisions can impact so much. they decide a presidential election before the ballots were counted, bush v. gore, changed dramatically the way we finance political elections. they had a great deal of effect just recently, they basically got in the voting rights act. some states took that as a chance to disenfranchise a lot of people. so far better or worse, they can do things that affect the average person. far more than what we might do in individual acts of congress. >> there is a continuing debate and perhaps it's one that gotten out about whether or not the supreme court overreaches. at a level that wasn't intended by the founders. what is your position on that? >> some of the members of the supreme court stick e

ranking member patrick leahy of vermont offered the sense of the senate amendment to put the opinion of the body on record. >> this is a sense of the senate that the united states must not bar individuals from entering into the united states based on their religion. as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded. >> well, nine democrats and seven republicans, including chairman chuck grassley and lindsey graham voted for the amendment. four republicans voted no, including presidential candidate ted cruz, whose office called the vote nothing more than a political stunt. last night democratic front-runner hillary clinton stopped by the set of late night with seth meyers, and in between some lighter moments she unleashed a pointed attack on her republican counterpart, donald trump. >> you know, i have to say, seth, i no longer think he's funny. >> yes. i will say i started -- >> and what he's saying now is not only shameful and wrong, it's dangerous. this latest demand that we not let muslims into our country really plays right into the h

. >> reporter: thus senators grassley and patrick leahy have introduced a bill to amend the program,ansparency and oversight to prevent fraud, raise the minimum investment to $800 thousand from the current $500 thousand for targeted employment areas, and define those areas by census tract-- no more bed-stuy boomerangs. but back in brooklyn, journalist norm oder remains unconvinced. >> i think there should be a giant pause and re-think the whole thing. >> reporter: meanwhile, the clock is ticking toward the december 11 reauthorization deadline. this is economics correspondent paul solman, reporting for the pbs newshour. >> ifill: congress is on the verge of finally approving a rewrite of the education law known as no child left behind. the senate is expected to pass it easily tomorrow. the house did so last week, and the president is expected to sign it. it will give states more control over public schools, but still requires annual student testing. tests have long been the subject of heated debate, especially those tied to the new and more ambitious common core standards. this fall,

filibuster,th his the senator from vermont, patrick leahy, was being interviewed. he addressed section 215. paraphrasing, lives are being ruined, education is destroyed. careers are destroyed. because people are being put on these watch lists and have no idea. they cannot defend themselves. they have no recourse whatsoever. a lot of these people that are on the watchlist have nothing to do with terrorism. i found a pretty interesting. also, people really cannot take action. you cannot sue anybody because the minute you try, the first thing they start screaming is national security. you can't say anything. the country is in danger. really? i just don't buy that for a second. that's my first part. my second is if you can address a bit on civil asset forfeiture. i would really like your take on that. thank you and i will take your response on the other side. guest: that's a big question. terrorist watch lists do exist. government admits they have a database called main core. they use the word extremist again which bothers me. all the people i've seen out there like ma

susan: senator patrick leahy is the senior democrat in the senior judiciary committee. we spoke to him and other members in preparation for this series. we will show you a clip from senator leahy on the impact of mapp today. >> the idea we had a blanket sweep -- that is not going to make us safer. rules. to go back to the the example i use is this. if you had papers in your desk at home, you fully expect the police want to come in and look at those papers and will have to get a warrant to come in and look at them. if you are holding those same files in the cloud and you have it somewhere on the internet, shouldn't they have to follow the same rules? it's your privacy we are talking about. if you collect everything, in many ways, you have nothing. learn to do better analysis of it. at 9/11, we had a very few people looking at this material who could speak the languages of those in the wiretaps. we learn from that. it doesn't make us less safe to follow the rules of law. susan: senator leahy, in a broad scope, thinking about how important warrants are to our civil society

host: patrick leahy is the scent -- senate democrat.e want to show you a clip from senator leahy on the impact of mapp on searches today. sweep.ad a blanket in the long run that is going to hurt us, not make us safer. the example i use is this. if you have papers in your desk thatme, you fully expect if the police want to come into your home and look at those papers, they are going to have to get a warrant. if you are holding those same files in the clouds, you got it somewhere on the internet, shouldn't they have the follow the same rules? it is your privacy we are talking about. youou collect everything, have nothing. learn to do better analysis. at the time of 9/11, we had very few people looking at this material who could speak the linkages over those in the wiretaps. so we learned from that. but it doesn't make us less safe to follow the rule of law. host: senator leahy was thinking about how important warrants are to our civil society. comments on that? renee: i think they are extremely important. the more we set up liberty and id

this is patrick leahy, democratic senator from virginia. around,ime miranda came he was in vermont in the state's attorney's office. he tells us about its effect on the state. senator leahy: at that time, it was very controversial. we had to read this yucky accused, as someone had said here. there was no question. think of it this way. what if you were arrested for something? and they got the wrong guy. wouldn't you want to know what your rights are? -- that sunk in pretty heavily. he hadhe also said little cards with the miranda rights on them and pass them out to police officers around the state as he was educating. lots of comments here. he writes that every lawyer knows that police found a myriad of tactics for even miranda. -- for even aiding -- for evading miranda. paul: before maranda, if you go back to the start of the 1960's, you are looking at about a 60% crime clearance rate in this country. in 1966, 1967, and 1968, a dramatic reduction in crime clearance rates. they fell around 45% and have remained there in the 50 years since.

that an interview with judiciary committee ranking member patrick leahy. >> all persons having businessthe honorable supreme court of united states -- >> landmark cases, c-span special history series produced in cooperation with the national constitution center, exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. number 759 -- >> we will hear arguments from number 18 -- >> quite often in many of her most famous decis

then senate judiciary committee ranking committee patrick leahy on the impact of supreme court landmark cases. later, remarks by homeland security secretary jeh johnson. >> all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of united states -- >> "landmark cases," c-span special history series produced in cooperation with the national constitution center, exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. >> number 759 -- >> we will hear arguments from number 18 -- >> quite often in many of her most famous decisions, are ones that the court took that were quite unpopular. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate, very dramatically and visually, what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who stick together because they believe in a rule of law. susan: good evening and welcome to c-span's history series, landmark cases. tonight is number 10. you will hear about the 1962 tennessee reapportionment case. it was when chief justice earl warren called the most important of his tenure. this is the court tha

. -- $8.95.ollars 90 >> coming on c-span, patrick leahy on the impact of supreme court landmark casesafter that, that is followed by a attorney general loretta lynch on the federal investigation into the chicago police department. next, as part of our landmark cases series, an interview with senate judiciary ranking member, patrick leahy. he talks about supreme court decisions and their relevancy today. this is 30 minutes. >> senator patrick leahy thank you for giving us time to talk about the landmark supreme court cases. how do you talk about the role of the supreme court in society today? >> well, the supreme court, depending how they decide, really touched just about everything. we have three branches of government. obviously the president and the congress but the court. their decisions can impact so much. they decide a presidential election before the ballots were counted, bush v. gore, changed dramatically the way we finance political elections. they had a great deal of effect just recently, they basically got in the voting rights act. some states took that as a chance to disenf

this is patrick leahy, democratic senator from virginia. at the time miranda came around, he was in vermont in the state's attorney's office. he tells us about its effect on the state. senator leahy: at that time, it was very controversial. what do you mean we have to read formerilty, accused -- a attorney used that expression once before, the guily accused. "what do you mean we have to tell them their rights?" i said, of course you do. think of it this way. what if you were arrested for something? and they got the wrong guy. wouldn't you want to know what your rights are? that sunk in pretty heavily. susan: he also said he had little cards with the miranda rights on them and pass them out to police officers around the state as he was educating. lots of comments here. he writes that every lawyer knows that police found a myriad of tactics for even miranda. refining the decision was and is ongoing. paul: i've done a lot of research on the effects of miranda. before miranda, if you go back to the start of the 1960's, you are looking at about

this is patrick leahy, democrat of vermont senator, who has headed the judiciary committee, now seniormocrat on the committee. at the time miranda came around, he was in vermont in the state's attorneys' office. he tells a story about the miranda decision and its effect on the state. >> at that time, it was very controversial. what do you mean we have to read this guilty accused we have here, a former attorney general used that expression, the guilty accused. but -- what do you mean we have to tell them their rights? i said, of course you do. because think of it this way. what if you were arrested for something and you think, they got the wrong guy. wouldn't you want to know what your rights are? that sunk in pretty heavily. >> he's went on to tell us in that interview that he had his own at his own expense had cards printed with the miranda rights and passed them out to police officers as he was educating them on what the supreme court decision was all about. i've got comments from people about the effects of all this. let me put one on the table. wild and wonderful ap west virginia l

filibuster,th his the senator from vermont, patrick leahy, was being interviewed.e addressed section 215. paraphrasing, lives are being ruined, education is destroyed. careers are destroyed. because people are being put on these watch lists and have no idea. they cannot defend themselves. they have no recourse whatsoever. a lot of these people that are on the watchlist have nothing to do with terrorism. i found a pretty interesting. also, people really cannot take action. you cannot sue anybody because the minute you try, the first thing they start screaming is national security. you can't say anything. the country is in danger. really? i just don't buy that for a second. that's my first part. my second is if you can address a bit on civil asset forfeiture. i would really like your take on that. thank you and i will take your response on the other side. guest: that's a big question. terrorist watch lists do exist. government admits they have a database called main core. they use the word extremist again which bothers me. all the people i've seen out there like mart