and justice scalia is absolutely right, you can think of a purpose either way. purpose, help the parent. one, it would be meaningless unless you give them their expert cost. purpose, save money. that cuts just the other way. so what do we do? well, lo and behold in that particular case, when congress passed the statute, as you well know, the law is different and both houses go to a conference committee and they write a report on the harmonized law which goes back to the chamber and the system for the senate adopting the harmonized law is they vote, do you adopt the conference report, yes or no? well, in this particular case, there was harmonization, the senate did vote yes, unanimously 98-0 and what it said in the conference report as well as having the language "cost" it says this word "cost" is intended to cover expert fees. ok. i think maybe that gives us a clue, since it was signed by every senator and representative at that conference and they passed unanimously, and so i would say, i first thought this was tough, because, hey, you have a purpose in either

i do not want to put words in justice scalia and's -- a justice scalia's mouth. i think those are subject of ideas. substituting those subjective ideas for something objective and that is risky. he can confirm whether that is true or not. i'd think that there is not much of a risk, but he thinks that there is. >> if there is a risk, i know a whole bunch of rights that have been found in the constitution that the people never voted for. whether you put the people of 1787 behind it or not. that's what's happened through the device of looking at the purpose of the provisions and saying we have to keep the constitution up to date, it is meant to last centuries. let me address the last concept , the constitution is not an instrument of change, you don't have to change the constitution in order for society to change. all you need is a legislature and a ballot box. change will occur as fast as you like. the purpose of a constitution is to impede change, take the death penalty. the fact that the eighth amendment does not prohibit it doesn't mean that you must have it. if

to influence your fellow justices and ends up controlling the porch, justice scalia was never known for that but one of the points of my book was overtime he became someone who wasn't just dissenting his speaking to his acolytes beyond the marble walls but was controlling cases and this culminated in the washington dc handan case. i thought i would talk about how i ended up talking to him and getting access about what i found out with the surprises and hit a couple highlights and then turned over to barry. justice o'connor was ronald reagan's first appointment, of course, chosen to fulfill his campaign promise of a first woman on the courts but as i was doing research on her every last the real manifestation of of reagan cultural social revolution, the counterrevolution was instantly appointed in 1986, much more the person who ronald reagan and many who supported him wanted on the court said that interested me in justice scalia. i have actually interviewed him for the first time in 1919 renounced with congressional quarterly before the post in usa today and once i decided to do the

justice z scalia is the most famous. under the courts existing substantive due process, what the justices do when they try to figure out if something is protected by the constitution, huh, that fundamental? is that an undue burden on something fundamental? yes. it is. that's not the traditional way. that's why we have the debates about judicial activism. by the way, to give you a proper definition, is something that the speaker doesn't like. but we've had the debates both in terms of legal cases and whenever a new supreme court justice or now lower court judge is nominated. he or she is an activist. now we have -- from last summer, the new sotomayor test, where every nominee has to say no, i only apply the pacts. it's become a bit of a farce. why that is? i refer to you a paper that roger pilon wrote. you can find that on the cato web site. that beyond the scope of our discussion here. now, okay, given what we've just gone through, the keep and bear arms, you look at what it meant. understood to be a privilege or immunit

i would say justice scalia is not at all the way that the public perceives him to be. in my view he was surprisingly humble to work with and he acquiesced a good bit of the time when we disagree. >> how did you get hooked up with him? >> originally i was interviewing all of the supreme court justices on their views of advocacy and writing and i have written a number of books on the subject. so, i invite him to collaborate with me and he accepted. it is as simple as that. >> where are you from and do you teach also? >> i do teach around the country. i have a company called small pros and we do continuing education seminars for the lawyers around the country. i teach at law school as well. but mostly what i do is teaching on the road teaching lawyers. >> so if a lehman picks up this book, making your case, what are they going to learn? >> you're going to learn how to persuade, how to speak credibly and how to write credibly. in fact there have been business people already writing reviews of the book about how to make them, help them make better business presentations, an

justice scalia is not my favorite justice, but he is certainly the most quotable.e justices do when they try to figure out when something is protected by the constitution is that they said around and they say is that fundamental? is that undue burden on something fundamental? that is not a principled way of doing constitutional jurisprudence. that is why we have debate over judicial activism. we have had to these debates, both in terms of legal cases and whenever a new supreme court justice or a lower court judge is nominated. we have the new so meiesotomayo. that has become a bit of a farce. that is beyond the scope of our discussion here. given what we have just gone through -- the right to keep and bear arms -- you look at what it meant, whether it was understood to be a privilege or immunity in 1868. it clearly was. the 14th amendment was put in in large part to protect the individual liberties of freed slaves and unionists in the border and southern states. it is deeply the article that i mentioned -- in it we suggest that the test has been applied in a previo

. >> he could have seen his colleague justice scalia handle the price from time to time and tell them basically to go to hell and justice rob zrts not that sort of a personality but he could have ducked it and said i'm not going to discuss this. frequently there have been tensions between the president and the supreme court. very rarely as open as this was. the president was responding, i think, rightly so to a supreme court decision that does for a court that said it was so respectful and deferential a precedent did effectively overturn a hundred years of precedent on the subject of campaign finance. >> but the issue of whether or not the supreme court justices should even be there ask what this-- where it has now settled in. >> that's right. and i guess, i think they should be there. >> should be there. >> should be there. i think justice roberts is absolutely right about the state of the union address. it has become a pep rally. >> doesn't matter who des des. >> whose jumps up, who doesn't. i think this would be a great opportunity for somebody like president obama to say there are

there is a front-page story in the "washington post" about this case which has a quote from justice scalia that i have never seen before, where he pauses -- calls the privileges and immunities clause as flotsam. he has also said in an interview that he gave to the hoover institute in 2008 that he believed that incorporation it's all -- itself is probably false. the fascinating thing about this case is that you have a great or regionalist from the hell -- originalist from the heller case really badly misreading the original meaning of the 14th amendment. the question i find most fascinating in this case is the question explored in the "post" today -- howell are most public proponents of originalism dealing with the incredibly powerful argument that scholars and organizations across the political spectrum -- the original public meeting of the 40 the amendment spoke to incorporation and required overturning the slaughterhouse cases. >> one of the fascinating aspects of this case is that it brings to the for the problems conservatives have had with judicial mischief and judicial activism on to

then a discussion on constitutional law with antonin scalia and stephen breyer.ill have the administrator of the federal emergency management administration and the discussion of the oversight. >> throughout april, see the winners of the big video documentary competition. students submitted city of facing the country or our greatest strengths. at 8:30, meet the students who made the films. for a preview of all the winners, you can go to student cam.org. >> the secretary general said the promise of peace talks between israel and palestinians could end in failure if israel continues to build in the region. this 30 minute event is courtesy of al arabiya news. >> mr. chairman of the summit, your majesty, your excellencies your majesty, your excellencies the mind this summit is held in may. critical moments and as we extend our -- this summit is held in a very critical moment and as we extend our gratitude for the chairmanship of this summit, it gives great responsibilities. i would like to express gratitude and respect for the state of qatar, which has put the seriou

. >> today, supreme court justices antonin scalia and steven briar on the constitution. is it a living document? >> i don't pretend that this is producing a flexible system. to the contrary, it is producing what a constitution will produce and that is frigidity. >> we have to deal with an organization that is capable of passing laws in accordance. of the powers given by the constitution of the united states. >> america and the courts, today at 7:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span. >> the renovation of the pentagon has made it much harder for a reporter to just walk around. more and more spaces are now behind doors where i cannot go on this i am escorted. >> sunday, the national security correspondent on covering the military here in the u.s. and iraq and afghanistan. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is the linda feldman, a reporter from "the christian science monitor." tell us what you have learned about america since the passage of health care? guest: there has been a lot of turmoil and the last year, even longer, since the econom

. >> saturday, supreme court justices antonin and scalia on the constitution. is it a living document? >> do not pretend that this is producing a flexible system. to the contrary, it is producing what the constitution will produce. that is rigidity. we have to deal with an organization that is capable of passing laws in accordance with the powers given them by the constitution of the united states, which is the whole point of the constitution. "america and the courts" -- 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the latest on the census count. this is about 45 minutes. host: robert groves is director of the census bureau. this is the forum -- everybody in the united states receives this format. guest: the vast majority have. about 13 million households receive the bilingual form, spanish on one side english on the other. because of the two languages, it is a little longer because it is double in the questions. the vast majority of households should have received these by now. there are pockets here and there, deep in the mountains of the west. there are roads that are st

today, antonin scalia and steven briar speak on the constitution. is it a living document?flexible system. on the contrary, it is producing what the constitution will produce, and that is rigidity. we have to deal with an organization -- we have to be an organization that is capable passing laws in accordance with the powers given to us by the constitution of the united states, which is the whole point of the constitution. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the new c-span library has thousands of hours of video and every c-span program from 1987. this is cable's latest gift to america. >> in 2006, the united states began transferring some terrorist detainee's from guantanamo bay to terrorist de- radicalization camps in saudi arabia. since then, some program graduates have returned to terrorist activity. next, an event looking at de- radicalization programs and how they work. this is an hour. >> thank you for joining us here at the heritage

. >> saturday, supreme court justices antonin scalia and steven briar on the constitution. is it a living document? >> 1 thinks this is producing a flexible system. tuesday contrary, it is producing rigidity. >> we have to deal with an organization that is capable of passing laws in accordance with the powers given them by the constitution of the u.s. "america and the courts," saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> and look at the the foreign- policy challenges facing the united states. james rubin and francis townsend talk about issues including the future of iraq and afghanistan, chinese influence on foreign policy, and the prospects for using preemptive military action against iran. >> this year, we are exploring the second decade, 2010-2020. we are asking what is next for america. earlier this month, we heard candid analysis about the state of our economy. our speakers told us that the road to recovery would be a bumpy one and everyone from government to thanks to government need to make responsible decisions about how we spend and how we say if. tonight, we turn our attenti

justice scalia is not my favorite justice, but he is certainly the most quotable. is not a principled way of doing constitutional jurisprudence. that is why wethat is beyond thr discussion here. given what we have just gone through -- the right to keep and bear arms -- you look at what it meant, whether it was understood to be a privilege or immunity in 1868. it clearly was. the 14th amendment was put in in large part to protect the individual liberties of freed slaves and unionists in the border and southern states. it is deeply rooted in our tradition. the article that i mentioned, we suggest that the test is applied [unintelligible] i think that is an appropriate method of seeing whether a particular rite is covered by the privileges or immunities clause. it is quite clear that the right to keep and bear arms is so deeply rooted, so specifically described, that there really is no controversy that it would be protected. to stay or to get more faithful to the constitution and to do far more for the cause of freedom than merely extended the right to keep and bear a

he starts trying to talk my stories and one of my favorites of this moment was i said justice scalia tune of the first time you're father was never mentioned in "the new york times" was 1934 and he had a distinctive father, who was a ph.d. and come to america from sicily and had known hardly any english and gone on to earn his ph.d. at columbia and become a teacher of romance languages at brooklyn college and his father was quite distinguished and had won a very prestigious fellowships of florence in 1934. i said it was noted in "the new

justice scalia is not my favorite justice, but he is certainly the most quotable.what the justices do when they try to figure out when something is protected by the constitution is that they said around and they say is that fundamental? is that undue burden on something fundamental? that is not a principled way of doing constitutional jurisprudence. that is why we have debate over judicial activism. we have had to these debates, both in terms of legal cases and whenever a new supreme court justice or a lower court judge is nominated. we have the new so meiesotomayo. that has become a bit of a farce. that is beyond the scope of our discussion here. given what we have just gone through -- the right to keep and bear arms -- you look at what it meant, whether it was understood to be a privilege or immunity in 1868. it clearly was. the 14th amendment was put in in large part to protect the individual liberties of freed slaves and unionists in the border and southern states. it is deeply rooted in our tradition. the article that i mentioned, we suggest that the test is a