the supreme law of the united states. >> announcer: all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states is required to give their attention. >> announcer: land mark cases, c-span -- exploring the human story and constitutional dramas between 12 historic supreme court decisions. >>> number 759, earnest hernandez, petitioner vurz arizona. >>> number eight, rowe against wade. >> quite often in many of our decisions are ones the court took they are 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 helped stick together because they believe they're rule of law. >>> good evening and welcome to c-span's new series, "landmark cases." tonight and for 11 weeks we're going to be looking at 12 cases that affect the country and society. tonight or case is marbury versus madison. it came about between two founding fathers who developed an imit inty. we have two gusts at the table to help us understand the story and importance of this case in our country's history. akhil reed amar is a yal

in a nutshell it means the court, not just the u.s. supreme court but all courts in our system, state court lower and federal court has the ability to disregard even an act of congress or a state law if in the judge's view that act of congress or a state law is inconsistent with the judge's understand of the constitution itself. now, the interesting thing about judicial review is although marbury is the first case about judicial review, it actually -- judicial review wasn't that vigorous before the civil war. so marbury becomes in some ways more important because of stuff that happens later in our story. and we look back and read some things into marbury. at the time, perhaps it was a more narrow decision than you remember it being. >> well, you call it a story and it is a story to tell. as we begin tonight we want to introduce you to several names you'll be hearing throughout the 90 minutes and understand the role they played in the marbury versus madison case coming to the supreme court. let's start with the principals, john adams 1800 where

the arkansas supreme court ruled against them. the supreme court in a 6-3 -- and theversed supreme court does that from time to time. the supreme court said in 2015 that not only gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry, but they have the right to go along with marriage. that means both spouses sign of the birth certificate. justice gorsuch wrote a dissent joined by justices thomas and alito -- it was surprising because of its sarcasm. it seemed to be mocking the lack of clarity. it was clear that these three justices not only disagreed with the majority here, but also with hodges. this is an the same day the supreme court granted review for about whether or not a business can refuse to serve a gay and lesbian wedding on the grounds of the beliefs of the owner of the business. intervene. i'm not sure that is correct. there were three dissenting justices. per curium,ion was because the case was disposed of on the brief, the justice who defend it does not necessarily have to note their dissent. it is possible that this was a 5

how did it get to the supreme court? >> well, you still had the federal issue in this case and that's how it gets to the supreme court of the united states. and that in a sense is, you know, part of campbell's strategy here, which is frustrated in the louisiana courts where he knows that he's really not going to get the relief that he wants, he understands and if he can provide a federal issue into the case, then he can get to the supreme court of the united states. and that's where the 13th and 14th amendments come in as, you know, really not just something that works in the sense of this tremendous hoots pa of taking these provisions that were clearly designed to foster reconstruction and to protect african americans and using them as a weapon. you know, these amendments that are designed to be a shield for after cans and americans in the reinstructed south and sus using them as a sword to try to cut down their annually enacted legislation. that's somewhere where he exercises both the hoots pa to do that and also has th

the supreme court hardly ever says no. the government says we need one answer. >> in a situation where the question concerns the constitutionality of government action, the supreme court can be fairly motivated. >> most policies, there are different policies of many areas of the law that operate differently in different circuits. we muddle on. panelists these chance to respond to each other. i only had seven minutes. does anyone else want to respond? my first question is justice gorsuch, i think he was only there for the april sitting. we have some sense of him. how do you think he is likely to change the court used on the little bit that we know? what would our conversation look like have the other justice been on the court? that is open to any of you. >> i predict that liberals who look back on this glia days as days as the good old days. [laughter] yet to remember that what we have seen in the last 18 months is unprecedented in u.s. history. in 21 out of 24, the senate denied confirmation. never before has the senate sai

the u.s. supreme court. we have an outstanding group of scholars, journalists, and judges to talk about the supreme court and the major changes to come. before turning to the program, i want to thank a number of people and organizations who made this possible. the irvine theater, including robin darling and jeff stamper the special events team, from the law school, our new --erim dean, and thanks also to c-span for recording this event for the first time. i also want to single out for special thanks the man in the middle of the stage. uci laws founding law school dean. [no audio] [applause] >> as you all know earlier this month, he left uci to take up a position at our sister school at uc berkeley. it is no exaggeration to say that none of us would he here today if it were not for him, neither this event or the law school with such a reputation for teaching and the cause of justice. it was your vision that brought the school to life your hard , work that made it flourish, and your kindness which made it a joy

the supreme court up held a monopoly of slaughterhouses in new orleans in order to protect health. they were the first cases in which they commented on the meaning of the 14th amendment. the supreme court historical society hosted this hourlong program. >> good evening, everyone. my name is jim o'hara, and i'm chairman of the supreme court historical society's library committee and a member of the society's board of trusties. it is my pleasant task to welcome all of you here this evening. this is the fourth and final lecture of the society's 2015 lecture series. professor randy barnett will lecture this evening on the three narratives of slaughterhouse. before i proceed i'm asked to request of you you turn off all cellphones and all other electrical or electronic equipment because even in silent modes, they cause considerable interference with the sound system in the courtroom. and you can do that now. thank you. i would like to express the society's sincere gratitude to our hosts this evening, justice clarence thomas. justice thomas has been very generous and giving of his time to

the u.s. supreme court. justices have been willing to come back to earlier cases, as they did with schenck fortysomething years later and say, i think the law and the constitution mean something different than what my predecessor said. host: rob, you are on. >> how are you guys tonight? host: we are great, thanks. >> this is a two-part question. , is that a german last name? host: what is your second question? speech --s freedom of what schenck began, how does that apply to today when you get into tabloids -- tabloid media, or texting and bullying? how is free speech protected today? polishtance, the catholic priest who came out as a homosexual -- this is not an american issue, this is a world issue. whopolish catholic priest said that the catholic church is riddled with homosexual people, that cannot marry and are suppressed, so they abuse other people because they are being abused. host: i am going to jump in. do you know anything about charles holmes nationality, and does it matter. excuse me charles schen

the constitution. followed by a supreme court civil society discussion on the ruling. and supreme court justice stephen breyer on the influence of foreign relations on u.s. security and civil liberty. coming up today here on c-span 3. >>> american history tv is in prime time all week with our original series landmark cases. tonight, the supreme court decision that limited the president's power to seize private property. youngstown sheet and tube company versus sawyer. it's the result of president truman taking over steel mill also to avert a strike during the korean war. american history tv prime time begins tonight at 8:00 eastern. >>> all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> landmark cases. c-span's 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, petitioner versus arizona. >> we'll hear arguments, number 18, roe agai

the series. he is a supreme court expert. or of numerous books on the court including "the supreme court: the personalities and rivalries that define america." thanks for being back. >> great to be back. >> paul cassell is with us for the first time. former federal judge for the district of utah from 2002 to 2007. served as u.s. associate deputy attorney general from '86 to '88 and now a professor of criminal law and procedure at the utah university of law. thanks for being here. >> thank for having me. >> what are the constitutional issues in the miranda case? >> well, miranda settles or tries to settle a question that's been around the country for several hundred years now. the question is how much pressure can police officers put on a suspect when they're trying to get information from that suspect? and what sorts of rules are going to regulate whether confessions can be used in court. >> as we have talked about in the series, so many amendments to the constitution concerned criminal rights, rights of prosecution. what is i

the u.s. supreme court. hadn't been done before that a member who had written an amicus brief would do the argument. and burkman took it upon himself to contact kearns and write the supreme court and say to the supreme court i'd like to present oral arguments. it really was important for that reason as well. >> larry is in naples, florida. hi, larry. >> caller: i would like for you to comment starting in weeks decision, which the police could do no wrong. and i think the supreme court, starting with weeks going all the way up to mapp was the start of judicial activism. i'd like for you to address that and then mapp was to the states the 14th amendment which has led us to where we are now. is that not correct? >> was this scene as the start of you dish activism? >> so i think that the court was certainly a more activist court than previous courts had been in the liberal direction. and so i think that the warren court was seen as starting the criminal procedure revolution and created a number of cases that exp

the old senate chamber. of course the court didn't move into this building until 1935. now, as i mentioned today the supreme court sits very near where john marshall delivered his decision in marbury v. madison. the hotel in which he announced that decision is gone. the decision itself will remain the solid foundation of the role of this court in articulating the meaning of the constitution. when john marshall announced his decision, most governments if not all of them, consider the constitution to be a political document. marshall's decision in marbury made clear it was a legal document, that it was law. and that view in turn shaped the fu fundamental role of this court and the nation's government. that is why when you leave the building down stairs and you see the statue honoring john marshall you will also see etched in the marble from marbury and sp of his other decisions. as i mentioned, you have a very unique opportunity tonight to reflect on the great chief justice. and guiding you in those reflections will be this evening's speaker professor jeffrey rosen. profezzer rosen has taught at the george wa

the supreme court historical society and the supreme court fellows alumni association hosted the event. >>> well, good evening to everybody. i'm jaer lib in. i'm a vice president of the supreme court historical society. delighted to welcome all of you here to this very interesting program we're having tonight. before we get too far into it, however, i must ask everybody to be sure your cell phones, tablets, whatever you have are totally off, because otherwise it does interfere with the sound system in the courtroom. thank you for that. and we're here tonight with a program we're coresponse organize with the supreme court fellows alumni association. we're delighted to be a coresponse or with them. the program was brought to us by several people from that organization. i want to be sure i get them right. stephanie new bold, matthew did he chess any and elizabeth woodcock, who really came up with the idea for the program, and we're very happy to be here to present it to you. we're also particularly happy to have as our host this evening justice brieier, who will be speaking to you in a mi

and the appellate court, it's the arizona supreme court, the constitutional issue is the sixth amendmentd the court summarily rejects the claim that the confession was improperly put in evidence. the detectives testified they informed him of his legal rights. the only question was was it a violation of the sixth amendment. the court said we hold a confession may be admissible when without an attorney if it's voluntary and does not violate the constitutional rights of the defendant. >> the sixth amendment says what? >> it says that you have the right to effective assistance of counsel. the argument that miranda's lawyers are making is, look, when talking to detective cooley, who we saw a moment ago, he didn't have a lawyer then. he should have had a lawyer at that point. the problem with that argument is that for 170 years in american history the rule has been you get a lawyer once you go to court, once charges have formally been filed. historically the sixth amendment wouldn't have been in play. nor would the fifth amendment, which says you have the right not to be compelled to be a witn

the. -- its diversity. but, courts respect to the supreme court. stice department would have to show that colleges are not following the guidelines set by the supreme court. not just that they happen disagree with the idea of affirmative action. oft: what is the history affirmative action in the country? how did we get from the point where there's discrimination to the point how far colleges can go is being controlled? guest: you have to start in the era of segregation. many colleges banned black students and effectively banned latina students. --ot of fire education latino students. a lot of higher education was mostly white. aesident lyndon johnson gave famous speech about how you cannot say a race is fair if one of the contestants has been in shackles. he introduced this idea that you a persononsider where comes from and their relative advantages and disadvantages. colleges started to create programs. it wasn't enough to just say we welcome all students were all applicants. they had to recognize the severe inequalities that were faced by those st

the u.s. supreme court. we were talking about earlier, obscenity was an issue the court was exploring tentatively. it caught their eye. we look to the records of warren and tom clark and find that eight of the nine justices on the court granted the writ of certiorari. so they really wanted to hear this case. the one holdout was justice felix frankfurter. what is fascinating about him is he wrote a decision called wolf versus colorado. in that he did something really remarkable, which is he declared using what we call the incorporation doctrine, that the fourth amendment was a fundamental freedom, due of as much protection as possible. >> part of the ordered liberties of being american. >> the concept of ordered liberty. but he also then said in the next paragraph that the exclusionary rule, which he called a remedy which is judicially created, could not be extended to the states. he did not find merit in that idea. felix frankfurter didn't want to hear this case. he was famous for not wanting to rehear decis

up next a discussion on the case from the supreme court historical society and the supreme court alumni association. delighted to welcome you to the interesting program we're having tonight. before we get too far into it, however, i must ask everybody to be sure your cell phones, tablets, whatever you are totally off. because otherwise it does interfere with the sound system. thank you for that. we're here tonight with a program we're cosponsoring with the supreme court fellows alumni association. we're delighted to be the cosponsor with them. the program was brought to us by several people from that organization. i want to be sure i get them right. stefanie newbold. matthew dechesney, and elizabeth witcook came up with the idea of the program. we're also particularly happy to have as our host this evening justice breyer who will be speaking to you in a minute. i will just tell you briefly what you don't know already about justice breyer. he is a californian, studied at stanford, oxford and then harvard law school, became a law clerk here at the supreme court in 1964, which happens to b

how did we get from there to the supreme court? what's the route? >> whenever there's a federal question, you can appeal to the u.s. supreme court by filing a petition for writ of certiori. so that's what mapp did. and as we were talking about earlier. obscenity was an issue that the court was exploring quite tentatively. so it caught their eye. and we look back to the records of earl warren and tom clark, and we find that eight of the nine justices on the court granted the writ of sertiori. they wanted to hear the case. the one holdout was justice felix frankfurter. what's fascinating about frankfurter is he wrote a decision called wolf v. colorado. he did something remarkable, he declared what using the incorporation doctrine, that the fourth amendment was a fundamental freedom. duly of as much protection as possible. >> but the order of liberties of being an american. >> the concept of order of liberty. >> also then said in the next paragraph that the exclusionary rule which he called a remedy which is judicially, could not be extended to the stat

the legality of that action was presented to the supreme court. this is the story of a president's power contested. >> and that's what we're going to talk about tonight, the president's power and what the supreme court had to say about its limitations. let me introduce you to our two guests we will have for the next 90 minutes. michael gearhart who is the author of a book called "the power of a president." and william howard is -- what are the very distinct issues about the steel seizure case? what's at the heart of this? >> at its heart, it's a story of a case about presidential power and its limits during times of war. and it puts north special themes that a president can do during times of emergencies that may not be expressly stated in the constitution and the limits that commerce and courts can place on it. >> what makes it a landmark case. >> the issue the criminal court is unable to avoid is the constitutionality is the president's authority to seize the steel mills. i think what makes it historic, it's one it's about structure, and most of

parish, the supreme court said two things. one thing it said was the constitution speaks of liberty not liberty of contracts. so it rejects the whole notion of liberty of contract. the second thing it does is talk a little bit about the kinds of burdens on society. and it actually kind of hints at rejecting the whole notion of laissez-faire economics in the sense it says actually substandard wages actually turn out to be a subsidy on the people in favor of businesses. so it kind of turns the whole idea of lochner around. the one thing it doesn't do, though, and i'm sure randy is going to agree with this -- it gets rid of the notion of substantive due process. people don't talk about it in those terms anymore, but substantive due process in fact doesn't die. we still have a court that is -- >> actually, i think it's important to say that the term substantive due process was never used by the court during the so-called lochner era. it was simply a term made up by the critics to criticize what they were doing. so substantive due p

the constitution is the foundation of our government and the standard to which the supreme court of the united states looks when it decides the cases that come before it. the supreme court case files are preserved here at the national archives, as are opinions, docket books, minutes, attorney rules with the earliest records starting in 1790. we also have the audio recordings of the supreme court and the majority are digitized and available online. we're working on a project to prepare these digital recordings for our online catalog and hope fof them available by september of this year. since its founding in 1934, the national archives has hosted supreme court justices in person as well as as in its records. some of the justices we will discuss tonight have had close connections with its agency in the 1950s, justice felix frankfurter served on the board of the national publications. followed by justices brennan, rehnquist, and souter. >> starting in 2012, the national archives launched a series of conversations with supreme court justices of the united states. including associate justice

upon graduation from law school she clerked for the main supreme judicial court, she is a trusty emerita of bowdoin college, she is the secretary of the supreme court fellows alumni association and the treasurer of the new hampshire chapter of the federal bar association. ms. woodstock will also serve as the moderator this evening. i could say a great deal of enormously favorable things about each panelist, which i would do if we had time, but they have limited time to film this and put it on television so i won't. i want, rather, you to share their insights about clarence gideon and his famous case. ms. woodcock, the floor is yours. thank you very much. >> thank you, justice breyer. earl warren's biography ed crae wrote of the gideon decision that no tale so affirmed the american democracy, no story broadcast around the world so clearly proclaimed that not just the rich received justice in the american courts. i'd like to ask my panelists, first of all, to start off a little bit and tell us your general thoughts briefly on this historic decision. judge dyk, perhaps you could start us of

the u.s. supreme court. he is a colonizationist, someone who advocates a former slave cannot live peacefully in the united states and they should be removed voluntarily to places like liberia. he is a catholic living in the large diocese of maryland. i think most important for thinking about dred scott, he is someone who has fought for many, many years about the question of free black citizenship even before we get to 1857. it is a question that has been on taney's mind since the 1820s and the 1830s when as attorney general he had already begun to work out his theory about black citizenship, and we know his conclusion is that black people cannot be citizens of the united states. >> well, the background to tell you more numerically about the country at this point, the total population of the united states in the 1850s was 31 plus million people. slaves, who counted for an additional 3.4 or 4 million people, and there were about half a million free blacks in the united states. did the free blacks, for example,

the federal court. but they appealed that case directly to the u.s. supreme court. nd that was the case that was heard by the supreme court in 1856, and again in 1857 when they actually rendered their decision. it is is interesting that sanford, his name is on the case. and he doesn't come into it until 1854 when they go to the federal court. and sanford is a key player in that we know the scotts were returned to slavery by the supreme court. yet they were set free in this room just a couple of months later. and the way that happened was that sanford died in new york state. and upon his death the ownership of the scotts reverted to his sister. and technically to her husband, dr. chafy who was from massachusetts. he was an abolitionist and a sitting member of congress at this time. so suddenly he finds that he's the owner of the most famous slaves in the united states just literally overnight. and he wanted to divest himself of the slaves as quickly as he could before the press found out basically. what he did is he sold the scott family for a token dollar to one of t

. ♪ >> all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states. ses," c-span's special history series produced in cooperation with the national constitution center, exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. >> the petitioner versus arizona. >> we will hear arguments, roe versus wade. >> quite often, many of their most famous decisions, they were things 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 the rule of law. ♪ susan: good evening and welcome to c-span and the national constitution center's landmark cases. tonight we will be examining a 1944 war powers case before the supreme court. it is the story of korematsu versus the united states. fred korematsu was the japanese-american who challenged the right of the government to forcibly detain people during world war ii. you may know a bit about this history, american history

supreme court kicked off its term this month with only eight justices upon the death of supreme court justice antonen scalia. tonight we hear about the court and the love of law from two justices. let me take note of the fact they both have written books. justice sotomayor's was called my beloved world. justice ginsburg was called my own words, which is a compilation of speeches and essays she's written. looking back on your life, justice ginsburg, and thinking even though it was incorporated in speeches, what was that like for you to put your own life in focus and how was that? >> my own words, as you said, is a collection of speeches, bench announcements, tributes to colleagues.q@ it's not -- >> rose: a biography. it's not a biography of me to the extent my life is told, it's in the introductory passages that my official biographers wrote. that biography will come out sometime in the distant future. ( laughter ) >> rose: your book, my beloved world, you said i am my mother. what did you mean? >> as i tell her, good and bad. ( laughter ) i am my mother's drive. she aspired to be more