CSPAN3 — Melissa Murray The U.S. Constitution
20260822 175700 UTC
1219 transcript segments
Original Broadcaster Captioning (Enhanced)
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:00] REALLY COULD GO TO.
[00:00:02] SO I THINK SHE READ TO TO
[00:00:04] TRAVEL, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO
[00:00:07] TALK WITH SHANNON GARVEY LATER. AND IF YOU WANT TO GO TO BLOCK
[00:00:10] ISLAND, YOU SHOULD READ HER BOOK. WHEN YOU GET HOME TONIGHT.
[00:00:13] AND THEN MY GRANDMOTHER,
[00:00:15] BARBARA, TRAVELED ALL OVER THE WORLD.
[00:00:18] HER SHE LIVED IN CHINA. YOU KNOW, SHE TRAVELED A LOT FOR
[00:00:23] WORK. SHE TRAVELED WITH US, BUT SHE
[00:00:25] MOVED AWAY FROM HER FAMILY ON
[00:00:27] THE EAST COAST TO MIDLAND, TEXAS, AS WELL.
[00:00:31] AND WAS LONELY. AND SHE LOST A BABY WHEN SHE WAS
[00:00:34] A CHILD. WHEN HER CHILD WAS THREE, SHE
[00:00:39] COULDN'T TRAVEL BACK. WHEN HER MOTHER GOT INTO A CAR ACCIDENT BECAUSE SHE WAS
[00:00:42] PREGNANT WITH ANOTHER CHILD. AND SHE WROTE ABOUT DEPRESSION
[00:00:46] THAT SHE FACED. AND SO I THINK SHE READ BECAUSE
[00:00:49] SHE ALSO TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE CHARACTERS, LIKE THEY WERE
[00:00:53] FRIENDS FOR COMPANIONSHIP. AND SO YEAH, I MEAN, WHEN THAT
[00:00:57] TO YOUR NAME DOCTOR AND YOUR
[00:00:59] TWINS SISTER IS NAMED AFTER THEN OF COURSE LIKE TO START A BOOK
[00:01:03] CLUB IS THE LEAST I COULD DO. YOU CAN WATCH THE REST OF THIS
[00:01:07] PROGRAM AND ALL OF OUR BOOK PROGRAMS ANY TIME ONLINE AT BOOK
[00:01:10] TV DOT ORG HAVE EVERY SUNDAY ON
[00:01:15] C-SPAN TWO. IT'S BOOK TV TELEVISION FOR SERIOUS READERS, CHECK YOUR
[00:01:19] PROGRAM GUIDE OR VISIT BOOK TV WARD FOR A FULL SCHEDULE OF
[00:01:23] AUTHOR EVENTS.
[00:01:25] MELISSA MURRAY IS THE STOKES PROFESSOR OF LAW AT NEW YORK
[00:01:29] UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW. SHE'S THE COAUTHOR OF THE NUMBER ONE NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER,
[00:01:33] THE TRUMP INDICTMENTS THE HISTORIC CHARGING DOCUMENTS WITH COMMENTARY, CO-HOST OF A TOP
[00:01:36] RANGE PODCAST, STRICT SCRUTINY, WHICH IS ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT
[00:01:40] AND THE LEGAL CULTURE THAT SURROUNDS IT. AND A REGULAR COMMENTATOR ON ME NOW.
[00:01:44] SHE IS FREQUENTLY CALLED UPON BY NATIONAL MEDIA OUTLETS SUCH AS
[00:01:48] AND PR AND PBS TO OFFER EXPERT
[00:01:51] YET ACCESSIBLE COMMENTARY ON THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISIONS AND
[00:01:53] OTHER PRESSING LEGAL MATTERS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. MURRAY IS A MEMBER OF THE NEW
[00:01:57] YORK BAR AND LIVES IN NEW YORK CITY WITH HER FAMILY.
[00:01:59] SHE'LL BE IN CONVERSATION WITH ERIC HOLDER, A CIVIL RIGHTS
[00:02:04] LEADER WHO IS CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC
[00:02:06] REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE. HE SERVED AS THE 82ND ATTORNEY
[00:02:10] GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA,
[00:02:13] THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN TO HOLD THAT OFFICE.
[00:02:16] NOW, A SENIOR COUNSEL AT COVINGTON AND BURLING. HE LIVES IN WASHINGTON, D.C.,
[00:02:20] WITH HIS WIFE, DR. SHARON MALONE. AND THEY HAVE THREE CHILDREN. HE IS THE AUTHOR OF OUR
[00:02:24] UNFINISHED MARCH THE VIOLENT PAST AND IMPERILED FUTURE OF THE VOTE.
[00:02:28] A HISTORY, A CRISIS, A PLAN.
[00:02:30] NOW, PLEASE JOIN ME IN WELCOMING
[00:02:32] MELISSA MURRAY AND ERIC HOLDER.
[00:02:50] HEY, EVERYBODY.
[00:02:54] HEY. ALL RIGHT, LET'S BE HAPPY.
[00:02:56] LET'S HAVE SOME FUN. WE HAVE GOT A GREAT BOOK HERE
[00:03:02] THAT DEBUTED WHERE NUMBER THREE ON THE NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER
[00:03:09] LOVE. WE WERE BACKSTAGE AND TALKING ABOUT THIS AND MELISSA SAID,
[00:03:13] WHAT DO YOU THINK? HOW DO YOU THINK JIMMY MADISON WOULD FEEL ABOUT THE FACT THAT,
[00:03:16] YOU KNOW, I'VE WRITTEN THIS BOOK AND IT'S SO WHAT DO YOU THINK
[00:03:19] OLD JAMES MADISON WOULD SAY? I THINK HE'D FIRST WANT TO KNOW
[00:03:22] WHO TAUGHT HER TO READ THE FIRST QUESTION.
[00:03:27] HE WAS A MAN OF HIS TIME, A GENIUS.
[00:03:29] BUT THEY'RE IMPERFECT IN THEIR WAYS. ALL RIGHT.
[00:03:32] WELL, IT'S GOOD THAT YOU ALL CAME. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WANT TO THANK POLITICS AND
[00:03:35] PROSE FOR HOSTING THIS EVENT.
[00:03:37] THIS IS A SPECIAL BOOK.
[00:03:39] THIS IS A SPECIAL WOMAN WHO I'VE
[00:03:42] HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF KNOWING FOR A GOOD NUMBER OF YEARS. NOT THAT MANY, BUT A NUMBER OF
[00:03:46] YEARS. 2013, 2013. THAT'S SORT OF JUST SHELBY
[00:03:49] COUNTY VERSUS HOLDER, YOU KNOW? BUT YOU KNOW WHAT'S NOT TO.
[00:03:53] THAT'S ON MY MIND NOW. BUT SO LET ME LET'S LET'S GET
[00:03:57] RIGHT TO IT. SOME OF YOU, THE CONSTITUTION AS
[00:04:01] KIND OF A FIXED DOCUMENT, YOU
[00:04:03] KNOW, THIS NOTION OF ORIGINALISM
[00:04:05] AND IT'S KIND OF STATIC, LIKE, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?
[00:04:08] I MEAN, DO YOU THINK THAT THESE FOLKS WHO DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING
[00:04:12] ABOUT AIRPLANES OR THE INTERNET
[00:04:16] OR SOCIAL MEDIA, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, OR HELP FREE PEOPLE, YOU
[00:04:20] KNOW, WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT IT? HOW DO YOU VIEW IT?
[00:04:23] SO I THINK ORIGINALISM IS A
[00:04:26] THEORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION THAT WAS COOKED
[00:04:30] UP IN A METH LAB OF CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCE IN THE 1980S.
[00:04:36] THIS IS WHAT I LOVE ABOUT HER STAIRS DOESN'T HOLD BACK, YOU
[00:04:38] KNOW, IT DOESN'T. THIS IS WHAT THIS IS. THIS IS THE KIND OF EVENT WE'RE
[00:04:42] GOING TO HAVE HERE. OKAY. A METH LAB OF WHAT? CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCE. THERE WE GO.
[00:04:48] ORIGINALISM, I THINK, IS MEANT TO BE REGRESSIVE. IT'S PURPOSEFULLY REGRESSIVE.
[00:04:51] IF YOU ARE INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION IN THE WAY THAT THE
[00:04:54] FRAMERS AND IT'S ALWAYS THE FRAMERS, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE DIFFERENT POINTS OF ORIGINAL
[00:04:58] MEANING IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, BUT IT'S ALWAYS THE FRAMERS AND
[00:05:01] 1787 THAT'S THE THE REFERENT AND TIME ONE.
[00:05:04] BUT IF YOU ARE DOING THAT, YOU'RE NECESSARILY WEEDING
[00:05:08] CERTAIN PEOPLE OUT. RIGHT?
[00:05:10] SO IN 1787, THEY WERE NOT THINKING ABOUT WOMEN.
[00:05:13] ABIGAIL ADAMS WRITES TO HER HUSBAND, JOHN WHEN THEY ARE
[00:05:17] WRITING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND SAYS, YOU KNOW, REMEMBER THE LADIES? BECAUSE ALL HUSBANDS WOULD BE
[00:05:21] TYRANTS IF THEY COULD. AND THEY'RE NOT REMEMBERING THE LADIES.
[00:05:25] THEY'RE ONLY THINKING ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE IN SO FAR AS THEY CAN THINK ABOUT HOW TO PRESERVE
[00:05:29] THEIR RIGHTS OF PROPERTY IN THEM. SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE STARTING
[00:05:34] FROM TIME ONE 1787, YOU'RE
[00:05:37] NECESSARY DOING CERTAIN KINDS OF WORK RIGHT?
[00:05:40] I THINK PART OF ORIGINALISM AND I THINK IT'S A VALID PART SAYS
[00:05:44] AND SUGGESTS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL
[00:05:46] CHANGE SHOULD ONLY HAPPEN THROUGH THE FORMAL AMENDMENT
[00:05:50] PROCESS AND THAT THAT IS ONE WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT.
[00:05:53] I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. WE ALSO HAVE JUDICIAL
[00:05:57] INTERPRETATION AND THIS WAS REALLY THE THING THAT ORIGINALISM IS RESPONDING TO.
[00:06:01] ORIGINALISM WANTS TO TAKE THE
[00:06:03] JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION THAT IS INHERENT IN JUDICIAL
[00:06:07] INTERPRETATION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW OUT OF THE HANDS OF
[00:06:10] JUDGES, AND INSTEAD PUT IT IN THE HANDS OF MORE CONSERVATIVE
[00:06:14] JUDGES WHO WILL INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
[00:06:18] I THINK THERE ARE LOTS OF POINTS IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE THE
[00:06:20] FRAMERS WISELY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
[00:06:23] THEY DON'T HAVE A MONOPOLY ON WISDOM, AND THEY THINK THAT THIS
[00:06:27] DOCUMENT WILL CHANGE. PART OF THAT IS THE ARTICLE FIVE AMENDMENT PROCESS.
[00:06:30] BUT ALSO PART OF IT IS SORT OF THE FACT THAT THE TERMS ARE
[00:06:33] BROAD AND OPEN TEXTURE. THERE IS A NINTH AMENDMENT THAT
[00:06:35] SAYS EXPLICIT, ATLEE, THAT WE SHOULD NOT CONSTRUE THE FACT OF
[00:06:39] THE ENUMERATION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS AS EVIDENCE THAT OTHER
[00:06:44] RIGHTS ARE NOT ACKNOWLEDGED OR PROTECTED, LIKE THERE WILL BE THINGS THAT ARE IMPLIED AND LOOK
[00:06:48] AT ARTICLE TWO. THE EXECUTIVE. THERE'S SO MUCH THAT'S NOT
[00:06:53] SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED THAT WE TAKE AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH.
[00:06:57] NOW CONSTITUTION SAYS NOTHING
[00:06:59] ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY. AND YET.
[00:07:01] ALL RIGHT, SO I MEAN, THERE ARE
[00:07:04] LOTS OF PLACES WHERE LAB OF CONSERVATISM, BECAUSE THAT'S
[00:07:08] WHERE THAT CAME FROM. OKAY. GO AHEAD. WHAT A BODY PART.
[00:07:11] BUT LOOK IT. SO, AGAIN, THAT'S ONE BEEF I
[00:07:16] HAVE WITH ORIGINALISM. I THINK IT'S RESULTS ORIENTED AND I THINK IT'S INTENDED TO BE
[00:07:21] RESULTS ORIENTED. THE OTHER THING IS, IF YOU WANT TO DO ORIGINALISM, THEN BE
[00:07:25] FAITHFUL ABOUT IT.
[00:07:25] ORIGINALISM DEPENDS ON READING,
[00:07:31] READING AND DOING HISTORY IN A PARTICULAR WAY, AND YOU CAN'T BE
[00:07:35] ITINERANT OR SELECTIVE ABOUT THE HISTORY THAT YOU USE AND
[00:07:38] PROFESSED ORIGINALIST SITES ON
[00:07:41] THIS COURT ARE CONSTANTLY
[00:07:43] SELECTIVE AND CHERRY PICKED THE HISTORY. YOU KNOW, JUSTICE THOMAS, FOR
[00:07:47] EXAMPLE, LOVES TO TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS.
[00:07:51] FOR EXAMPLE, AND LEAVES OUT BROAD SWATHS OF IT IN HIS ZEAL
[00:07:54] TO GET TO A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF THE
[00:07:58] RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENT. SO I GUESS IF YOU WANT TO DO ORIGINALISM, THAT IS A CHOICE.
[00:08:02] THAT IS SOMETHING YOU CAN DO. BUT THERE IS A MORE FAITHFUL WAY TO DO IT.
[00:08:06] I THINK JUSTICE JACKSON, FOR EXAMPLE, IS AN ORIGINALIST
[00:08:10] HERSELF, BUT SHE IS NOT STARTING AT 1787.
[00:08:13] SHE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE ARE OTHER MOMENTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
[00:08:17] MEANING THAT ARE ORIGINAL, LIKE THE FRAMING OF THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS.
[00:08:20] AND I THINK SHE IS MORE ECUMENICAL AND CONSIDERED ABOUT
[00:08:26] ALL OF THE HISTORY THAT SHE MARSHALS IN COMING OUT THAT.
[00:08:29] AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK SHE MAKES VERY GOOD POINTS IN HER
[00:08:32] ARGUMENTS BECAUSE EFFECTIVELY SHE'S FORCING THE OTHER SIDE TO
[00:08:38] RECKON WITH THE HOLES IN THEIR METHODOLOGY BY PLUGGING THEM
[00:08:42] HERSELF. OKAY. NOW THE US CONSTITUTION
[00:08:46] COMPREHENDS HAVE AN ANNOTATED GUIDE FOR THE MODERN READER.
[00:08:49] THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I
[00:08:51] WOULD JUST ASSUME WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, GOING TO BE A REAL PAGE
[00:08:55] TURNER, SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE UNBELIEVABLY POPULAR.
[00:08:57] I'M JUST BEING HONEST HERE. JUST BEING HONEST.
[00:09:01] AND BUT IT IS. BUT IT IS. WHAT IS IT THAT MADE YOU AT THIS
[00:09:05] MOMENT DECIDE, I'M GOING TO DO A
[00:09:08] GUIDE FOR THE MODERN READER WITH
[00:09:11] REGARD TO THE US CONSTITUTION AND WHY NOW?
[00:09:13] FIRST OF ALL, I'M HURT
[00:09:18] GENUINELY. I DIDN'T TAKE ANY OF YOUR CLASSES, BUT I MEAN, I JUST KIND
[00:09:21] OF, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS YOUR
[00:09:26] LOSS. AND THERE'S NO QUESTION YOUR CRIMINOLOGY THERE BACK FOR MORE
[00:09:29] OF SOME OF MY STUDENTS ARE HERE.
[00:09:31] SO I SHOULD SAY, FIRST OF ALL, I
[00:09:33] LIVE IN NEW YORK CITY, BUT I'M A GIRL FROM FLORIDA. RIGHT.
[00:09:36] AND I GREW UP IN THE 1990S IN FLORIDA. AND TO LIVE CREW WAS HUGE IN
[00:09:42] FLORIDA. MY PARENTS WERE JAMAICAN IMMIGRANTS, SO I WASN'T ALLOWED TO LISTEN TO THEM, WHICH MEANT
[00:09:45] THAT I LISTENED TO HOOCHIE MAMA ALL THE TIME.
[00:09:49] YES.
[00:09:51] SO BACK IN MAYBE LIKE 2021, I
[00:09:54] WAS IN THE TWITTER STREETS ALL THE TIME.
[00:09:57] THIS IS WHEN TWITTER WAS REALLY FUN.
[00:10:00] AND ONE DAY I SAW THAT LUTHER
[00:10:03] CAMPBELL, UNCLE LUKE FROM TWO LIVE CREW WAS IN THESE TWITTER
[00:10:06] STREETS AND HE HAD A LOT TO SAY
[00:10:08] ABOUT WHAT JOE BIDEN, THEN THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE DOING.
[00:10:11] SO, YOU KNOW, JOE BIDEN SHOULD DO THIS. JOE BIDEN SHOULD DO THAT, JOE. BUT I WAS JUST READING THIS LIST
[00:10:15] AND I WAS LIKE, JOE BIDEN CAN'T DO ANY OF THESE THINGS.
[00:10:18] LIKE NO PRESIDENT CAN DO ANY OF THESE THINGS. AND IT OCCURRED TO ME, UNCLE
[00:10:21] LUKE HASN'T READ THE
[00:10:23] CONSTITUTION IN YOU'RE LAUGHING,
[00:10:26] BUT UNCLE LUKE IS RUNNING FOR CONGRESS RIGHT NOW.
[00:10:29] SO I REALLY NEED FOR HIM TO READ THE CONSTITUTION.
[00:10:33] SO IT IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT IF HE HADN'T READ IT, THERE
[00:10:36] PROBABLY A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T READ THE CONSTITUTION EITHER.
[00:10:40] AND, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I HAD TWO KIDS IN PUBLIC
[00:10:44] SCHOOL IN NEW YORK CITY, AND I WAS GOING TO THEIR SCHOOLS TO TEACH ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION
[00:10:47] BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A CIVICS EDUCATION CURRICULUM IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
[00:10:51] AND SO, LIKE, IF LIKE IF I WASN'T DOING THIS, WHO WOULD BE DOING IT?
[00:10:55] NO ONE WOULD BE DOING IT. WE NEED TO HAVE AN INFORMED AND
[00:10:58] ENGAGED CITIZENRY. THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON.
[00:11:02] IF YOU READ THIS BOOK, YOU WILL SEE QUITE CLEARLY THAT THE
[00:11:05] FRAMERS ARE GOING THROUGH TRAUMA
[00:11:07] WHEN THEY SIT DOWN IN 1787 TO WRITE THE CONSTITUTION LIKE THEY
[00:11:11] HAVE THE TRAUMA OF THE COLONIAL PERIOD WHERE THE BRITISH CROWN
[00:11:14] AND THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT ARE LITERALLY ON THEIR NECKS.
[00:11:17] ALL OF THE TIME. AND THEN THEY HAVE THE TRAUMA OF
[00:11:20] TRYING TO FIGHT A REVOLUTION AGAINST THE GREATEST GLOBAL SUPERPOWER THE WORLD HAS EVER
[00:11:24] SEEN. AND THEY'RE DOING IT WITH A GOVERNMENT THAT IS HELD TOGETHER
[00:11:27] BY GUM AND FRIENDSHIP BRACELETS
[00:11:31] AND THEY REALIZE IN THAT MOMENT
[00:11:33] IN 1787, THEY HAVE TO MAKE A
[00:11:35] GOVERNMENT THAT IS POWERFUL ENOUGH TO WORK, BUT NOT SO
[00:11:39] POWERFUL THAT IT RUNS ROUGHSHOD OVER THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.
[00:11:43] AND SO THEY DO THIS STRUCTURALLY
[00:11:44] BY DIVIDING GOVERNMENT POWER BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
[00:11:49] AND THEN DIVIDING FEDERAL POWER BETWEEN THE THREE COORDINATE
[00:11:51] BRANCHES, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, AND THEN THEY REALIZE, OKAY,
[00:11:54] THAT'S NOT ENOUGH. WE MAY NEED TO ACTUALLY
[00:11:58] ENUMERATE RIGHTS. AND SO WE HAVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS THAT ARE PASSED IN 1791,
[00:12:01] SHORTLY AFTER THE CONSTITUTION THAT PROTECTS CERTAIN
[00:12:04] FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS FROM GOVERNMENT ENCROACHMENT. AND THEN THAT BEGS THE QUESTION,
[00:12:08] WHAT'S THE GOOD OF RIGHTS IF YOU
[00:12:10] HAVE PEOPLE WHO ACT MORE LIKE
[00:12:14] SUBJECTS THAN LIKE CITIZENS SO THEY RECOGNIZE EARLY ON THAT
[00:12:17] THEY HAVE CREATED A NEW MODEL OF
[00:12:19] GOVERNMENT, BUT THEY ALSO NEED A
[00:12:21] NEW MODEL FOR THE GOVERNED. AND THAT REQUIRES THE PEOPLE TO
[00:12:25] BE ABLE TO READ AND DEBATE THE
[00:12:29] DOCUMENT TO ENFORCE ITS TERMS TO POLICE ITS BOUNDARIES.
[00:12:32] AND IF NECESSARY, TO CALL OUT
[00:12:35] THE GOVERNMENT WHEN IT GOES TOO FAR.
[00:12:37] AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE IN A MOMENT NOW, WHERE I THINK WE
[00:12:41] NEED AN ENGAGED, ENERGIZED
[00:12:45] CITIZENRY THAT IS EQUIPPED AND
[00:12:47] EMPOWERED AND PREPARED TO CALL THE GOVERNMENT OUT WHEN IT GOES TOO FAR.
[00:12:51] DO YOU.
[00:12:54] DO YOU THINK THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REALIZE THE POWER THAT
[00:12:57] THEY ACTUALLY HAVE?
[00:12:59] I'M NOT SURE THAT WE DO.
[00:13:01] I THINK RIGHT NOW THE EXCESSES
[00:13:04] SEEM SO BROAD AND EXCESSIVE THAT
[00:13:08] THEY ARE OVERWHELMING. I THINK IF YOU READ THE BOOK,
[00:13:10] THOUGH, YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE
[00:13:14] THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY, ORDINARY
[00:13:16] PEOPLE, DECIDING THAT THEY'RE DONE WITH IT. RIGHT.
[00:13:19] SO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE FOUNDING AND THE FRAMING.
[00:13:23] IN 1787, WE TALKED ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS.
[00:13:25] THERE ARE SERIES OF AMENDMENTS FROM THE LATE 19TH AND EARLY 20TH CENTURY.
[00:13:29] I CALL THEM THE POPULIST AMENDMENTS AND THEY ARE
[00:13:32] LITERALLY BORN FROM THE PEOPLE
[00:13:35] WHOSE DISTASTE FOR THE GILDED
[00:13:37] AGE AND THE RISE OF OLIGARCHY AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF WEALTH
[00:13:41] IN THE HANDS OF A FEW. THEY ARE ANGRY THAT THE FEDERAL
[00:13:45] GOVERNMENTS PRINCIPAL MEANS OF REVENUE GENERATION IS TO IMPOSE
[00:13:47] TARIFFS ON THE GOODS THAT THEY USE.
[00:13:50] DOESN'T THIS ALL SOUND REALLY FAMILIAR? I MEAN, JUST THINK ABOUT THAT LAST PARAGRAPH.
[00:13:54] WE ALSO FAMILIAR NOT SOME, BUT THEY GET IT LIKE A TARIFF IS A
[00:13:57] REGRESSIVE TAX AND IT IS BORNE
[00:13:59] DISPROPORTIONATELY ON THE WORKING CLASS BECAUSE THE RICH
[00:14:02] IT DOESN'T MATTER. THEY CAN AFFORD MORE THINGS. SO WHAT THEY WANT IS A
[00:14:06] PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX THAT WILL
[00:14:08] FORCE THE RICH TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. THE PROBLEM IS THAT ARTICLE ONE
[00:14:12] OF THE CONSTITUTION PREVENTS CONGRESS FROM IMPOSING A DIRECT TAX.
[00:14:16] SO THEY GET TO WORK. THEY LOBBY, THEY ORGANIZE, AND
[00:14:20] THEY GET A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT AMENDS ARTICLE
[00:14:24] ONE TO ALLOW CONGRESS TO IMPOSE AN INCOME TAX, AND THAT IS THE
[00:14:27] INCOME TAX THAT WE LIVE WITH NOW. AND THEN WHEN THEY'RE DONE WITH
[00:14:31] THAT, THEY LOOK AROUND AND THEY'RE LIKE, WHY IS IT ONLY THE
[00:14:32] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT'S POPULARLY ELECTED?
[00:14:35] WHY DO YOU STATE LEGISLATURES ELECT SENATORS?
[00:14:39] AND AT THIS POINT IN TIME, STATE LEGISLATURES ARE SO CORRUPT,
[00:14:42] DOES THAT ALSO SOUND FAMILIAR? YES.
[00:14:45] THEY'RE SO CORRUPT, THEY
[00:14:47] BASICALLY INSTALL THE PEOPLE FROM THE VARIOUS INDUSTRIES THAT
[00:14:50] THEY WANT TO GET THROUGH IN WASHINGTON. THEY INSTALL THEM IN THE SENATE. THE PEOPLE AREN'T HAVING IT.
[00:14:55] THEY GET THE 17TH AMENDMENT PASSED.
[00:14:57] AND NOW SENATORS ARE POPULARLY ELECTED.
[00:15:00] THEY HAVE A LITTLE WOBBLE WITH PROHIBITION.
[00:15:02] EVERYONE MESSES UP.
[00:15:04] SOMETIMES THE 19TH AMENDMENT,
[00:15:06] THOUGH WOMEN ARE TIRED OF LITERALLY BEING LEFT OUT OF
[00:15:10] BEING VIRTUALLY REPRESENTED BY THEIR HUSBANDS AND FATHERS AT
[00:15:13] THE BALLOT BOX. THIS IS ALSO SOMETHING THEY'RE
[00:15:16] TRYING TO BRING BACK OF WHY I. BUT ALL OF THESE WOMEN, IT TAKES
[00:15:20] THEM YEARS TO ORGANIZE AND DO THIS, BUT THEY ULTIMATELY
[00:15:23] SUCCEED IN GETTING THE 19TH AMENDMENT PASSED IN 1920.
[00:15:26] AND WHEN THEY DO SO, THEY MORE
[00:15:28] THAN DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE.
[00:15:31] IT IS THE BIGGEST EXPANSION OF THE VOTING PUBLIC IN THE HISTORY
[00:15:34] OF THIS COUNTRY, AND IT'S ALL DRIVEN FROM THE GRASSROOTS LEVEL.
[00:15:37] WE CAN DO THIS. YEAH, AND I THINK THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT GIVEN THE
[00:15:42] TIME IN WHICH WE FIND OURSELVES AND MELISSA'S POINT THERE, I
[00:15:45] THINK IS UNBELIEVABLE BECAUSE
[00:15:49] IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND. THIS NOTION THAT WE ARE SOMEHOW
[00:15:51] TRAPPED, THAT WE ARE POWERLESS,
[00:15:53] IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORY THAT SHE TALKS ABOUT.
[00:15:57] AND WE FIND HERE IN THE BOOK.
[00:15:59] AND SHE'D GIVE US HOPE, BUT ALSO SHOULD GIVE US THE SENSE OF
[00:16:03] RESPONSIBLE LIBERTY THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY
[00:16:06] AND TO MAKE IT BETTER. ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK ABOUT
[00:16:09] THIS INTERESTING, I ALWAYS LOOK AT BOOKS AND SEE WHO THEY'RE
[00:16:12] DEDICATED TO. THIS WHEN YOU DEDICATE TO YOUR PARENTS AND TO YOUR KIDS, WHY?
[00:16:18] WHY, WHY THEM? I MEAN, THOSE ARE PERFECTLY WONDERFUL CHOICES.
[00:16:22] BUT I'M NOT THROWING SHADE THERE. I MEAN, ARE YOU SET FOR BY MY
[00:16:26] HUSBAND BECAUSE HE HAS QUESTIONS? WELL, I. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I
[00:16:31] MARRIED TO A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLING AUTHOR, AND HER BOOK
[00:16:33] AIN'T DEDICATED TO ME EITHER. SO I KNOW, BUT Y Y YOU'RE
[00:16:37] WONDERFUL KIDS AND YOU WONDERFUL PARENTS.
[00:16:41] SO MY PARENTS WERE JAMAICAN IMMIGRANTS WHO CAME TO THIS
[00:16:44] COUNTRY BECAUSE OF THE SECOND BEST ISLAND IN THE CARIBBEAN.
[00:16:46] MY FOLKS ARE FROM BARBADOS. OKAY?
[00:16:48] THERE WE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.
[00:16:52] ANY AGENCY. THANK YOU. JAMAICANS.
[00:16:55] I J OKAY. YEAH, I'M ON. SO.
[00:16:59] SO MY PARENTS CAME HERE. MY FATHER CAME IN THE 1950S
[00:17:03] WHILE WASHINGTON, D.C. WAS STILL SEGREGATED TO ATTEND HOWARD
[00:17:07] UNIVERSITY. EDDIE MY MOM CAME IN THE 1960S AS PART OF A VISA PROGRAM TO
[00:17:11] FILL A SHORTAGE OF NURSES IN NEW
[00:17:13] YORK AREA HOSPITALS AND I
[00:17:17] DEDICATED IT TO THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE IMMIGRANTS.
[00:17:20] AND RIGHT NOW IT FEELS LIKE IT'S REALLY HARD TO BE AN IMMIGRANT IN THIS COUNTRY AND JUST
[00:17:25] WATCHING MY PARENTS OPERATE, IT JUST OCCURRED TO ME GROWING UP
[00:17:29] THAT THERE IS NO MORE FERVENT
[00:17:32] PROSELYTIZER THAN THE CONVERTED. LIKE THERE'S NO ONE WHO BELIEVES
[00:17:36] MORE FERVENTLY IN THE PROMISE OF THIS COUNTRY THAN PEOPLE WHO
[00:17:40] COME HERE SEEKING SOMETHING ELSE.
[00:17:42] AND INSTEAD OF DENIGRATING AND
[00:17:45] VILIFYING AND SUBJECTING
[00:17:48] IMMIGRANTS TO SUSPICION, WE OUGHT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THESE
[00:17:52] ARE PEOPLE WHO CAME HERE WITH VERY LITTLE AND HAVE CONTRIBUTED SO MUCH AND HAVE MADE OUR
[00:17:56] COUNTRY WHAT IT IS. I DEDICATED IT TO MY KIDS AND I
[00:18:00] SAY SPECIFICALLY TO MY CHILDREN, THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND.
[00:18:02] AND PARTLY THAT IS BECAUSE MY CHILDREN ARE THE GRANDCHILDREN
[00:18:05] OF IMMIGRANTS, BUT THEY ARE ALSO THE GREAT, GREAT, GREAT GRANDCHILDREN OF ENSLAVED
[00:18:09] PEOPLE. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT TO
[00:18:11] REMEMBER, TOO, BECAUSE MAYBE THEY COME FOR THE IMMIGRANTS FIRST, BUT THEY'RE COMING FOR
[00:18:15] THE REST OF US SOON ENOUGH. AND THIS IS OUR LAND, TOO.
[00:18:18] THIS IS THEIR LAND AS MUCH AS IT IS ANYONE ELSE'S.
[00:18:22] I DON'T KNOW WHO THE HERITAGE AMERICANS ARE, BUT WE ARE ALL
[00:18:26] HERITAGE AMERICANS, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.
[00:18:28] YEAH, I THINK I MEAN, UNLESS YOU
[00:18:32] ARE DESCENDED FROM THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, YOU KNOW,
[00:18:36] NATIVE AMERICANS, WE'RE ALL OF IMMIGRANTS. NOW. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHEN DID
[00:18:40] YOUR PEOPLE GET HERE? AND THEN HOW DID THEY GET AND HOW FORCIBLY?
[00:18:43] YEAH, FORCIBLY. EXACTLY. MM HMM.
[00:18:47] I SHOULD SAY THERE'S GOING TO BE TIME AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS
[00:18:49] FOR THE AUDIENCE TO ASK QUESTIONS. SO WE'RE GOING TO GET YOU ALL
[00:18:53] INVOLVED IN THIS AS WELL.
[00:18:56] YOU KNOW, NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE I SUSPECT, HAVE ACTUALLY READ THE
[00:18:59] UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. I JUST JUST I GUESS I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, WE DID A SURVEY, A POLL
[00:19:03] OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
[00:19:06] LET'S ASSUME THAT THAT'S TRUE OR EVEN, YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE WHO HAVE READ IT, WHAT DO YOU THINK
[00:19:10] IS THE BIGGEST MISCONCEPTION THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE
[00:19:13] ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION? I SEE YOUR FACE. THIS IS INTERESTING. OKAY.
[00:19:19] SO AGAIN, TWITTER, LAW SCHOOL IS
[00:19:21] A REALLY INTERESTING PLACE TO
[00:19:26] BE. I WAS ALWAYS REALLY SURPRISED. I DON'T KNOW WHY I WAS
[00:19:30] SURPRISED, BUT I WAS ALWAYS REALLY SURPRISED WHEN I WOULD BE
[00:19:32] ON TWITTER AND PEOPLE WOULD JUST
[00:19:34] TALK ABOUT HOW SO-AND-SO WAS VIOLATING MY FIRST AMENDMENT
[00:19:37] RIGHTS, LIKE JOHN VIOLATED MY FIRST AMENDMENT TO TWITTER IS VIOLATING MY FIRST AMENDMENT
[00:19:41] RIGHTS BY, YOU KNOW, PREVENTING ME OR FROM SPEAKING OR, YOU
[00:19:45] KNOW, YOU KNOW, PUTTING SOMETHING IN TWITTER JAIL OR WHATEVER.
[00:19:48] AND IT WAS ALWAYS SURPRISING TO ME BECAUSE IT'S WHEN YOU READ
[00:19:51] THE CONSTITUTION AND YOU READ THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT, IT'S ABOUT
[00:19:56] RESTRAINING GOVERNMENT. THERE ARE VERY FEW PLACES IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT ACTUALLY
[00:20:01] OPERATE TO RESTRAIN PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS. I'M ONE OF THEM IS THE 13TH AMENDMENT.
[00:20:04] HELLO, PRIVATE PEOPLE. YOU CANNOT KEEP OTHER PRIVATE PEOPLE AS YOUR PROPERTY.
[00:20:08] YOU CAN'T DO THAT. BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THE
[00:20:11] CONSTITUTION AND THE AMENDMENT ARE ABOUT RESTRAINING GOVERNMENT.
[00:20:14] AND IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT IT'S ABOUT
[00:20:17] DESIGNING LIMITS ON THE
[00:20:19] GOVERNMENT AS MUCH AS IT IS
[00:20:22] ABOUT ARTICULATING RIGHTS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE RIGHTS IN THE
[00:20:24] CONSTITUTION ARE LARGELY NEGATIVE. THEY'RE ABOUT PROHIBITING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE
[00:20:29] STATES AND THE STATES IS ONLY A QUITE RECENT DEVELOPMENT FROM
[00:20:33] INTRUDING UPON THESE RIGHTS. THEY'RE NOT AFFIRMATIVE RIGHTS, THEY'RE NOT ENTITLEMENTS.
[00:20:36] AND KNOW THAT IS, I THINK, A FAILING OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND
[00:20:40] A PLACE WHERE OTHER CONSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN LATER DO A MUCH BETTER
[00:20:44] JOB. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE POSITIVE AFFIRMATIVE
[00:20:47] ENTITLEMENTS AND THAT LARGELY THE CONSTITUTION IS ABOUT
[00:20:50] LIMITING AND PROHIBITING GOVERNMENT FROM DOING CERTAIN THINGS, I THINK THAT'S LOST ON A
[00:20:54] LOT OF PEOPLE. AND WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT, TOO.
[00:20:57] IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE SHOULD READ INTO THE FACT THAT ARTICLE
[00:21:01] ONE IS THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OR TO THE PRESIDENCY?
[00:21:05] ARTICLE THREE IS THE JUDICIARY IS THAT DOES THAT GIVE YOU ANY
[00:21:07] SENSE OF HOW THE FOUNDERS WANTED TO CONSTRUCT THIS?
[00:21:10] AND THE POWER ALLOCATIONS THAT THEY HAD IN MIND?
[00:21:14] I THINK SO. AGAIN, WHEN I THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING THROUGH IT, THEY WERE
[00:21:18] GOING THROUGH TRAUMA. A LOT OF THAT TRAUMA WAS LARGELY
[00:21:20] AT THE HANDS OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, WHICH FOR YEARS HAD
[00:21:24] BEEN PASSING LAWS ON THE ITEMS
[00:21:26] THAT THEY USE TEA, COFFEE HAD
[00:21:29] BEEN MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR
[00:21:31] THEM TO EXPRESS THEIR DISCONTENT AT THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
[00:21:33] THEY HAVE TAXED PAPER AND INK, MAKING IT HARD TO OPERATE,
[00:21:37] PRESSES AND TO PRINT NEWSPAPERS.
[00:21:39] PARLIAMENT, IN THEIR VIEW, WAS A
[00:21:42] TYRANNICAL FORCE AND IT'S NOT
[00:21:44] SURPRISING THAT ARTICLE ONE IS FIRST. IT'S NOT SURPRISING THAT ARTICLE
[00:21:47] ONE IS THE MOST LENGTHY ARTICLE
[00:21:50] AND THAT THEY SPECIFICALLY AND
[00:21:54] PAINSTAKINGLY ENUMERATE THE POWERS OF A FEDERAL LEGISLATURE BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT A
[00:21:58] PARLIAMENT, THEY DON'T WANT WHAT THEY HAD IN THE COLONIAL PERIOD.
[00:22:01] THEY ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THE KING IS NOT GREAT EITHER.
[00:22:05] ARTICLE TO ADDRESSES THE
[00:22:07] EXECUTIVE AND THEIR BIG THING HERE IS LIKE, WE JUST DON'T WE DON'T WANT A KING.
[00:22:10] AND THIS IS A DEBATE THAT THEY HAVE BECAUSE ALEXANDER HAMILTON IS LIKE, IS A KING SO BAD?
[00:22:14] AND YES, DUDE IS BAD. AND LIKE THEY'RE GOING BACK AND
[00:22:18] FORTH ABOUT IT, THEY'RE MUCH
[00:22:20] LESS, I THINK, SPECIFIC.
[00:22:22] AND TO OUR DETRIMENT TODAY ABOUT
[00:22:26] WHAT THE PRESIDENT MAY OR MAY NOT DO. LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY'RE VERY SPECIFIC.
[00:22:30] THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY
[00:22:31] TO APPOINT FEDERAL OFFICIALS IN WHAT BECOMES ADMINISTRATIVE
[00:22:36] AGENCIES. THEY DON'T REALLY SAY A LOT ABOUT THE REMOVAL POWER.
[00:22:39] AND A LOT OF THAT, I THINK, IS WHERE WE'RE HAVING A LOT OF
[00:22:41] FIGHTS RIGHT NOW ABOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE EXECUTIVE.
[00:22:45] THEY'RE MOSTLY CONCERNED WITH JUST KIND OF ALLOWING THE
[00:22:49] PRESIDENT ENOUGH ROOM TO BE NIMBLE AND TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE
[00:22:54] GOVERNMENT AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS. BUT THERE REALLY PRINCIPALLY
[00:22:57] CONCERNED WITH CONGRESS. AND THE BEST PART IS THEY DON'T
[00:23:00] THINK ABOUT THE COURTS THAT MUCH AT ALL. LIKE, I MEAN, ALEXANDER HAMILTON
[00:23:04] SAYS IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, YOU KNOW, THE JUDICIARY IS THE
[00:23:07] LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH SIR, LIKE
[00:23:10] TALK ABOUT MISSING THE MOMENT
[00:23:15] AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT TURNS OUT THAT JOHN MARSHALL IN
[00:23:17] MARBURY VERSUS MADISON FIGURES
[00:23:19] OUT A WAY TO WREST FOR THE
[00:23:22] JUDICIARY THE AWESOME POWER TO
[00:23:24] NOT JUST CHECK THE OTHER
[00:23:26] BRANCHES, BUT TO BRING THEM TO HEEL IN A LOT OF WAYS.
[00:23:29] AND, YOU KNOW, I JOKE WHEN I TEACH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND WE
[00:23:32] TEACH MARBURY VERSUS MADISON THAT AFTER WRITING THE DECISION
[00:23:35] IN MARBURY VERSUS MADISON, WHERE HE ARTICULATES THIS POWER OF THE
[00:23:39] JUDICIARY TO SAY WHAT THE LAW IS, JOHN MARSHALL PROBABLY GOES
[00:23:41] BACK TO HIS OFFICE AND STROKES A HAIRLESS CAT FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF.
[00:23:45] I MEAN, LIKE THIS IS THE BIGGEST POWER GRAB IN AMERICAN
[00:23:49] CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. AND IT'S MASSIVE BECAUSE THE
[00:23:52] FRAMERS DID NOT SEE THAT ONE COMING. SO DO YOU THINK MARBURY VERSUS
[00:23:55] MADISON WAS WRONGLY DECIDED?
[00:24:00] I. I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD ARGUMENTS TO SUGGEST THAT
[00:24:04] MARBURY VERSUS MADISON WAS NOT
[00:24:06] EXPECTED, ALTHOUGH I THINK MARSHALL MAKES AND MARSHALL'S
[00:24:09] SOME VERY GOOD ARGUMENTS LIKE WHAT IS THE POINT OF A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION?
[00:24:13] REMEMBER, THIS IS THE FIRST WRITTEN CONSTITUTION THAT HAS
[00:24:16] ENDURED IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. SO WHY ARE WE WRITING THINGS
[00:24:20] DOWN IF NO ONE'S GOING TO READ IT, IF NO ONE'S GOING TO FIGURE OUT IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TOO FAR
[00:24:23] OR WHETHER THEY'RE STAYING WITHIN THE BOUNDS, THAT'S A PRETTY REASONABLE ARGUMENT FOR
[00:24:27] JUDICIAL REVIEW. AND IT SEEMS RIGHT THAT IT WOULD
[00:24:29] BE THE COURTS AS OPPOSED TO THE
[00:24:31] POLITICAL BRANCHES WHO WOULD DO THAT POLICING. ALL RIGHT.
[00:24:35] LET'S ASSUME THAT CONSTITUTION'S IN THE PROCESS OF BEING CONSTRUCTED AND YOU'RE IN THE
[00:24:39] ROOM AND, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY IS THIS HERE? IT WAS A SOLUTION.
[00:24:43] WHY IS THIS YOUNG BLACK WOMAN HERE? I MEAN, LIKE WHAT BRING THE FOOD AND SHE APPARENTLY CAN READ
[00:24:48] WHAT'S WHAT'S SO WHAT IS IF YOU
[00:24:50] HAVE THE ABILITY, WHAT WOULD YOU BE SAYING? HEY, HEY, HEY, HEY.
[00:24:53] LET'S LET'S LET'S MAYBE NOT DO THAT. LET'S MAYBE.
[00:24:56] WHY DON'T YOU ADD THIS? WHAT ARE THE KIND OF COUPLE OF THINGS YOU'D WANT TO BRING TO
[00:24:59] THE ATTENTION OF THE FRAMERS?
[00:25:02] SO SO, YOU KNOW, ONE THING IS JUST THE ELITE ISM OF THE
[00:25:05] ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION HAS TO BE RECKONED WITH.
[00:25:08] WE TALKED ABOUT THE ELECTION OF SENATORS ORIGINALLY.
[00:25:11] SENATORS WERE SELECTED BY STATE LEGISLATURES. THAT IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T TRUST
[00:25:15] THE PEOPLE. THEY DON'T TRUST THE PEOPLE TO ELECT THE SENATORS.
[00:25:19] THEY BELIEVE THAT THE SENATE, WHICH WILL SERVE FOR SIX YEAR TERMS, THERE ONLY BE TWO
[00:25:22] SENATORS PER STATE. IT HAS TO BE OCCUPIED BY A
[00:25:26] BETTER CLASS OF PEOPLE THAN WHAT THE PEOPLE MIGHT SELECT. AND THEY'RE FINE WITH THE HOUSE
[00:25:30] OF REPRESENTATIVES. THEY CAN BE SUBJECT TO THE WHIMS OF THE PEOPLE EVERY TWO YEARS.
[00:25:34] THEY'RE MORE OF THEM AND THEY CYCLE THROUGH MORE QUICKLY. BUT THE SENATORS, YOU KNOW, THE
[00:25:39] STATE LEGISLATURES, WE'RE GOING TO GET A BETTER CLASS OF LEGISLATURE THAT WAY.
[00:25:43] AND I THINK YOU SEE THAT SAME KIND OF IMPULSE, THAT SORT OF
[00:25:45] FEAR OF THE POPULACE, THE FEAR
[00:25:48] OF WHAT THEY CALLED MOB OCRACY IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
[00:25:51] LIKE WE DON'T HAVE A PRESIDENCY THAT IS POPULARLY SELECTED.
[00:25:55] INSTEAD, WE HAVE ELECTORS AT THE
[00:25:58] STATE LEVEL THAT GET TO CHOOSE FOR US.
[00:26:00] LIKE NOW, OF COURSE, THE SYSTEM IS SUCH THAT, YOU KNOW,
[00:26:04] DEPENDING ON HOW A STATE GOES, THE ELECTORS WILL VOTE THE WAY
[00:26:07] THE STATES PREFERENCE. ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE
[00:26:10] LOTS OF PROPOSALS NOW TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT STATES ARE
[00:26:13] ACTUALLY MAYBE CLEANLY DIVIDED AND THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST PATH FORWARD.
[00:26:17] BUT THAT IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF THE FRAMERS.
[00:26:19] JUST TRUST OF ORDINARY PEOPLE
[00:26:21] LIKE THEY WERE ALL LEARNED MEN
[00:26:25] LIKE LIKE TRULY EDUCATED,
[00:26:27] CLASSICALLY EDUCATED AND THEY FEARED THE MAJORITY OF THE
[00:26:32] PEOPLE WHO LACKED THAT KIND OF EDUCATION. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE LIVE
[00:26:35] WITH THAT RESIDUE. THE OTHER THING I WOULD POINT
[00:26:38] OUT TO THEM IS EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU GUYS TALK ABOUT 1808 AND
[00:26:42] THERE ARE A LOT OF REFERENCES IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION TO
[00:26:46] 1808, YOU'RE BASICALLY TALKING ABOUT KEEPING SLAVERY,
[00:26:49] PERPETUATING SLAVERY. SO IN ARTICLE ONE, THERE IS A WHOLE PROVISION THAT SAYS THAT
[00:26:53] CONGRESS BASICALLY CANNOT MAKE
[00:26:55] ANY LAW THAT WOULD OUTLAW THE
[00:26:57] INTERNATIONAL SLAVE TRADE BEFORE 1808. THIS IS A COMPROMISE THAT IS
[00:27:01] STRUCK BETWEEN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN STATES. THE NORTHERN STATES THINK, OKAY,
[00:27:04] WE'LL GIVE THEM 20 YEARS TO WEAN THEMSELVES OFF OF SLAVERY AND
[00:27:08] THEN WE'LL ABOLISH THE TRANS ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE.
[00:27:12] JOKE'S ON THEM. 20 YEARS LATER, IN 1808, WHEN THEY DO PASS A LAW TO LIMIT THE
[00:27:16] TRANSATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE, THE SOUTH IS JUST LIKE WE HAVE A BETTER IDEA.
[00:27:20] LET'S JUST HAVE A SELF REPRODUCING SLAVE POPULATE IT, AND THEY JUST SORT OF SHIFT.
[00:27:24] BUT THROUGHOUT THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION OR ALL OF THESE
[00:27:28] COMPROMISES AROUND SLAVERY, WHERE YOU SEE SLAVERY FACTORING
[00:27:32] INTO THE ARITHMETIC OF REPRESENTATION, LIKE LIKE THE
[00:27:35] VERY WAY WE SORT OF CONSTITUTED OUR GOVERNMENT, THE RESIDUE AND
[00:27:39] THE INFLUENCE OF SLAVERY, IT'S JUST PALPABLE.
[00:27:43] ALL RIGHT. I'VE PUT YOU IN THE ROOM AND I'M ASKING YOU, WHAT WOULD YOU
[00:27:46] CHANGE AT THE TIME? NOW IT'S 2026. YOU'RE LOOKING BACK.
[00:27:50] WHAT WOULD YOU AMEND IF YOU
[00:27:53] KNOW, I'M GIVING YOU ABSOLUTE POWER FOR THE NEXT 24 HOURS?
[00:27:56] TOTAL POWER.
[00:28:01] RIGHT? I GUESS IT.
[00:28:03] YEAH, I KNOW YOU'RE RIGHT. SIX HOURS I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU.
[00:28:07] I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU TOTAL, TOTAL POWER TO REDO THIS WHOLE THING IN 24 HOURS.
[00:28:10] YOU'VE GOT ABSOLUTE POWER. SO WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS
[00:28:13] THAT YOU'D WANT TO CHANGE NOW? HAVING THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE'VE
[00:28:16] HAD WITH THIS THIS DOCUMENT AND
[00:28:20] SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS, I THINK I WOULD FIRST OFF, DEAL WITH THE
[00:28:24] ELECTORAL COLLEGE. WE SHOULD HAVE POPULAR ELECTION
[00:28:26] OF THE PRESIDENT. AND AGAIN, THAT COULD GO EITHER WAY SOMETIMES.
[00:28:30] SO BUT I THINK THAT'S JUST ON PRINCIPLE. AN IMPORTANT CHANGE.
[00:28:35] I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT SUPERSEDES AND
[00:28:40] OVERRULES THE DECISION AND TRUMP VERSUS UNITED STATES TO MAKE
[00:28:43] CLEAR WHAT THE SCOPE AND SUBSTANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL
[00:28:45] IMMUNITY IS.
[00:28:47] I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE AN
[00:28:50] AMENDMENT THAT YOU'LL LIKE. THIS ONE SUPERSEDES ROUSSEAU
[00:28:53] VERSUS COMMON CAUSE TO MAKE
[00:28:55] PARTIZAN GERRYMANDERING SOMETHING THAT STATE
[00:28:58] LEGISLATURES CANNOT ENGAGE IN. I ACTUALLY WOULD ARGUE THAT THE
[00:29:02] SPIRIT OF THE 17TH AMENDMENT IS AGAINST THE WHOLE IDEA OF STATE
[00:29:06] LEGISLATURES ESSENTIALLY PICKING THEIR VOTERS AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
[00:29:10] DON'T YOU THINK THAT YOU COULD, LOOKING AT THE ELECTIONS CLAUSE OR WHATEVER IT'S CALLED?
[00:29:14] I MEAN, DON'T YOU THINK THAT CONGRESS COULD ACTUALLY JUST LEGISLATE THAT? I THINK COMMON PARTIZAN
[00:29:18] GERRYMANDERING, I MEAN, I THINK WHAT IS CONGRESS, THOUGH?
[00:29:22] DO YOU KNOW WHERE I CAN GET ONE? CAN CAN I FIND THIS ANYTHING
[00:29:25] LIKE WE'RE CAN I GET A CONGRESS ASSUMING I'M ASSUMING THAT A
[00:29:28] DEMOCRATIC TRIFECTA. I'M ALSO ASSUMING SOME KIND OF
[00:29:33] FILIBUSTER THING. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS. YEAH. YEAH, RIGHT.
[00:29:36] SO, YES, CONGRESS COULD DO THAT. AND THERE HAS BEEN LEGISLATION
[00:29:40] PENDING THAT DID NOT GET THROUGH THAT WOULD HAVE ADDRESSED THIS.
[00:29:44] YOU KNOW, ONE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE ABOUT ANY KIND OF
[00:29:47] LEGISLATION, RIGHT NOW TODAY IS THAT IT WOULD INVARIABLY BE
[00:29:50] CHALLENGED. IT WOULD GO TO THE SUPREME COURT. SO THERE'S THAT.
[00:29:54] I THINK I'D RATHER HAVE CONGRESS
[00:29:56] ENGAGE IN SOME SPECIES OF COURT
[00:29:58] REFORM, WHETHER THAT'S TERM LIMITS.
[00:30:02] AND SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT TERM LIMITS REQUIRE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BECAUSE OF THE
[00:30:06] PROVISIONS FOR LIFE TENURE, AS OTHER SCHOLARS HAVE ARGUED THAT
[00:30:09] YOU COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE TERM
[00:30:11] LIMITS THAT ARE STATUTORILY IMPOSED BECAUSE THEY DON'T
[00:30:15] REQUIRE JUSTICES TO LEAVE THE BENCH, BUT RATHER JUST ROTATE TO
[00:30:17] SOME OTHER POST IN THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY.
[00:30:20] I MEAN, WHAT IS PROFESSOR MURRAY THINK?
[00:30:23] I ACTUALLY THINK THAT THAT COULD THAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE.
[00:30:26] AGAIN IT WOULD BE CHALLENGED AND IT WOULD GO UP TO THE SUPREME COURT.
[00:30:29] BUT THE SUPREME COURT. YES, I DO THINK, THOUGH, BACK TO
[00:30:32] THE PARTIZAN, GERRYMANDERING, A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD
[00:30:36] MAKE IT CONCRETE THAT THIS IS AN
[00:30:38] ANTI-DEMOCRATIC PRACTICE.
[00:30:40] IT IS ABSOLUTELY INCONSISTENT
[00:30:43] WITH THE IDEA OF GOVERNMENT, OF FORM BY THE PEOPLE.
[00:30:46] AND WE SHOULD SAY THAT WHAT DO
[00:30:51] YOU THINK? IT'S TOO HARD TO AMEND OUR CONSTITUTION.
[00:30:54] I THINK ITS PURPOSE REALLY HARD
[00:30:57] IN PART BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT
[00:30:59] LIKE YOU CAN'T BE SELECTIVE OR ITINERANT ABOUT THESE
[00:31:02] COMMITMENTS IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT MEANS
[00:31:07] SOMETHING, YOU CAN'T BE WILLING TO CHANGE IT BECAUSE IT BECOMES INCONVENIENT.
[00:31:10] AND I THINK THE FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD THAT. SO THEY MAKE IT HARD TO GET AN
[00:31:14] AMENDMENT PASSED. NOT IMPOSSIBLE, BUT IT IS HARD
[00:31:16] AND IT'S AGAIN, IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIKE ODYSSEUS TYING HIMSELF
[00:31:20] TO THE MAST AS HE MAKES HIS WAY PAST THE SIRENS.
[00:31:24] YOU CAN'T JUST, LIKE GIVE IT UP
[00:31:26] BECAUSE IT'S NOT EASY TO LIVE WITH IT.
[00:31:29] RIGHT NOW, THOUGH, I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY HARD TO GET A
[00:31:33] CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PASS, AT LEAST THROUGH THE THE WAY
[00:31:36] THAT TRADITIONALLY WE HAVE DONE IT. THERE ARE TWO WAYS THAT ARE SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE FIVE.
[00:31:40] ONE ORIGINATES THROUGH CONGRESS THAT IS REALLY HARD RIGHT NOW
[00:31:43] JUST BECAUSE OF PARTIZAN POLARIZATION. I DON'T I DON'T THINK WHAT ARE
[00:31:47] THE STANDARDS YOU GET TO MEET IN TERMS OF CONGRESS AND THE STATES
[00:31:51] SUPERMAJORITY IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THEN IT GOES TO THE
[00:31:53] STATES, THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS TO BE RATIFIED AND YOU NEED THREE.
[00:31:57] THREE. YEAH, BASICALLY 38 STATES TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
[00:32:01] IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY HARD IN
[00:32:01] A WORLD OF POLARIZATION IN CONGRESS.
[00:32:05] AND THEN THE KIND OF GERRYMANDERING THAT YOU SEE IN
[00:32:09] THE STATE LEGISLATURES THERE IS ANOTHER WAY THAT ARTICLE FIVE
[00:32:13] PRESCRIBE WAYS THAT ORIGINATES FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURES THEMSELVES, WHERE THEY CALL FOR
[00:32:16] A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AT THE STATE LEVEL.
[00:32:20] AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT GOES OFF TO WHATEVER COMES OUT OF THE
[00:32:23] STATE, RATIFYING OUT OF THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS GOES TO THE LEGISLATURES TO BE
[00:32:28] RATIFIED. THERE ARE A BUNCH OF CONSERVATIVE STATES THAT HAVE
[00:32:31] BEEN RECENTLY GERRYMANDERED THAT ARE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THAT
[00:32:34] AND ARE REALLY, REALLY JAZZED
[00:32:36] ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF CALLING A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WHERE
[00:32:40] THEY CAN REWRITE THE WHOLE DOCUMENT. SO BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
[00:32:43] IT MAY ACTUALLY WE MAY ACTUALLY SEE THAT IN THE OFFING IN THE
[00:32:47] NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS, AND IT
[00:32:49] WILL BE A FUNDAMENTAL REFRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE
[00:32:53] THERE'S REALLY NO RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
[00:32:56] IT'S INCREDIBLY IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. SO IT'S UNTESTED.
[00:32:59] I MEAN, IT'S LARGELY UNCHARTED WATERS.
[00:33:02] WHERE DO YOU THINK AS YOU LOOK AT THE CONSTITUTION, WHAT IS THE
[00:33:05] THING THAT YOU THINK THEY REALLY GOT RIGHT? THEY NAILED IT.
[00:33:09] THIS ONE THAT WAS THAT WAS PERFECT OR CLOSE TO PERFECT.
[00:33:11] NO NOTES, NO NOTES, I THINK.
[00:33:17] YEAH, I THINK THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS REALLY A THING OF BEAUTY.
[00:33:21] I REALLY DO. AND I'M NOT BEING POLLYANNA ISH
[00:33:24] ABOUT IT. IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS, YOU
[00:33:28] CAN JUST SORT OF SEE THE THOUGHT PROCESS AS THEY RECKON WITH THE
[00:33:31] FACT THAT THE SOUTH WILL NOT LET SLAVERY DIE.
[00:33:35] SO THEY START OFF WITH THE 13TH AMENDMENT.
[00:33:37] AND THIS IS LARGELY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SURE IF THE
[00:33:41] EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION, WHICH IS BASICALLY A WARTIME
[00:33:43] PROCLAMATION, WILL STAND IN PEACETIME.
[00:33:46] SO WE'RE LIKE, OKAY, WE OUGHT TO TELL THEM WE'RE NOT DOING SLAVERY ANYMORE.
[00:33:49] SO THEY HAVE THE 13TH AMENDMENT,
[00:33:51] WHICH FORMALLY ABOLISHES
[00:33:55] SLAVERY, BUT THEN THEY IMMEDIATELY NOTICE THAT THE
[00:33:57] SOUTH IS SIMPLY DOING OTHER THINGS.
[00:34:00] THEY'RE TRYING TO RECREATE SLAVERY UNDER OTHER GUISES.
[00:34:04] AND SO THIS IS WHEN THEY START THINKING ABOUT HOW DO WE BRING
[00:34:07] THE FORMERLY ENSLAVED MOVED INTO THE BODY POLITIC AS CITIZENS
[00:34:10] BECAUSE THE ONLY PEOPLE WE'RE GOING TO BE MORE INVESTED IN
[00:34:14] PROTECTING THEIR FREEDOMS ARE THESE PEOPLE. SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE
[00:34:17] CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE IN ARTICLE
[00:34:20] ONE OR IN SECTION ONE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY
[00:34:23] THE PROVISION THAT IS BEING LITIGATED AT THE SUPREME COURT.
[00:34:27] PREDICTION IT WILL BE THE DECISION WILL BE ANNOUNCED ON
[00:34:30] THE VERY LAST DAY OF THE TERM WILL BE THE LAST DECISION.
[00:34:33] DOES THAT GIVE YOU CONCERN? NO.
[00:34:37] LOOK, HERE'S MY THING ABOUT SECTION ONE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
[00:34:39] CAN THE JUSTICES READ IF YOU CAN
[00:34:45] READ, THEN YOU KNOW THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER RESCINDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS
[00:34:50] UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I THINK IT'S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
[00:34:53] THE ARGUMENTS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS LOFTED HERE,
[00:34:57] THE IDEA THAT SECTION ONE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS ONLY INTENDED
[00:34:59] TO REPUDIATE THE COURT'S 1857
[00:35:03] DECISION IN DRED SCOTT VERSUS SANFORD AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO
[00:35:07] APPLY TO THE CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS. I THINK IT'S A FACILE ARGUMENT.
[00:35:10] IT IS TRUE THAT SECTION ONE DOES
[00:35:13] RESPOND AND TO DRED SCOTT, BUT
[00:35:15] IT'S ALSO EQUALLY TRUE THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT
[00:35:19] AND HERE'S WHERE THE READING OF HISTORY IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.
[00:35:21] THEY ACTIVELY DEBATED WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE GOING TO INCLUDE
[00:35:25] THE CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS IN
[00:35:27] THE PROMISE OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP. AND HERE THEY TALK ABOUT THE
[00:35:31] IRISH LIKE THE GREAT POTATO FAMINE HAS HAPPENED. THERE'S BEEN A HUGE INFLUX OF IRISH IMMIGRANTS.
[00:35:34] THEY TALK ABOUT THE CHINESE BECAUSE THE GOLD RUSH HAS HAPPENED.
[00:35:38] THERE'S BEEN A HUGE INFLUX OF CHINESE IMMIGRANTS ON THE WEST COAST, AND THEY'RE JUST VERY
[00:35:42] CLEAR WHAT WE ARE DOING IN
[00:35:44] SECTION ONE IS REPUDIATING DRED SCOTT BECAUSE WHAT DRED SCOTT
[00:35:48] DID WAS REPUDIATE A COMMON LAW
[00:35:51] RULE THAT HAD BEEN IN PLACE SINCE THE FOUNDING AND THE RULE
[00:35:55] WAS, IF YOU'RE BORN HERE, YOU'RE A CITIZEN. AND THAT APPLIED TO EVERYBODY.
[00:35:58] AND THEY WERE VERY EXPLICIT ABOUT THAT. AND SO I THINK IF YOU CAN READ
[00:36:02] THE TEXT AND THEN ALSO READ THE HISTORY, THIS IS VERY
[00:36:06] STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT I DO NOT THINK THIS WILL BE A UNANIMOUS OPINION AND THAT WILL
[00:36:09] BE THE TRAVESTY YOU ANTICIPATED. MY QUESTION WILL NOT BE A YOU
[00:36:12] DON'T THINK IT'S A NINE ZIP? IT'S NOT A NINE ZIP. IT'S A CAN I CAN I COOK ON THIS
[00:36:16] FOR A LITTLE BIT? OKAY.
[00:36:19] COOK BABY, THIS IS LITERALLY THE
[00:36:23] ONLY COOKING I'LL BE DOING FOR
[00:36:24] THE REST OF THE WEEK.
[00:36:29] YOU THIS COURT WILL GET TO THE RIGHT ANSWER.
[00:36:31] DO NOT LET THEM OFF THE HOOK FOR
[00:36:35] READING. THIS COURT COULD HAVE ANSWERED
[00:36:37] THIS QUESTION ON THE SUBSTANCE
[00:36:40] OF SECTION ONE A YEAR AGO WHEN IT HAD THE CASE.
[00:36:44] TRUMP VERSUS CASTLE, WHERE THEY DEALT WITH THE NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION. THEY DECIDED AND THEY DIDN'T
[00:36:47] HAVE TO. THEY DECIDED TO DEAL ONLY WITH
[00:36:49] THE JURISTIC TIONAL ASPECT OF THAT, WHETHER THE NATIONWIDE
[00:36:53] INJUNCTION WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS TO ISSUE AND THE THREE
[00:36:57] DEMOCRATIC APPOINTEES ON THE COURT WERE LIKE, MAYBE WE SHOULD
[00:37:00] ADDRESS THIS OTHER QUESTION THAT SEEMS TO BE OUT THERE IN THE OFFING AND IS REALLY IMPORTANT
[00:37:03] ARE BABIES BORN TO UNDOCUMENTED
[00:37:05] PERSONS, CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES?
[00:37:08] THEY LET THIS QUESTION FESTER FOR A YEAR, AND THAT BY ITSELF
[00:37:13] UNSETTLES IT, LIKE UNSETTLES IT. AND MAKES THE LIVES OF ALL OF THESE PEOPLE.
[00:37:17] SO MUCH MORE UNCERTAIN AND PRECARIOUS THAN IT HAD TO BE. THEY COULD HAVE ANSWERED THIS
[00:37:21] QUESTION A YEAR AGO. THEY LET IT SIT HERE. THEY LET IT FESTER.
[00:37:24] DO NOT LET THEM OFF THE HOOK FOR THAT JUST BECAUSE THEY FINALLY
[00:37:28] GOT TO THE RIGHT ANSWER GRUDGINGLY.
[00:37:35] SO YOU'VE GOT ALL OF THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS KIND OF FLOATING AROUND.
[00:37:38] I MEAN, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN TWEETS, THERE'S LIKE A BAZILLION
[00:37:42] OF THOSE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. YEAH, EXACTLY. DO THAT.
[00:37:46] EXACTLY. ALL THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT
[00:37:50] CONTRAVENE, IT SEEMS TO ME THE
[00:37:52] CONSTITUTION AND YET WE TREAT
[00:37:55] THEM AS IF THERE ARE LAWS OR SOMETHING.
[00:38:00] WHAT'S WHAT'S WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT? I MEAN, DO YOU THINK THAT WE AS
[00:38:02] A SOCIETY AND CONGRESS, AS A
[00:38:05] BODY HAVE SIMPLY GIVEN A LITTLE
[00:38:09] TOO MUCH PROMINENCE TO THE TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH? YES.
[00:38:15] SO, FIRST OF ALL, MANY OF THE
[00:38:18] ACTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE IMPERMISSIBLY INTRUDE ON THE
[00:38:22] PREROGATIVES OF CONGRESS, AND CONGRESS CAN SUE. CONGRESS CAN PROTECT ITS
[00:38:27] PREROGATIVES IF IT WANTED TO. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN SOME WAYS YOU'RE SEEING CONGRESS
[00:38:30] BEGIN TO SORT OF WAKE UP, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER DAY, FOR
[00:38:34] EXAMPLE, CONGRESS DECIDED THAT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO ACCEPT
[00:38:38] THIS SLUSH FUND FOR VICTIMS OF
[00:38:41] GOVERNMENT WEAPONIZATION AND
[00:38:43] LARGELY BECAUSE IT WAS STALLING
[00:38:45] THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR ICE AND CUSTOMS AND BORDER
[00:38:48] PATROL THAT COULD BE USED TO HARASS PEOPLE. SO YOU KNOW, NOW WE'RE NOT
[00:38:52] HAVING THE SLUSH FUND, ALTHOUGH WE ARE STILL HAVING THE TAX IMMUNITY.
[00:38:56] YOU SHOULD STILL BE MAD ABOUT THAT. CONGRESS CAN GET IN THE GAME ON
[00:38:58] SOME OF THIS STUFF AND CONGRESS CAN HAVE HEARINGS. CONGRESS CAN FILE SUITS.
[00:39:02] THEY CAN DO ALL KINDS OF THINGS. AND THEY HAVEN'T DONE THAT.
[00:39:05] THE THING THAT'S SORT OF PUZZLING TO ME ABOUT THE
[00:39:11] EXECUTIVE ORDERS IS IT'S NOT JUST CONGRESS THAT THE EXECUTIVE INTRUDING UPON.
[00:39:14] IT'S ALSO INTRUDING UPON THE COURT. SO TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
[00:39:19] EXECUTIVE ORDERS ADDRESSING THE LAW FIRMS. YOU KNOW, MANY OF THESE
[00:39:22] EXECUTIVE ORDERS ARGUE THAT THE LAW FIRMS ARE ENGAGED IN WHAT
[00:39:26] THE ADMINISTRATION TERMS
[00:39:27] UNLAWFUL DTI, WHICH APPAREL. LEE IS OCCASIONALLY HAVING
[00:39:32] PROGRAMS FOR YOUR UNDERREPRESENTED WOMEN ASSOCIATES OR, YOU KNOW,
[00:39:37] RECRUITING FROM HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. SO THERE HAS NOT BEEN A FEDERAL
[00:39:42] COURT IN THIS COUNTRY THAT HAS DETERMINED THAT A PRIVATE
[00:39:45] INSTITUTION WITH A HISTORY OF
[00:39:48] UNDERREPRESENTATION AND MAYBE EVEN CONTINUED UNDERREPRESENTATION IN ITS RANKS
[00:39:52] IS NOT PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN REMEDIAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THAT
[00:39:56] KIND OF UNDERREPRESENTATION.
[00:39:58] THE FACT THAT THE LAW FIRMS HAVE SUCKED IT UP AND SAID THAT THEY
[00:40:02] ARE CEDING TO THESE SETTLEMENTS
[00:40:04] EFFECTIVELY CONCRETIZE IS A
[00:40:08] VISION OF THE LAW THAT SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.
[00:40:10] AND IF WE CREDIT THAT VISION OF
[00:40:13] THE LAW, WE ARE EFFECTIVELY
[00:40:15] USURPING THE JUDICIARY'S ROLE TO SAY WHAT THE LAW IS AND WE
[00:40:18] SHOULD TALK ABOUT IT IN THOSE TERMS. IT'S NOT SIMPLY ABOUT CAVING OR CAPITULATING.
[00:40:22] IT IS LITERALLY ABOUT LETTING THE EXECUTIVE TELL US WHAT THE
[00:40:25] LAW IS. AND THE JUDICIARY SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT.
[00:40:29] AND I WISH MORE OF THOSE LAW
[00:40:31] FIRMS HAD SUED TO CHALLENGE THOSE EXECUTIVE ORDERS SO WE
[00:40:34] COULD LITERALLY GET TO THIS POINT. BUT INSTEAD, WE HAVE AN LIKE AND
[00:40:38] THAT IS THE POINT OF THE SETTLEMENT. YOU CAN THINK ABOUT THE SETTLEMENTS WITH THE MEDIA
[00:40:42] COMPANIES WHEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE PRESIDENT SUES ABC FOR
[00:40:47] DEFAMATION AND ABC SETTLES IT, IT'S BASICALLY A WORKAROUND
[00:40:49] AROUND NEW YORK TIMES VERSUS SULLIVAN, WHICH SAYS THAT THE
[00:40:54] STANDARD FOR ESTABLISHING DEFAMATION IS REALLY HIGH,
[00:40:56] ABSOLUTE MALICE. THE PRESIDENT HAS RAILED AGAINST
[00:41:00] THE STANDARD HE WOULD RATHER HAVE US HAVE A SYSTEM LIKE IN
[00:41:02] THE UK WHERE IT'S MUCH EASIER TO
[00:41:05] PROVE LIBEL AND DEFAMATION AGAIN.
[00:41:07] AND HE'S FAILED TO HAVE THE SUPREME COURT TAKE UP THE CASE.
[00:41:11] HE'S FAILED TO GET A CASE GRANTED CERT CHALLENGING NEW
[00:41:14] YORK TIMES VERSUS SULLIVAN. MAYBE NOW IT DOESN'T MATTER
[00:41:17] BECAUSE IF YOU SETTLE WITH THESE MEDIA COMPANIES, YOU CAN
[00:41:20] BASICALLY GET WHAT YOU WANT WITHOUT EVER CHANGING THE LAW IN
[00:41:23] A FORMAL WAY. AND WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT IT THAT WAY.
[00:41:28] YOU THINK THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS A
[00:41:32] COLORBLIND AMENDMENT? NO.
[00:41:37] EXPLAIN IT. YOU GOT TO DO A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT. THESE PEOPLE PAID GOOD MONEY FOR
[00:41:41] THIS. OKAY? THEY DIDN'T ACTUALLY. THEY DID. BY THE BOOK.
[00:41:44] THANK YOU. SO THE 14TH AMENDMENT, AGAIN,
[00:41:49] IT'S BORN IN THE ASHES OF SLAVERY.
[00:41:51] AND IT IS INTENDED, ED, TO LITERALLY BRING THE FORMERLY
[00:41:57] ENSLAVED INTO THE BODY POLITIC AS CITIZENS.
[00:41:59] IT'S MEANT TO ADDRESS THE
[00:42:01] PROSPECT OF THE SOUTH TRYING TO
[00:42:04] REINSTATE SLAVERY.
[00:42:06] YOU KNOW, THE PROVISIONS DEALING
[00:42:08] WITH FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE FORMER INSURRECTIONISTS ARE ALL
[00:42:12] ABOUT TRYING TO PREVENT OTHER NATIONS FROM GIVING THEM THE
[00:42:15] FUNDING THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO
[00:42:17] RESURRECT A SLAVE ECONOMY AND A
[00:42:20] SLAVE GOVERNMENT IN THE ABSENCE
[00:42:22] OF THE CONFEDERACY. THERE'S NOTHING COLORBLIND ABOUT
[00:42:26] IT. THEY'RE TRYING TO PREVENT THE RE
[00:42:30] INSTANTIATION OF SLAVERY AND THE CONFEDERACY, AND THEY'RE
[00:42:33] EXPLICITLY TALKING ABOUT LAWS
[00:42:35] THAT ARE PASSED TO PREVENT
[00:42:39] DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE FORMERLY ENSLAVED, TO GIVE THE FORMERLY ENSLAVED THE SAME
[00:42:44] RIGHTS AS WHITE PEOPLE. THERE'S NOTHING COLORBLIND ABOUT THIS.
[00:42:48] THEY ALWAYS POINT TO JUSTICE
[00:42:50] JOHN MARSHALL, HARLAND, THE
[00:42:54] FIRST DISSENT IN PLESSY VERSUS FERGUSON.
[00:42:56] SO JUSTICE HARLAN IN HIS PLESSY DISSENT SAYS OUR CONSTITUTION IS
[00:43:00] COLORBLIND AND KNOWS NO COLOR, CASTE, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
[00:43:03] WHAT THEY FORGET, IT'S LIKE THERE'S A WHOLE THREE PARAGRAPHS
[00:43:07] BEFORE WHERE HARLAN IS TALKING ABOUT THE WHITE RACE IS DOMINANT.
[00:43:11] AND SO IT ALWAYS WILL BE LIKE HARLAN'S POINT ISN'T THAT WE
[00:43:14] HAVE A COLORBLIND CONSTITUTION. HIS POINT IS THAT WE DON'T NEED
[00:43:17] TO HAVE JIM CROW SEGREGATION FOR WHITE PEOPLE TO BE DOMINANT.
[00:43:20] LIKE THAT'S A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT. THAT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT.
[00:43:24] AND NO ONE AND IT'S LIKE, READ THE WHOLE THING. THIS IS LIKE A PROFESSOR READ THE SYLLABUS, READ THE WHOLE
[00:43:29] SYLLABUS. IF YOU READ ALL OF IT YOU WOULDN'T LIKE YOU WOULDN'T BE
[00:43:33] LOOKING AT JUSTICE HARLAN AND BEING LIKE, THIS IS THE WAY.
[00:43:36] AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE PARTS
[00:43:38] AFTER OUR CONSTITUTION IS COLORBLIND, WHERE JUSTICE HARLAN
[00:43:41] GOES IN ON THE CHINESE, LIKE THIS IS THIS IS NOT TO DENIGRATE
[00:43:45] JUSTICE HARLAN, BUT THESE ARE COMPLICATED PEOPLE.
[00:43:47] AND WE ARE TAKING THEIR WORDS
[00:43:49] AND MAKING FACILE SOUNDBITES OUT OF THEM.
[00:43:52] YESTERDAY WAS A TOUGH ONE,
[00:43:55] LOOKING AT WHAT THE SUPREME
[00:43:57] COURT DID IN THE ALABAMA CASE.
[00:43:59] TALK A LITTLE ABOUT THAT. WHAT DO YOU WHAT DO YOU THINK?
[00:44:03] HOW WORRIED ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT IT?
[00:44:05] WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THIS COURT?
[00:44:08] I MEAN, IN A LOT OF WAYS, IT
[00:44:11] JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT IT'S IT'S BEEN EXPOSED.
[00:44:15] I MEAN, IT'S NAKED NOW.
[00:44:15] I MEAN, WE KNOW IT'S BEEN NAKED.
[00:44:19] I'M I'M A LITTLE ALWAYS LITTLE MR. OPTIMIST HERE. BUT YOU KNOW THAT ONE.
[00:44:23] YOU THE OPTIMIST. MR. REDISTRICTING.
[00:44:26] YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
[00:44:28] BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT DECISION YESTERDAY?
[00:44:32] SO ACTUALLY, I'M GOING TO QUOTE YOU.
[00:44:34] YOU PUT OUT A STATEMENT.
[00:44:36] YOU'VE DONE AMAZING WORK ON
[00:44:39] REDISTRICTING, AND WE ALL OWE YOU A DEBT OF GRATITUDE FOR JUST
[00:44:43] BEING OUT IN FRONT AND NEVER
[00:44:44] LOSING SIGHT OF WHAT THIS MEANS.
[00:44:51] BUT YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD
[00:44:54] LIKE THIS HAS BEEN A MORE THAN
[00:44:58] DECADE LONG EFFORT TO HOBBLE AN
[00:45:00] ULTIMATELY JUST MANTEL. THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT ON THE
[00:45:03] PART OF THIS COURT. IT BEGAN IN SHELBY COUNTY VERSUS
[00:45:07] HOLDER. I KNOW YOU HATE HAVING ONLY CALL IT THE SHELBY COUNTY CASE.
[00:45:11] I DON'T WANT MY NAME ASSOCIATED WITH THERE BE LIKE DRED SCOTT
[00:45:14] VERSUS HOLDER. I DON'T WANT MY NAME. ASSOCIATED JUSTICE.
[00:45:17] SO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO -- ME OFF.
[00:45:20] SHELBY COUNTY CASE 2013, SHELBY
[00:45:26] COUNTY.
[00:45:26] IN 2013 EFFECTIVELY DISMANTLE
[00:45:30] THE PRE-CLEARANCE REGIME OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT. I DON'T THINK PEOPLE QUITE
[00:45:34] UNDERSTAND WHY PRECLEARANCE IS SO IMPORTANT. PRE-CLEAR LET'S ESTABLISH A
[00:45:37] FORMULA BY WHICH STATES WITH A HISTORY OF SUPPRESSIVE VOTER
[00:45:41] LAWS ANY CHANGE THAT THEY WANTED TO MAKE TO THEIR VOTING LAWS,
[00:45:45] WHETHER IT WAS MOVING A BALLOT BOX, YOU KNOW, CHANGING A LAW,
[00:45:49] WHATEVER, THEY HAD TO FIRST GO TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OR
[00:45:51] A THREE JUDGE COURT AND MAKE THE CASE FOR IT.
[00:45:54] AND THAT TYPICALLY MEANT THAT THE LAWS THAT WERE BAD, THAT
[00:45:58] WERE SUPPRESSIVE NEVER GOT ON THE BOOKS, LIKE THEY JUST NEVER
[00:46:00] HAD A CHANCE TO GO ANYWHERE. THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN SHELBY
[00:46:04] COUNTY SAYS THAT THE
[00:46:06] PRECLEARANCE COVERAGE FORMULA MISSES THAT.
[00:46:11] THERE'S ALL OF THIS RACIAL PROGRESS THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING IN THE SOUTH AND MORE BLACK
[00:46:13] PEOPLE ARE VOTING THAN EVER. AND HE CITES THE ELECTION OF
[00:46:19] 2008 AND 2012. MM HMM. HMM.
[00:46:23] YES. LIKE BLACK PEOPLE CAME OUT FOR THAT ONE.
[00:46:26] SO THERE'S A NARRATIVE OF
[00:46:28] PROGRESS THAT HE IS RELYING UPON. HE ALSO ARGUES OF THE
[00:46:33] PRECLEARANCE COVERAGE FORMULA, WHICH HE SAYS GIVES UNDUE POWER
[00:46:35] TO CONGRESS, TO POLICE THE STATES WHICH HAVE AUTHORITY TO
[00:46:39] CONDUCT THEIR ELECTIONS, THAT IT INTRUDES ON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF
[00:46:42] STATES AND TREATS SISTER STATES DIFFERENTLY, AND THAT IS A PROBLEM.
[00:46:46] THAT'S ALSO A KIND OF WEIRD READING OF FEDERALISM.
[00:46:48] BUT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER.
[00:46:51] HE KNOWS THAT IN STRIKING DOWN
[00:46:53] THE COVERAGE FORMULA, HE SAYS IN THE OPINION LIKE, YOU KNOW, CONGRESS CAN JUST WRITE ANOTHER
[00:46:57] COVERAGE FORMULA, A BETTER ONE, A CONSTITUTIONAL ONE. CONGRESS IS NOT WRITING A
[00:47:01] COVERAGE FORMULA. EVERYONE KNOWS IN 2013 THAT CONGRESS IS TOO RIVEN AND
[00:47:05] POLARIZED TO WRITE A COVERAGE FORMULA. THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT. SO THIS IS GOING TO DIE ON THE
[00:47:09] VINE AND THEY KNOW IT. THE CHIEF JUSTICE TELLS US THAT. DON'T WORRY, THERE'S STILL
[00:47:13] SECTION TWO. SECTION TWO IS A POTENT MEANS OF
[00:47:17] ADDRESSING SUPPRESSIVE VOTER LAWS. BUT IT'S NOT FANTASTIC BECAUSE
[00:47:20] IT REQUIRES LITIGATION. SO YOU'VE GOT TO GO GET A PLAINTIFF AND THEN YOU GOT TO
[00:47:23] GET MONEY AND YOU GOT TO LODGE A LAWSUIT INSTEAD OF JUST LIKE
[00:47:27] HAVING IT NIPPED IN THE BUD THROUGH PRECLEARANCE. NOW IT'S ENACTED AND YOU'VE GOT
[00:47:30] TO GET IT ENJOINED. YOU'VE GOT TO FIGHT IT, ALL OF THAT.
[00:47:34] THE MINUTE SHELBY COUNTY WAS
[00:47:36] ANNOUNCED, TEXAS HAS THE MOST
[00:47:40] SUPPRESSED VOTER ID LAW. IT WAS ULTIMATELY INVALIDATED IT, BUT THEY WENT FOR IT.
[00:47:44] AND STATES HAVE BEEN DOING IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AND IN FACT, DESPITE WHAT
[00:47:47] JUSTICE ALITO SAYS IN THE KELLY
[00:47:49] OPINION, THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SINCE SHELBY COUNTY, THE
[00:47:53] PERCENTAGE OF MINORITY VOTERS HAS ACTUALLY GONE DOWN,
[00:47:55] ESPECIALLY IN THE SOUTH.
[00:47:58] SO THAT'S THE FIRST THING WE ARE GETTING RID OF PRE COVER
[00:48:02] PRECLEARANCE. WE HAVE SECTION TWO, THEN THEY START HOBBLING SECTION TWO,
[00:48:04] ABBOTT VERSUS PEREZ HOBBLE SECTION TWO, BRNOVICH VERSUS DNC
[00:48:09] MAKES IT HARDER TO ESTABLISH DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT UNDER SECTION TWO.
[00:48:12] AND NOW LOUISA, ANNA VERSUS KELLY DECIDES IT'S GOING TO
[00:48:16] RETHINK THE WHOLE FORMULA. AND INSTEAD OF ESTABLISHING
[00:48:20] DISCRIMINANT TORY EFFECT, WHICH IS WHAT CONGRESS WROTE INTO THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, IT HAS TO BE
[00:48:25] INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION. IF YOU'VE EVER PRACTICE EMPLOYMENT LAW OR LABOR LAW, YOU
[00:48:30] KNOW, IT IS SO HARD TO ESTABLISH INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION. WHY?
[00:48:34] BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T GO AROUND CALLING PEOPLE THE N WORD IN THE WORKPLACE ANYMORE.
[00:48:38] THEY DO OTHER THINGS. THEY'RE MORE SUBTLE ABOUT IT.
[00:48:41] STATE LEGISLATURES ARE ALSO
[00:48:43] INCREASINGLY MORE SAVVY ABOUT HOW TO DO THIS.
[00:48:46] SO IT'S GOING TO BE VERY HARD TO DO INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION IN
[00:48:50] A WAY THAT IS LEGIBLE TO THE COURT. AND THEN WITH THIS DECISION IN
[00:48:52] ALLEN VERSUS MILLIGAN, THE COURT
[00:48:55] AT THE REQUEST OF ALABAMA, WHO WANTED TO USE A MAP THAT THE
[00:49:00] COURT A TYPE OF MAP THAT THE COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY SAID WOULD HAVE BEEN RACIALLY
[00:49:05] DISCRIMINATORY AND THAT A THREE JUDGE PANEL COMPRISED OF TO
[00:49:08] TRUMP APPOINTEES ALSO SAID WOULD HAVE BEEN RACIALLY
[00:49:12] DISCRIMINATORY. TWICE, THE COURT ALLOWS ALABAMA
[00:49:15] TO USE THAT MAP IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION.
[00:49:18] AND IN MAKING THAT POINT, THE COURT ALSO EFFECTIVELY SAYS THAT
[00:49:22] IT'S NOT SIMPLY THAT WE ARE
[00:49:24] GOING TO REQUIRE A SHOWING OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION TO
[00:49:27] MAKE OUT A CLAIM UNDER SECTION TWO OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
[00:49:31] WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ALMOST A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT
[00:49:34] STATES ARE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH,
[00:49:36] EVEN IF THEY OFFER SOME MADE UP.
[00:49:40] CLEARLY PRETEXTUAL, NONRACIAL
[00:49:43] REASON, AND THAT WILL DEFEAT ANY CLAIM OF INTENTIONAL
[00:49:47] DISCRIMINATE. AND SO, KAYLEIGH WAS THE FIRST NAIL.
[00:49:50] ALLEN VERSUS MILLIGAN MAKES IT
[00:49:53] VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN UNDER SECTION TWO.
[00:49:57] AND IT'S OVER. LIKE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IS
[00:50:01] OVER. SAD BUT TRUE.
[00:50:03] AND SO THE NEXT TIME THERE IS A
[00:50:06] DEMOCRATIC TRIFECTA AND I'M
[00:50:09] HOPING THAT IS IN 29 AND WE HAVE
[00:50:10] THE CAPACITY TO PASS LAWS, THE
[00:50:14] FILIBUSTER CAN'T GET IN THE WAY
[00:50:16] AND WE CAN'T ALLOW SENATORS LIKE
[00:50:19] CINEMA AND MANCHIN TO PREVENT
[00:50:21] THAT CARVE OUT AS THEY DID THE LAST TIME.
[00:50:24] SO THE THE CAPACITY, THE ABILITY
[00:50:26] TO CHANGE SUPREME COURT
[00:50:30] DECISIONS EXISTS. AND I THINK PEOPLE HAVE TENDED TO FORGET THAT. YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE SUPREME
[00:50:34] COURT'S RULE AND THEREFORE THAT THAT'S IT. WE HAVE THERE ARE LEGISLATIVE
[00:50:37] THINGS THAT WE CAN DO WITH REGARD TO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
[00:50:41] YOU KNOW, WE FIGHT HARD. YOU KNOW, WE DID FORGET AUDIENCE
[00:50:45] QUESTIONS. NO, NO, NO. OKAY. GETTING TO THAT WAS GOING TO DO IT.
[00:50:48] I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO HELP YOU OUT. YOU SAY YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO BE OVER HERE. I THOUGHT THAT'S HOW I. OKAY.
[00:50:52] ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MICROPHONE. AND GIVEN, AS I SAID, THE
[00:50:56] HUMONGOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY THAT YOU ALL PAID TO GET IN HERE,
[00:50:59] WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU ALL THE
[00:51:01] ABILITY TO ASK PROFESSOR MURRAY SOME QUESTIONS. HI.
[00:51:04] THANK YOU BOTH FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU DO. I LIVE IN VIRGINIA, SO WE'VE HAD
[00:51:08] A REALLY INTERESTING YEAR AND ARTICLE ONE, SECTION FOUR HAS BEEN MY LIFE FOR THE PAST
[00:51:12] SEVERAL MONTHS. I JUST I WONDER ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS IN TERMS OF WHAT
[00:51:17] LEGISLATURE CAN DO, BECAUSE IN VIRGINIA, I'M SURE, AS YOU BOTH
[00:51:20] KNOW, OUR DEMOCRATIC AG TOOK OR YOUR DEMOCRATIC AG TOOK A VERY
[00:51:24] INTERESTING APPROACH TO USE A
[00:51:27] VERSION OF THE INDEPENDENT STATE
[00:51:29] LEGISLATURE THEORY AS A MEANS TO
[00:51:32] BLOCK OUR VOTES THAT WERE THROWN
[00:51:34] OUT, WHICH IS REALLY INTERESTING TO HAVE MY VOTE NULLIFIED
[00:51:38] RETROACTIVELY. I'M JUST INTERESTED TO KNOW WHAT
[00:51:41] YOUR THOUGHTS ARE ON THAT.
[00:51:44] I THINK YOUR AG HAD SOME ISSUES
[00:51:47] EVEN BEFORE THIS, BUT LEAVING
[00:51:49] THAT ASIDE FROM AN.
[00:51:54] I THINK THERE'S JUST A LOT OF
[00:51:56] STUFF GOING ON RIGHT NOW AND.
[00:52:00] I THINK YOU THERE WILL BE LEGAL
[00:52:04] CHALLENGES TO MUCH OF IT AGAIN SOME OF THIS WILL GO UP TO STATE COURTS.
[00:52:09] THAT'S IMPORTANT. SOME OF IT MAY GO TO FEDERAL COURTS. THAT WILL ALSO BE IMPORTANT.
[00:52:11] I THINK THE REAL QUESTION HERE IS WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT
[00:52:15] THERE'S POWER ON ALL KINDS OF TABLES AND IN LOTS OF DIFFERENT
[00:52:19] FORUM FORA AND WE CANNOT LEAVE
[00:52:23] ANY OF IT BEHIND. RIGHT. SO, YES, IT IS FIGHTING ON THAT
[00:52:26] FRONT AND USING WHATEVER TOOLS WE HAVE. AND I THINK THE POINT YOUR AG
[00:52:30] WAS HOPING TO MAKE, MAYBE IMPERFECTLY, WAS THIS IS SORT OF
[00:52:32] A MASTER'S TOOLS TO DISMANTLE THE MASTER'S HOUSE LIKE THE
[00:52:36] INDEPENDENT STATE LEGISLATURE THEORY. ALSO FAN FICTION, BUT MAYBE WE
[00:52:39] CAN USE IT FOR PROGRESSIVE ENDS.
[00:52:40] I'M NOT QUITE SURE IT'S GOING TO
[00:52:43] PAN OUT THAT WAY, BUT A-PLUS FOR
[00:52:46] CREATIVITY, I GUESS. I MEAN, AND FOR LITERALLY TRYING
[00:52:49] TO USE WHATEVER WE HAVE. LIKE WE'RE KIND OF IN IT RIGHT
[00:52:52] NOW, LIKE THIS IS GO TIME.
[00:52:54] AND I THINK WE HAVE TO TRY A LOT OF THINGS, LIKE WE HAVE TO MOVE
[00:52:58] FAST. SOME THINGS MAY BE BROKEN, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO TRY ALMOST
[00:53:02] EVERYTHING. OKAY.
[00:53:06] HI.
[00:53:06] SO I JUST WANTED TO PUSH BACK A
[00:53:11] LITTLE BIT ON THE ORIGINALISM QUESTION.
[00:53:14] ON MY WAY TO ANOTHER QUESTION.
[00:53:16] SO IF I CAN THINK OF THE THREE
[00:53:18] WORST DECISIONS OFF THE TOP OF
[00:53:20] MY HEAD AND IT'S A BIG LIST, BUT
[00:53:23] BUSH VERSUS GORE, D.C. VERSUS
[00:53:25] HELLER, U.S. VERSUS TRUMP, PART
[00:53:29] OF WHAT MADE THEM SO BAD? WELL, THERE ARE TWO THINGS,
[00:53:33] WHICH IS THERE A HISTORICAL
[00:53:37] NATURE AND ALSO THAT THEY USED ALMOST NO LAW TO REACH THEIR
[00:53:42] DECISIONS AND THEY HAD THEIR OWN SPECIAL THEORIES SO THAT, IN
[00:53:45] FACT, IF THEY HAD ACTUALLY BEEN
[00:53:47] ORIGINALIST IN ANY OF THOSE
[00:53:51] DECISIONS, THOSE RESULTS COULD
[00:53:54] NOT HAVE BEEN REACHED, WHICH
[00:53:57] LEADS ME TO MY REAL QUESTION, WHICH IS REALLY A QUESTION OF
[00:54:01] LEGAL THEORY MORE THAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
[00:54:05] I'D LIKE YOUR OPINION AND ALSO
[00:54:07] GENERAL HOLDER.
[00:54:09] I MEAN, WE THE SUPREME COURT
[00:54:11] MAKES DECISIONS AND WE ACCEPT IT
[00:54:15] BECAUSE IT'S THE SUPREME COURT. RIGHT.
[00:54:19] AND MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANY
[00:54:21] DECISION THAT YOU CAN CONCEIVE
[00:54:24] OF WHERE WE WOULD SAY THAT THE
[00:54:28] COURT WAS ACTING CORRUPTLY,
[00:54:30] WHERE IT WOULD JUST DEFY
[00:54:34] IMPEACHMENT? YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, IF THE PERSON WERE PAID OR SOMETHING
[00:54:38] LIKE THAT, WE WOULD SAY, OKAY, THAT'S AN OBVIOUS.
[00:54:42] BUT IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT
[00:54:45] ANYTHING THE SUPREME COURT SAYS,
[00:54:47] NO MATTER WHAT IS THE LAW, NO
[00:54:51] MATTER HOW UNTETHERED IT IS TO
[00:54:57] REALITY? THAT'S ALL RIGHT. SO INTERESTING QUESTION. SUPPOSE THE SUPREME COURT
[00:55:01] DECIDED THAT THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.
[00:55:05] I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FACTS WOULD BE, WHAT THE CASE WOULD BE.
[00:55:09] THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IS NO
[00:55:11] LONGER PART OF THE AMERICAN
[00:55:15] EXPERIMENT. WHAT COULD WE DO? WE DON'T WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO
[00:55:19] HYPOTHETIC CALLS. WHAT IF A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WROTE A CONCURRENCE COMPLETELY
[00:55:23] REWRITING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR GROUP BASED
[00:55:27] SUSPICION OFF THE TOP OF MY
[00:55:33] HEAD.
[00:55:33] I THINK MOST PEOPLE IN RESPONSE
[00:55:37] TO JUSTICE KAVANAUGH'S CONCURRENCE IN GNOME VERSUS
[00:55:41] VASQUEZ PERDOMO WERE VERY CLEAR
[00:55:44] IN THEIR OPPOSITION. LIKE, THAT'S NOT THE FOURTH
[00:55:47] AMENDMENT THAT WE'VE HAD. WE'VE ALWAYS HAD INDIVIDUALIZED SUSPICION.
[00:55:50] THAT'S A WHOLE POINT OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. WE'VE NEVER AUTHORIZED THE
[00:55:54] GOVERNMENT TO RACIALLY PROFILE OR NOT EXPLICITLY ANYWAY.
[00:55:59] AND THIS CONCURRENCE COMPLETELY RUNS AFOUL OF THAT.
[00:56:03] AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK JUSTICE KAVANAUGH RIGHTLY GOT SO MUCH HEAT FOR THAT.
[00:56:07] PEOPLE STARTED CALLING THESE ICE STOPS CABINETS STOPS.
[00:56:11] AND APPARENTLY THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR HIM BECAUSE HE WROTE IN
[00:56:14] ANOTHER SHADOW DOCKET DECISION
[00:56:17] COMPLETELY APROPOS OF NOTHING, A
[00:56:19] WHOLE EXEGESIS ON THE MEANING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS LIKE,
[00:56:23] OKAY, I'M GLAD WE'RE BACK ON THE RIGHT PAGE.
[00:56:25] SO I DO THINK PEOPLE ROUTINELY
[00:56:29] CALL OUT DECISIONS THAT THEY DON'T FIND TO BE LEGITIMATE.
[00:56:33] I THINK LOTS OF WOMEN DID THAT IN THE WAKE OF DOBBS AND THE
[00:56:38] OVERRULING KING OF ROW. I THINK THAT'S A DIFFERENT THING FROM SAYING THAT THOSE ARE
[00:56:42] IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES. I MEAN, IF YOU READ THE BOOK, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE STANDARD FOR
[00:56:47] IMPEACHMENT, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IS PRETTY SPECIFIC. I'M NOT QUITE SURE.
[00:56:51] DECISIONS THAT WE THINK ARE A
[00:56:53] TEXTUAL OR OR JUST, YOU KNOW, A
[00:56:58] CONSTITUTIONAL WOULD FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, ALTHOUGH, AS YOU
[00:57:02] SAY, YOU KNOW, TAKING MONEY FROM YOUR EMOTIONAL SUPPORT
[00:57:07] BILLIONAIRE FOR A PARTICULAR DECISION THAT MIGHT WORK AS AN
[00:57:09] IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, IT'S THEIR
[00:57:11] JOB TO APPLY THE LAW, I THINK.
[00:57:16] YES, I THINK THEY WOULD. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S QUITE I MEAN, AGAIN, READ THE BOOK.
[00:57:20] I DON'T THINK THAT'S QUITE HIGH.
[00:57:22] CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION ABOUT
[00:57:25] ORIGINALISM, I DON'T REALLY KNOW THAT YOU NEED TO PUSH BACK BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT I
[00:57:30] DISAGREE. I OBJECT TO ORIGINALISM BECAUSE
[00:57:33] I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE PRIORITIZING A METHOD OF
[00:57:37] INTERPRETATION, ONE THAT DEPENDS
[00:57:39] ON FIDELITY TO MOMENTS OF TRUE DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT. RIGHT.
[00:57:43] BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT TO LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER
[00:57:46] HELLER WOULD BE BETTER IF IT WERE ORIGINALIST, LIKE THEY SAY,
[00:57:50] HELLER IS AN ORIGINAL DECISION, BUT IT'S NOT. I MEAN, IT USES LOTS OF OTHER
[00:57:54] SCHOOLS OF INTERPRETATION. IT'S ACTUALLY QUITE PROMISCUOUS IN THE KINDS OF INTERPRETIVE
[00:57:57] METHODS IT USES. BUT IT'S NOT FAITHFULLY ORIGINALIST.
[00:58:01] BUT THAT'S NOT WHY I OBJECT TO ORIGINALISM.
[00:58:03] YES, I THINGS ARE REALLY OUT OF BALANCE.
[00:58:07] AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK ABOUT THE
[00:58:11] EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND I RECENTLY
[00:58:14] HEARD THAT CLINTON, BUSH AND
[00:58:17] OBAMA, EACH OF THEM HAD ABOUT 35
[00:58:21] EXECUTIVE ORDERS IN THEIR EIGHT YEARS.
[00:58:25] CLINTON I MEAN, TRUMP HAS HAD
[00:58:28] 240 THIS YEAR.
[00:58:30] AND OF THOSE 240 THEN THE ONES
[00:58:34] THAT WERE CONTESTED AND WENT TO
[00:58:34] THE SHADOW DOCKET OF OVER 80%
[00:58:40] WERE IN TRUMP'S FAVOR.
[00:58:44] AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT
[00:58:46] THIS SELECTIVE ORIGINALISM.
[00:58:50] SURE. SO, YOU KNOW, ONE THING I THINK YOU IT'S WORTH THINKING ABOUT
[00:58:54] WITH REGARD TO JUST THE RISE IN EXECUTIVE ORDERS, LIKE THAT'S A
[00:58:59] FAILURE FOR OF INSTITUTIONS. THAT'S A FAILURE OF LIKE CONGRESS, LIKE, YOU KNOW,
[00:59:01] PRESIDENT OBAMA PASSED A BUNCH OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS DEALING WITH
[00:59:05] IMMIGRATION BECAUSE CONGRESS COULD NOT PASS COMPREHENSIVE
[00:59:07] IMMIGRATION REFORM, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS CLEAR THAT IT WAS NECESSARY.
[00:59:11] SO, YOU KNOW, THE RISE OF THESE
[00:59:13] EXECUTIVE ORDERS, I THINK,
[00:59:15] POINTS TO A CONGRESS THAT IS NOT
[00:59:18] FUNCTIONAL IN A LOT OF WAYS OR A
[00:59:20] CONGRESS THAT IS ACQUIESCED IN
[00:59:23] TERMS OF GUARDING ITS PROGRAMS. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S GOING
[00:59:26] ON WITH REGARD TO THE TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDERS.
[00:59:30] AGAIN, I THINK PART OF THE STRATEGY HERE IS TO DO AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
[00:59:33] AND IT'S JUST VERY HARD TO CHALLENGE ALL OF THEM. AND, YOU KNOW, ON THE PODCAST
[00:59:37] SCRUTINY, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT LIKE WE PREDICTED THERE'D BE LIKE A ZILLION EXECUTIVE ORDERS
[00:59:41] KNOWING THAT NOT ALL OF THEM COULD BE CAUGHT LIKE, LIKE THE
[00:59:45] FILTER TO CATCH THEM ALL WAS GOING TO HAVE TO BE VERY POWERFUL. SO SOME WERE GOING TO GET
[00:59:49] THROUGH AND LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO DO CERTAIN THINGS LIKE KIND
[00:59:51] OF REWRITE THE LAWS IN WAYS THAT
[00:59:54] WERE MORE FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION, NOT ALL OF THEM WERE GOING TO BE CHALLENGED, WHICH MEANT THAT
[00:59:58] THEY WOULD BECOME CONCRETIZED THE SUPREME COURT.
[01:00:02] I THINK ON THE SHADOW DOCKET. AND THEN THAT REALLY IS THE REAL
[01:00:06] PROBLEM. THEY'RE DOING A LOT OF THIS ON THE SHADOW DOCKET, WHICH DOESN'T
[01:00:09] MEAN THAT YOU KNOW, THE SHADOW DOCKET IS AN INTERIM CASE
[01:00:12] MANAGEMENT DOCKET THAT'S MEANT
[01:00:15] TO SORT OF DEAL WITH PROCEDURAL MATTERS. SO CASES, YOU KNOW, ORDERS OF
[01:00:19] LOWER COURTS GETS CHALLENGED TO THE SHADOW DOCKET ON THE SHADOW
[01:00:22] DOCKET TO THE COURT AND THE COURT TYPICALLY IS SUPPOSED TO
[01:00:25] USE THE SHADOW DOCKET TO JUST MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO.
[01:00:29] SO IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR CONTESTING AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
[01:00:32] DISMANTLING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BY WITHHOLDING FUNDING TO THAT DEPARTMENT AND A LOWER
[01:00:37] COURT SAYS, YES, WE ARE GOING TO ENJOIN THE EXECUTIVE FROM DOING
[01:00:40] THAT AND THE GOVERNMENT RUNS TO THE SUPREME COURT, PLEASE HELP
[01:00:44] US DISMANTLE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. TYPICALLY, WHAT WOULD BE
[01:00:47] EXPECTED OF THE COURT IS TO SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO LIKE KEEP
[01:00:50] THE INJUNCTION IN PLACE, LET THE
[01:00:52] STATUS QUO SIT WHILE THIS LITIGATION PERCOLATES AND MAKES
[01:00:55] ITS WAY UP TO US EVENTUALLY. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS COURT IS
[01:00:59] DOING. INSTEAD, ON THE SHADOW DOCKET, WHICH HAS VERY LITTLE RULING ON
[01:01:03] VERY LITTLE BRIEFING, VERY LITTLE EXPLANATION, THEY'RE
[01:01:06] LETTING THE ADMINISTRATOR TO DO IT, SORT OF LIKE LIFTING THESE
[01:01:09] LOWER COURT INJUNCTION, ALLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION TO DO THIS. AND IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT ONCE
[01:01:13] A LITIGATION PERCOLATES BACK UP TO THEM, THEY'LL SAY, YOU KNOW
[01:01:16] WHAT, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
[01:01:19] BUT THE POINT OF IT IS THAT THE HORSE IS OUT OF THE BARN.
[01:01:22] YOU CAN'T UNRING THAT BELL. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO USE THE
[01:01:26] SHADOW DOCKET TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO. THE STATUS QUO IS THAT WE HAD A
[01:01:29] DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND NOW
[01:01:30] WE DON'T.
[01:01:34] THINK WE HAVE TIME FOR. MAYBE ONE MORE QUESTION. LAST QUESTION.
[01:01:37] THIS PERSON SO NERVOUS.
[01:01:43] IT'S A SILLY QUESTION, BUT THE PRESSURE IS ON YOU, MY MAN. THIS IS THE LAST I MAKE IT GOOD
[01:01:47] KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THE PAST 12, 16 YEARS OR SO.
[01:01:50] DO YOU THINK THE US HAS MOVED
[01:01:52] PAST THE POINT OF NEEDING A
[01:01:54] PRESIDENT AT ALL.
[01:01:58] THIS PRESIDENT OR I MEAN, I'M I
[01:02:00] MEAN, THIS PRESIDENT, BUT IN ALL I MEAN, I'M ALL FOR PRESIDENT.
[01:02:05] MELISSA BUT ABSOLUTE POWER.
[01:02:07] YEAH, WE ASK YOU, DO YOU THINK
[01:02:11] IT'S IMPORTANT TO THE FUTURE TO HAVE A PRESIDENT, ONE SINGULAR
[01:02:15] PERSON IN CHARGE OF ALL THESE DECISIONS?
[01:02:17] OR DO YOU THINK READ THE BOOK? HE'S NOT IN CHARGE OF ALL THESE
[01:02:21] DECISIONS. NOT NOT AS THINGS NOT SOUNDING LIKE.
[01:02:23] I MEAN, I THINK ME IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF LIKE, DO WE NEED A PRESIDENT LIKE, DO WE NEED A
[01:02:28] CONGRESS THAT WORKS? DO WE NEED COURTS THAT FOLLOW
[01:02:31] THE CONSTITUTION LIKE WE NEED? THESE WERE ALL OF THE THINGS
[01:02:34] THAT WERE CONTEMPLATE IT. AND YEAH, I KIND OF THINK WE NEED THEM ALL.
[01:02:37] AND AN EXECUTIVE THAT OBSERVES THE LIMITS THAT ARE PRESCRIBED
[01:02:41] AND A PEOPLE THAT KNOW WHAT
[01:02:44] THOSE LIMITS ARE, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT YOU, UNCLE LUKE, AND
[01:02:48] ARE PREPARED TO ENFORCE THEM AND
[01:02:52] REALLY SET UP AND ENFORCE THEM.
[01:02:56] WELL, LOOK, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE LAST WORD, BUT I JUST
[01:02:59] WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS A A GREAT BOOK AND IT IS AN
[01:03:02] UNEXPECTED PLEASURE. I'M JUST GOING TO ADMIT THAT IT IS.
[01:03:06] IF ANYTHING THAT YOU WRITE IS GREAT.
[01:03:09] I LOVE YOU ON THE PODCAST CONSTITUTION BOOK. OH, BUT THIS IS GREAT.
[01:03:12] THIS IS GREAT.
[01:03:14] AND THE THING THAT REALLY GETS
[01:03:18] ME ABOUT IT IS KIND OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE AND
[01:03:21] HOW WE AS A PEOPLE, I THINK TEND TO UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER THAT WE HAVE.
[01:03:25] AND YOUR TALKING ABOUT THE
[01:03:29] AMENDMENTS THAT COME OUT OF DISCUSSED OVER THE FIRST GILDED
[01:03:32] AGE ISN'T IS I THINK IN SOME
[01:03:36] WAYS A PRIMER, A DIRECTION THAT
[01:03:40] WE OUGHT TO BE THINKING ABOUT THAT YOU KNOW, WE DON'T SIMPLY
[01:03:42] HAVE TO TAKE THIS THAT THERE IS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION THE
[01:03:46] ABILITY OF A FOCUSED PEOPLE TO
[01:03:50] MAKE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE AND THOSE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU TALK
[01:03:53] ABOUT IN SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, I MAY HAVE FORGOTTEN BUT
[01:03:57] WASN'T KIND OF FRONT OF MIND FOR ME AND TO TO READ THAT WAS
[01:03:59] REALLY KIND OF KIND OF TOOK ME BACK. AND SO. YEAH, WELL, THAT'S RIGHT. I MEAN, THE PEOPLE REBELLED
[01:04:04] AGAINST THE EXCESSES OF THE GILDED AGE AND PUT IN PLACE
[01:04:08] CONSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
[01:04:12] AND WE ARE IN THAT MOMENT, IT SEEMS TO ME, AND WE TEND TO
[01:04:15] UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER THAT WE HAVE. AND I THINK WE NEED TO REMEMBER IN MINNEAPOLIS.
[01:04:18] YOU KNOW, GREG BOVINO DIDN'T LEAVE MINNEAPOLIS BECAUSE HE HAD
[01:04:22] ACCOMPLISHED HIS MISSION AT KRISTI NOEM WAS SATISFIED WITH
[01:04:25] WHAT HE DID OR TRUMP THOUGHT. AND YOU KNOW, STEPHEN MILLER FOR
[01:04:28] HE GOT HIS -- KICKED OUT BY THE PEOPLE.
[01:04:33] MINNEAPOLIS, ORDINARY PEOPLE DOING EXTRAORDINARY THINGS.
[01:04:36] THAT IS WITHIN THE CAPACITY OF ALL OF US TO DO.
[01:04:40] AND THIS BOOK IS A GOOD REMINDER THAT, IN FACT, THAT POWER STILL
[01:04:44] EXISTS WITHIN US. IT ACTUALLY SHOWS THE WAYS IN
[01:04:47] WHICH WE CAN ACCOMPLISH IT.
[01:04:49] I WOULDN'T EXPECT ANYTHING OTHER THAN GREAT FROM THIS THIS
[01:04:53] WONDERFUL YOUNG WOMAN, YOUNG,
[01:04:57] ALL WELL, YOU'RE YOUNG, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE DISTRESSINGLY YOUNG.
[01:05:00] SHE IS A GREAT PROFESSOR.
[01:05:03] SHE IS A GREAT STUDENT OF THE
[01:05:07] AMERICAN EXPERIENCE AND A PERSON I ALWAYS GO TO WHEN I HAVE THESE
[01:05:12] CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT'S POSSIBLE.
[01:05:14] SHE IS AN AMERICAN TREASURE.
[01:05:17] I WILL GIVE YOU THE LAST WORD.
[01:05:25] YOU ARE MY FOREVER AGE.
[01:05:28] I TRULY, TRULY.
[01:05:35] AM. ONE LAST STORY FROM THE BOOK.
[01:05:38] IT'S WE HAVE THE POWER THAN IS EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US WITHIN US.
[01:05:42] AND THE LAST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, THE 27TH, IT WAS
[01:05:46] ACTUALLY PUT FORTH WITH THE REST
[01:05:48] OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND IT WAS
[01:05:50] NEVER RATIFIED UNTIL A YOUNG COLLEGE STUDENT AT THE
[01:05:53] UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, GREGORY WATSON, WAS WRITING A
[01:05:56] PAPER AND HE WANTED TO WRITE A PAPER ON AMENDMENTS THAT NEVER MADE IT.
[01:05:59] AND SO HE WROTE ABOUT THE SO-CALLED COMPENSATION AMENDMENT
[01:06:03] HE GOT TO SEE ON HIS PAPER.
[01:06:05] GREGORY WAS UNDETERRED.
[01:06:07] HE STARTED CALLING LEGISLATORS. HE CALLED A SENATOR FROM MAINE,
[01:06:10] THE MAINE SENATOR PUT HIM IN CONTACT WITH STATE LEGISLATURES
[01:06:14] ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY. AND GREG WATSON GOT TO WORK.
[01:06:17] AND HE GOT THE STATE
[01:06:20] LEGISLATURES TO PASS THIS AMENDMENT TO RATIFY IT.
[01:06:23] HE WAS HELPED OUT BY THE FACT
[01:06:25] THAT CONGRESS, THE AMENDMENT PROHIBITS CONGRESS FROM RAISING
[01:06:28] ITS COMPENSATION IN A TERM WHERE THEY'RE ALL IN OFFICE.
[01:06:31] BUT HE WAS AIDED BY A MASSIVE CHECK KITING SCANDAL AT THE
[01:06:35] HOUSE BANK. SO CONGRESS DID FACILITATE THIS IN SOME WAY, BUT HE MANAGES TO
[01:06:39] GET THIS PASSED AND GREG WATSON,
[01:06:42] NOT ONLY CHANGES THE
[01:06:46] CONSTITUTION, HE GETS HIS GRADE CHANGED BECAUSE THE UNIVERSITY
[01:06:48] OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN IS LIKE, WAIT A MINUTE.
[01:06:52] AND THEY CHANGE HIS C TWO AND A
[01:06:54] SO IF YOU EVER THINK IT'S NOT
[01:06:58] IMPOSSIBLE, IF YOU THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, I'LL GREG WATSON IS
[01:07:01] HERE TO REMIND YOU EVERYTHING. ONE OF US HAS THE POWER WITHIN
[01:07:05] US TO BE A CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE MAKER.
[01:07:07] THANK YOU SO.
[01:07:11] READ THE BOOK. TELL YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT IT.
[01:07:15] THIS IS A GOOD, GOOD SUMMER. READ ALL RIGHT.
[01:07:19] TELL YOUR FRIEND ABOUT IT. I'M GOING TO TELL MY FRIEND ABOUT IT. YES. YES.
[01:07:23] ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING.
[01:07:26] DID YOU KNOW YOU CAN WATCH BOOK
[01:07:29] TV ONLINE ANYTIME AT BOOK TV DOT ORG?
[01:07:32] USE THE SEARCH BOX TO FIND YOUR
[01:07:35] FAVORITE NONFICTION AUTHORS.
[01:07:40] C-SPAN'S AMERICA'S BOOK CLUB PROGRAMING IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY
[01:07:43] THE CABLE, SATELLITE AND STREAMING COMPANIES THAT PROVIDE
[01:07:47] C-SPAN AS A PUBLIC SERVICE AND
[01:07:49] IS SUPPORTED BY THE JOHN D AND
[01:07:51] CATHERINE T MACARTHUR FOUNDATION
[01:07:54] AND THE FORD FOUNDATION.