Transcripts For CSPAN2 John Yoo Defender In Chief 20240712

Professor of lauper he served in all three branches of the federal government to the Justice Department office of legal counsel, and the Senate Judiciary committee and Justice Clarence thomas prayed the previous books include crisis and command a history of executive power from George Washington to george w. Bush. His newest book the subject of todays discussion is titled defend her in chief, Donald Trumps fight for president ial power. John thanks for joining us today. Spivey entrance. Guest thanks adam and thank you its hard to believe ive been a scholar here for almost 20 years. I think im one of the oldest people on the staff. Its great to be here again to talk about a book and it would not be possible without having relationships like those i have aei. So terrific lets jump into the book. The end of the books introduction you summarize the overall argument and theme of the book. You say that President Trump has returned to the framers original vision of the presidency as an office of unity, vigor, and independence. In securing the benefits of ending executive for his predecessors trump moved in the greatest service. Why dont you elaborate on that and describe the overall argument in the book. Guest thanks. Thats great writing. As like i should have taken one third of the words out of that. That was a long sentence. Its a fair summary of the book. Got to say when trump ran for president and 2016 i was wary of him. He was not my first pick for president. And one reason i was wary of him is because hes a populist. In the constitution fears populace. Click you look like an fdr and Andrew Jackson even Abraham Lincoln their people who think they have the popular will behind them. In the constitution is often seen as an obstacle cruelly true people like fdr. You wouldve thought President Trump would come into office and he would find the constitution a hindrance, an obstacle to what he wanted to do but instead the last three and half, four years what i have seen as his opponents who really want to abandon change constitutional traditions and institutions. Its his opponent. And you look at the Electoral College is his opponents who want to pack the Supreme Court from nine to 16 members which i think would be terrible for Judicial Independence and the rule of law. They are the ones that support special councils and prosecutors to fight off partisan political battles or support the idea of independent bureaucracy like the fbi and jim combing who can decide who is fit or not fit to hold office, not the voters who want to nationalize the economy and create this a vague Green New Deal in this Global Warming. He was a populist, hes turned out to be the one who is defending a think more often than fighting with traditional constitutional understandings, our institutions. Thats not to say he hasnt changed, which he has, the norms and politics of the office of the president. I think when it comes to constitutional powers, he actually has not been this great destroyer, the great shredder of the constitution of which he is been accused often of his critics. Host in the opening you pointed President Trump with his critics and opponents you started beginning with his election on the electoral council. Lets jump to chapter two of president s duty and what that means with his Law Enforcement. He mentioned the case the conflict with james comey. So thats great, i think the founders that the two most important functions of the president and they say so protecting National Security and enforcing the law. They wanted to leave the president to be independent of congress because they thought having congressional control is the very definition. So trump comes into office in one way i understand the Mueller Investigation, i understand what happened with jim comey is almost a revolt of the Law Enforcement bureaucracy. I used to be part of it in the Bush Administration in the Justice Department. But you had this revolt by the fbi and the headquarters and jim comey ultimately set against the elected leadership of the country against the person the constitution says it is the president that takes care of the laws are faithfully executed. And under our system again this is a traditional understanding, President Trump has the right to fire, not just jim comey but anyone involved in Law Enforcement because as the Supreme Court is long said all of those people are assistance to the president in performing his constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Rather than taking some great constitutional disaster and trump firing comey, but i argue it is the president restoring the Traditional Law through the power to remove anybody who is involved with prosecution or investigation because they are all people who have to help the president in achieving that duty to make sure they are faithfully executed. So he said to those think the president should not be in full control of Law Enforcement, the only thing worse than that perhaps it be the president not having full control and having something as important as the prosecuting power or Law Enforcement powers scattered among a variety of offices that are not actually accountable to the people of the president. Guest he said that about the independent counsel sometimes a wolf comes disguised in sheeps clothing. But this time the wolf comes disguised as a wolf. And its not really even discussing that of the bigger issue, the political theory a lot of people are interested in, is that the independent counsel also represents eisai the pinnacle of the idea of the Administrative State. The idea of Teddy Roosevelts idea of fdr, really interested in these issues Public Policy questions were not about politics they were scientific, managerial issues. So even prosecution is up to the experts. So you should create special councils were who are insulated and protected from politics so they can do their professional jobs. They can do the expert function functions. Glad jungle head. The constitution creates a direct political control over Law Enforcement. The founders would not of accepted this idea that Public Policy questions are questions of expertise alone. We elect the president and that president is the one who is in charge of Law Enforcement. And hold them accountable and responsible thing to selection. Speech i just want to tell the audience by the way you want to submit for the audience q a portion of todays discussion, you can send them into ways. You can either submit your questions on twitter fender in chief. Or you can send in by email to the Program Director for aei department of social cultural and constitutional studies nicole penn thats an i see ole. Pen and at aei. Org. Don of this point youre just elaborating on the Political Tension between that accountability and technical expertise. That is a theme with the discussion on Law Enforcement of sorry but on these broader questions of bureaucracy and the president. His conflict with the state department, his conflict with the National Intelligence apparatus of the country and so on. This is not just limited to Law Enforcement birth is a broader challenging governments. Its what is elected to lead. Guest these are questions you and i are both interested in. I think it really expresses too, not just trump fighting to win his battles everyday but expresses his conflict between two different visions of government. I think trump is trying to turn us back even though he may not realize he doing it but consciously doing it, but his own self interest causes him to want to bring us back to that more spartan limited idea of the government that the founders had prayed the idea that the branches would have separate. That they would not cooperate all the time. Theyd be constantly fighting. That is how individual liberties result. Instead you have this other vision this progressive vision of cooperation between the branches. Why cant they get over the separation of powers by creating this Administrative State. On that Administrative State will be filled with permanent bureaucrats with expertise in constantly creating new laws and adjudicating constantly growing and acting in government. Again i think is the opposite of 18th century constitution. I think trump interestingly, he is pursuing his political selfinterest obviously when he fights with muller, coma hes trying to save his political hide. But i try to argue in the book, the founders constitution tries to channel that rational selfinterest into a greater constitutional good by hopefully causing all of these competing interests into fighting each other. Madisons famous phrase ambition must counteract ambition in the interest of a man should be the interest of the place which is in the institution. And by that constant struggle that government, that will limit government more effectively than the bill of rights and that space that is left without government will be where our individual liberties are. I dont have trump knows hes doing that or thanks hes doing that but the constitution by channeling trump self interest. Many ways its likely free markets another 18th century around the time of the 17th century. Guest suppose part of our system is the fact that no president is supposed to be a constitutional scholar. Rather the president occupies. [laughter] the last may had was woodrow wilson. [laughter] so but that is right. And so you have a president is exercising an office occupying an office and his ambition is channeled through that office and attach to the offices same way the ambitions of say members of congress are channeled into their office. And our system presumes they will do get out so to speak through politics. And that is how these institutional values are advanced and achieved. You go on to describe an interesting term you called the president s power to reverse. And i suppose it is that in a system where president s have vast powers not just through the constitution but through the statutes that have been delegated that of delegated powers to administrations over a century or more. That the president is an immensely consequential policymaking decision and therefore we need to leave maximum space for each president to move forward after an election and reverse policies of the previous administration. You write about that. We both written a little bit about how that is bumped up against the courts in this administration. Want you tell us about the power to reverse and how thats fair in the Trump Administration. Guest thats a great point. I think i tried to explain one of the real limitations on the presidency but also under the president s power is the power to reverse prayer we dont really think of it that way. When Congress Wants to repeal a law passes a new law trend law. Once there reverse their reverse by the Supreme Court decisions. But how does a president change policy . Its obvious you would think. The present reverses what the last president in the same way by issuing an executive order or firing someone pardoning someone. If you look at the formal powers of the government, a lot of them have to do with reversing what the last president did. It seems it trump really likes to use those powers. His favorite tagline is youre fired. [laughter] it is a reversal of a joint decision by the president and the senate shall hold an office pretties also terminated treaties, pulled us out of the iran deal, he pulled us out of the paris Global Warming accord, is now been pulling us out of i think becoming somewhat obsolete bilateral arms control treaties with the former soviet union now russia. You could say trumps favorite executive power is this an pardoning. But the fate of it is interesting, adam, i wouldve thought this would have been an obvious aspect of the executive power. But as you know the Supreme Court three weeks ago and the daca decision. I was quite astounded the Supreme Court said no actually the president doesnt have this kind of immediate reversal powe power. Think about what that could do. I actually think the decca policy is a good idea. But the constitution clearly said Immigration Laws under control of congress. Congress is not created a category four the dreamers or their parents to stay in the country. The president has the power to faithfully execute. Just by not enforcing Immigration Laws seems to me President Trump upon taking office has a power of reversal. He can say no start enforcing those laws again. But what is remarkable i think was that the Supreme Court said no, you have to file the administrative procedure act to take anywhere from one to four years to use to undo president obamas decision in the present obama did not use the procedure act pretty just that im using discretion of prosecution i started asking that back in 201212 the power of nonenforcement he could radically change Immigration Law people or people who bring millions of dollars in investment and american businesses. They can create the own decca Program Search and replace children and parents of children with stem degrees or assets or skills, certain skills. I dont see why there should be some special constitutional law that limits trump on the other hand the Supreme Court has simply different rule that only benefits other president s. Your argument on this it comes back to the take care clause of the constitution you say at one point year old the book before they decided that case you knew is on its way and you said it cannot be the case you cant force a present this is in your book that cannot be the case the courts meagan force the president to continue to enforce in a policy in fact is unconstitutional. Thats the bigger issue a hind the daca issue which unifies the court as a selfconfidence view of the constitution it superior to that of the president or congress. This one has come as a shock to the founders people look at the beginning of the country it is the president and it is the congress that deals with the constitutional issues in the beginning not the Supreme Court. And if you think about the result of decca President Trump comes to office and immediately says is unconstitutional. Should they not going to force this policy is only reason i need to and it you see whats happened it is ordered the President Trump to keep enforcing it unconstitutional policy not just that trump is unconstitutional but the lower courts have found unconstitutional twoparty think its quite remarkable. Its yet another example of this is seizure from the political branches from the president for their right to interpret the constitution by the courts. Its not a partisan thing is not a conservative liberal thing. All the justices love to do this when it suits them. So is a little bit about this the book was coming out you wrote some more about it and the national review. For me this particular issue seem to be a consequence of the administrative procedure act which in and of itself a broad overlay on executive power which raises challenging questions it always has about the extent to which congress can legislate procedures upon the president or that the courts can enforce those legislative procedures. But the way you describe the conflict between the Trump Administration and the roberts court, it brings them back to earlier point we talk about the branches having ambition and checking and balancing one another. How should these sorts of moments play out when an ambitious president is by himself bumping up against what may be an ambitious court of a sort . So its interesting braid this is something that actually divides trump lets add six new justices to the court then. If we dont like what its doin doing. Its been rejected in the past i think what President Trump is been doing is morgan the traditional approach which is gradually trying to change the direction of the court by putting new judges on. Trump didnt say lets expand the Supreme Court to 11 or 12 people he replace the vacancies that have occurred in his presidency and he picked people who were conservative, who shared his ideology. Actually a remarkable thing talk about little bit in the book is President Trump see first one to issue a list of nays and say i will only pick from this list of nays and almost delegate the power to come up with the list to will know conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation on the society. Adam otto how we got shut out of that aei. How come we didnt get asked to participate. But trump did that all publicly because he wanted to show a commitment to traditional ideology of a certain kind as he had no track record on judges. He is filled the lower courts, think sometimes that goes unnoticed by the american people. Hes filled the lower courts lawyers and judges who had to seem to share he hasnt tried to do anything radical with regard to courts. He is followed what president s at least nixon and before has done which is a gradually change the personnel in the direction and also congress and the senate can oppose that they dont have to confirm any of these nominees if they dont want to. But trump suspect this is a point you go in detail the way President Trump is having a long legacy especially since many are young and also the legacy of transforming Supreme Court politics. Not just a certain kind of judge often candidates is a judges like skill leo and thomas. But actually naming nays when it comes to Supreme Court interesting to see whether biden of the current president ial campaign will try something similar on the other hand it elevates issue give certainty to the public they know what theyre doing could create interesting Politics Around the list is a temptation for judges to do things to try to get themselves on the list to try to get themselves above other people on the list . I guess since you wrote about in the book, what you think is the long term future for the Supreme Court list . So you could say a downside is you might treat judges like legislation. Use a point people are gonna vote a i just saw senator hes going to apply witness tested only vote for people who are opposed to row versus wade for example. Phil never vote for someone is not in favor. So you could say dont want appointments to treat judges like a bundle of folks so on that downside. It really becomes President Trumps unique nature. He had no background. Important how that list was winning the nomination. 20 of people who voted for trump only voted for him, only supported him because of the Supreme Court issue. Remember there was an open vacancy at the time with Justice Scalia part also remember he was in a dogfight with ted cruz for the nomination. And of course a lot of conservatives would trust ted cruz to appoint he himself was a clerk he was a constitutional conservative. Trump had to make that public commitments because he needed to shown his own may need future candidates and shove a lengthy record might have a practice in history of appointing judges spoken unconstitutional issues to do Something Like that again. So heres a short list for the secretary of defense but you can think why not do for every office why just the Supreme Court maybe need that flexibility. It can turn into a Coalition Government with different interests and the party. Try to say were not going to support you unless you hit our list for secretary of education or something. Also the expected some sort of senate to play with the role of the federal 76 instead of the silent check in the background. Suppose you want to present to come to office with most of his big appointments, bring them to the senate for a real process, to advise consent to get those office legitimacy be on the ballot box. Other something is to be said and making clear to the voter what theyd ministration looks like pretty think back to george w. Bush with his addition not just of Vice President cheney obviously as his running mate, but people knowing that colin powell was likely to be secretary of state was no small thing for a president who really didnt have any experience on the global stage touch on in the book is the clash had in the itself powers it not easy to check for the powers that at least can do a lot, can have an impact before they are checked. We saw that with the house with impeachment. Regardless of what happens with the Senate Impeachment trial the houses ability to impeach a president open ended powers with pardons and so on. We touched on this a little bit on our discussion the quote from scalia trust in us totally to the executive branch. How should we think of those sorts of powers that the president can field without any check or balance . Especially the pardon power thats been in the news lately. This proves to be President Trumps terminal probably in the news at the end of the term like it is at the end of every president ial term. That true. Thats a really good point, adam. There are certain powers inherent in each branch. The framers did not give any other outside branch a role in pride perhaps you dont want him to say the judiciarys power to decide cases who wins and who loses a case. Congress power to legislate. And then you say the executives power to choose who to prosecute or who not to prosecute. Who do pardon, how to execute the law, how to execute the National Security. You see that an area after area, think sometimes people expect the constitution to save us that they think not only does the constitution allocate those powers but some of the constitution is going to have an abuse of those powers. For example, after the pardonin pardoning, mutation of roger stone reasoning nancy pelosi gave a lot of voice shes in the past a lots nature that can never happen in the future. Thats actually not possible. No congress can limit the power in that way. So what is the limit on abuse . If you say for example, president ial power ultimately is subject to impeachment, the president can be removed if the house and senate agree. To prevent that from becoming a partisan tool the framers set the removal bar very high two thirds. If you look at the founding debates, they really expected the check on constitutional power politics. We talk about this policy this past week. President trump is been floating the idea of reducing the troop presence in germany. Or withdrawing troops from at least afghanistan. Congress cant command the troops. But they can use their own constitutional powers to try to frustrate the president. They can attach spending conditions. They can set the size of the military capabilities. I think that is what the founders expected. Not taking it to the Supreme Court which seems to be everybodys preference these days greater not clean the constitution exactly who gets to decide where troops are going to be stationed. yes, they might fight and check each other but its all in the realm of politics its not going to be one filled with correct and clear constitutional rules that we can draw from. And Something Like today we just expect the constitution is gonna save us, the Supreme Court will decide everything, i dont think thats what the founders intended it. Thats why argue in a way, trump is bringing us back to that more original understanding is very vigorous about using the powers of his office to try to fight and frustrate congress for a lot of those powers most of them they are subject to reversal, the president has the power to reverse but that means for each president , there is a natural limitation on himself. It is the possibility of being reversed. Sometimes these things sort themselves out over time. I want to remind people, we will go to audience questions in a few minutes. You can send questions on twitter or by email to nicole. Penand aei. Org. You say in the closing i to make the case for another term President Trump will have to use the constitution more as a sword to advance his positive agenda on looking ahead to the ways in which president ial power executive administrative power can help promote an affirmative policy agenda. What sorts of things could President Trump do to help move those balls forward in the interest of reelection . I think much of the book seems almost defensive because i think trump has been using the constitution more as a shield to protect himself. So look at what could he do. I think one of the great successions until the pandemic came along was the rejuvenation of the economy. Faster rates of economic growth, consumer spending, investment and i think tax cuts had something to do with it but the president s power of deregulation was an important aspect of that. Sometimes the administration used clumsy rules to do that saying, to get a new regulation passed an agency has to get rid another regulation. Now i think that issue might even be 3 a1 in practice. In an effort to really focus on relieving the burdens of government on the economy to really deregulate i think trump has had a lot of success but hasnt really been able to really take off in the way it could with the kind of sustained effort in a second term. One other thing where you could see president ial power really changing things would be in Foreign Policy. I think foreignpolicy was part of one of the hardest parts of the book to write because even though the president s constitutional parties are at their height in Foreign Policy was hard to figure out what the trump option was was it really just sort of pingpong around from issue to issue controversy to controversy, there some larger vision at stake. Here i thought, there is something that connects immigration and Foreign Policy but has a constitutional route, which is this desire to restore american sovereignty. The idea that the United States isnt a normal nation state it controls borders and decides who comes in and out of the country but it also should pursue a Rational National selfinterest. Part of that means maybe we cant afford to provide security for every place in the world but also means taking seriously threats from other nationstates. Trump has been using his constitutional powers to try to reorient our security to take note of the rise of china. I think its hard to may be because we live through it but its hard to believe how different our view of washington was of china just three or four years ago. I think this is been a bipartisan effort i think this is one that the parties agree president and congress seem to agree i think that because the President Trump using his constitutional powers. I think this could be another area where in a second term you would really see that where trump could really pursue an agenda about how to contain and confront china. Not going to war but uses powers as commanderinchief over diplomacy. To build alliances and contain china and address russia and iran. President s and second terms often look to Foreign Affairs for successes. And i will think trump wouldnt be that different. You mentioned his work on the economy and how it was interrupted by the covid19 outbreak, i guess that will be my last question as we watch President Trump and his administration cooperate with and sometimes clash with state and local governments cooperate with sometimes clash with congress, how should we think about the experience both what weve gone through and what will come next in the covid19 struggle. How what lessons does that teach us about President Trump and the constitutional presidency . Think trump has been respectful of the constitution. Its not the president s powers at stake in the balance between the federal and state governments. Not the separation of powers. On this issue its an issue with the state of the pandemic but also the disorder we are seeing at some of the cities today. Constitution creates a federal government thats narrow eliminated in numerous powers. Its the states that exercise most of what we call the police power. Theyre the ones in charge of Public Health and safety both for responding to pandemic responding to civil disorder in their streets. The federal government can provide assistance or it can provide masks it can provide money it can provide research. But the power of deciding whether everyone has to wear a mask or deciding whether businesses should close and open b trump had a lot of people yelling at him saying whether each of the businesses down . He properly said thats not the federal governments job. We can support and guide but its really the states have to be responsible. That could be that could cripple his reelection because the flipside is the reopening and the economy is also up to the states. The federal government can send troops to protect Law Enforcement to protect federal buildings committed to enforce federal laws but organized crime or guns or drugs but the federal government doesnt have any larger role in maintaining peace and safety around the streets, unless, i hope it doesnt come to this, unless cities and states are incapable or unwilling to protect the Constitutional Rights of their citizens. And maintain law and order. Only a lot limited area can the United States and Law Enforcement send troops through the cities. What sort of thing would qualify for that last category . Thats a hard question. You can look at historically how it happened but rodney king riots in 1982 comedian look in the desegregation of course and riots that occurred after the assassination of Martin Luther king and Barbara Kennedy or go even further back i think people forget the reconstruction where some Southern States would step aside and let the ku klux klan and attack and freed slaves. To protect the Constitutional Rights of the citizens when state and local governments had to decide. The courts have never weighed in really about what constitutes sufficient grounds to send forces maybe its a lesson on the books. We have a basis in the constitution but its up to those branches to support the constitution. Heres the first audience question comes from paul taylor. He writes anyone who runs for president has to have a big ego his ego seems to make him remarkably resistant changing his views in order to assuage the politically correct popular mood of the moment at least the mood among abi think a politically correct president like that is what the modern a you think that the overreaching and flawed responses by the President Trumps critics serve to further highlight the need for a president with full constitutional powers. Thats a really interesting question because it connects the part of officer did write which is about the politics of the office. Return us to the founders had its hard to find how does it connect to the political aspect of the office . I would be the first to admit President Trump has thought a lot to change some of the norms of the way President Trump asked in his approach to the media absticking to a consistent argument is a sign of strength. One thing that you and i have talked about is that the constitution does make it possible for the president to switch grounds quickly because of his power reversal he used to be the Supreme Court hard to lock in president ial policy. It wasnt a oneway ratchet with the president could do something and it could be easily changed as the circumstances dictated. I take pauls point about trump trying to be consistent and at the same time i think the founders wanted the president to be nimble and quickacting. I think they saw the branch that was going to be more consistent and changing its mind less with congress. He looked at Congress Pass a law is extremely hard to undo a lot because the president ial veto and filibuster. Its hard for congress to undo what it does but i think the president thats the branch the founders wanted to have a quickness nimbleness to respond during changing circumstances. I hope President Trump realizes he should stick to principles, keep his promises, he does seem to think abhes big on keeping his process. The founders were the present, i hope trump understands that, to switch quickly and direction to changed circumstances require. In fact, the only branch to defend the country in face of unexpected occurrences in changing circumstances. The president can sometimes go too quickly or too nimbly. The famous lines from federal 70 the energy and the executive hamilton rates the energy and executive is important for among other things, Study Administration of the laws. Hamilton there and elsewhere, he did write something about steadiness and administration b thats an excellent point. What hamilton is talking about i think was the experience in the state constitutions where the executive has chosen by congress with the executives hand selected by the legislature. What they saw was they were called the mutability. Flipflopping changes because they associate that with the legislature. I agree, they wanted the executives to have a Program Number remember, Alexander Hamilton comes in as the first treasury secretary hes got plans for this and plans for that and then goes to congress and persuades them congress to enact. So i agree with you, i think hamilton has a mind energy and executive and part of that comes from having a vision and program and implementing it over a course so the president is not just like a whirling political dervish. Moving left and right in response to the latest political wind. The next question from the audience come from connor dixon. Connor betts, what powers does the president have today that you think are outside the founding vision and what are your thoughts on trumps recent firing. Marie start with the first question about the president ials powers today and a i think the power of nonenforcement is outside the founders understanding of the office. Of course this was first created i think by barack obama in the docket daca program. Presence has also abthomas jefferson certainly has the right to say i am not to prosecute anybody under this act because it violates free speech cause. Im gonna pardon people were convicted. I dont think president s have this right thats been cleaned recently to not enforce laws because you dont agree with them, he doesnt agree with the policy congress enacted. If you allow a president to be able to not enforce laws selectively that youve given them a veto he probably defeat congressional efforts to compromise about that issue with pass legislation or historic legislation is passed because you always have the possibility the president might undo some kind of legislative deal by later coming on and saying, i signed up evocative enforce the law. But as i dont agree with it anymore. On this point about nonenforcement, i remember when president obama was announcing his daca and the daca policies you wrote on this in an article that you coauthored on the take care clause you wrote a lot about the take care clause. I remember watching you present a version of that paper at aei many years ago. Too long ago, dont remind me. [laughter] but thats one of the great challenges is that the president s ability may be his wrongful but is president s ability to simply not enforce laws its hard to locate the proper constitutional check and balance within the system to counteract that. It ultimately comes down to questions of how an individual president limits his own ambition he might hate a policy on policy grounds not have good constitutional argument against it and hes really dutybound to implement that policy the question is whether he will look up to that duty. This is one of my criticisms of impeachment. Think using impeachment to go after the president of uk small potatoes something what youre talking about what the question suggests is that the president doesnt enforce the law the president goes beyond executive power creates nonenforcement power. Thats an example they give in the founding of something thats impeachment worthy would be a president who doesnt take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Lets not forget the second half of carters question. Your thoughts on trumps firing of inspector general. Great question. It goes back again to this more fundamental philosophical dispute about how a government can run, should it be under political control of our elected representatives, president and congress. We hold them accountable for the performance of the agencies should we instead of you have technical experts you want to shield them from politics or prevent them why not let the branches experiment and come up with new things rather than began he kept by this 18thcentury situation. The height of that vision is in a mentalabtheir job is to watch executive branch from the inside and report to congress. That really is an effort to overcome separation of powers. The traditional way that the separation of powers would work is that its congresss job to bear it out waste and abuse from executive functions executive mansion of the program. Its called oversight. He think about the independent counsel and inspector generals kind of a way for congress to offload this important responsibility onto other people onto these new kinds of entities. But really everything inspectors generals do should be congresss job and congress is fully capable of doing it constitutionally. They just dont want to do it politically because its hard work and controversial and they dont want to take the political accountability for it. Or third question is from ryan knobel, howdy thick President Trumps approach to Foreign Policy might have longterm effects on constitutional norms and president ial power with regard to Foreign Policy and International Law. These are subjects youve written on quite a lot over the years. Its a great question i hadnt thought of it that way exactly. I was thinking in the book more of how theres a president achieve the Foreign Policy and how does trump really tried to achieve his. Its an interesting question how whether trump is going to have a longerterm effect on president ial power in Foreign Affairs and International Law but one thing you can see is that he expresses this skepticism of International Organizations. Returning us to this classic 19th century idea of International Politics of nations pursuing their rational selfinterest, not really trying to create these treaties that legislate from the world and maybe being more suspicious of International Bodies like not just United Nations but nato. He could say, that misses out on a lot of opportunities for cooperation. I think one thing that would be interesting in a second term is to see if President Trump can now start to build new forms of cooperating with other countries. Obviously the china United States needs allies. These some of these are countries United States has never really had any longterm alliance with. President trump is suspicious of making these longterm commitments. Can you figure out a way using diplomacy and the commanderinchief to fill these kinds of alliances convenient for the issue of the containing china but are creating some vast new permit bureaucracy. I think thats gonna be an interesting challenge because i think for the last 50 years its been seen as an either or kind of preposition. Either youre a favor of vast International Organizations with universal legislature power. Or here in favor of returning to chaos the kind used to see that produced world war i and world war ii. The United States is trying to figure out when trump uses constitutional powers to develop something in between. I think that would bring american means into line with its ends which is always the goal of the strategy. Have a question from ab research here at aei. Now we are going to the peanut gallery. [laughter] i work with tal and he is no peanut. [laughter] he asks, how might trumps presidency help congress to reassert its own power pee dee what could President Trump do to challenge congress to be a better version of congress . Actually its a great question because President Trump has provoked Congress Already into using powers like impeachment like these oversight hearings. You wouldve expected as the president does claim these greater powers the president does push his agenda that will naturally provoke congress to reassert itself. The one thing i think didnt anticipate was that instead sometimes congress would rather delegate that authority to agencies rather than do it itself again like counsel or inspector generals. The interesting thing is, the Supreme Court is steadily trying to prevent congress from doing that but they been on a mission of reducing the independence of some of these bodies like the abexcuse me. Like the cfpb or the peekaboo or Something Like that, maybe we are going to see a court that ultimately says we will not have independent commissions and bodies and that ultimately might lead congress to do its job. John, a little while ago you talked about President Trump, the risk of sometimes going a bit overboard, thats actually the cfpb calling. [laughter] the chinese communist. President trump has been very energetic president and sometimes fix out the pretty progressive position and then falls back to more of a negotiating position. Would both the presidency and congress there is a risk that overreach will undermine the office. This is a point you touch on in the book both with congress and the house and its approach to impeachment. Within the executive branch you hearken back to president nixon and the fact that some of his own assertions of power undermine the office in the 1970s with the backlash of legislation and skepticism of president ial power, how can President Trump make sure to defend the constitution while not pushing his power so aggressively he actually undermines the office. After all, the same goes the progression is the better part of the hour. Great question. Great way to come to the end of the hour, that is a subject i thought a lot about in my unfortunately decades studying the presidency. A lot of the president s powers really depend on the circumstances. They really do depend commit that there really be an emergency or attack on war to justify the expanded powers the president can exercise under the commanderinchief power. You dont want someone claiming the powers of lincoln during itsaduring a piece time. He tried to claim president ial wartime powers but turn them on his domestic enemies. There was no real domestic turmoil or threat that justified that kind of power. Like a lincoln or fdr wouldve claimed. I dont think the constitution can save us on that. I think there really is what defines the great president s and the better president s from the poor woods. Being able to adapt the powers to the right circumstances. And not mistaking peacetime for an emergency but also James Buchanan the president before lincoln also not realizing there really is chaos in an emergency and president ial power ought to be expanded. I think thats an issue of judgment. Not really constitutional law. Sorry about that. We been discussing john yoos new book defender in chief Donald Trumps fight for president ial power, thanks for joining us. Thanks to ai and thanks to everybody for the Great Questions and taking look at the book i really appreciate it lex thanks for everybody to join us today. Please keep an eye on aeis website for a list of Upcoming Events like these on the constitution and on all the other subjects aei scholars have. Thats the end of this event, thank you for joining us. Thank you everybody. Booktv on cspan2 has top nonfiction books and authors. Tonight on after words, founder and president of environment of progress Michael Shellenberger and what he calls apocalyptic environmentalism. Watch booktv on cspan2 tonight. Heres a look at some books being published this week, fox news host sean hannity argues a Democratic Victory in 2020 would lead to socialism and economic strife in live free or die cnn and New York Times legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin recounts the Mueller Investigation and later impeachment of President Trump in true crimes and misdemeanors. Pulitzer prize winning author Isabel Wilkinson argues in her latest book cast back in history has been shaped by a hidden caste system stop and in a lab of ones own the National Science Foundation First female director rita colwell discusses her career and sexism in the scientific field. Also being published this week, evolutionary biologist Carl Bergstrom and data lab cofounder jevon west explained how to identify misinformation in datadriven abcalling bs. In make change abnational book Award Winning a hello on our live author call in program in depth historian lee edwards share his thoughts on the current state of the conservative movement and reflected on its past i think its very exciting, people are a little bit some conservatives are worried, we are fighting too much. We are arguing too much. Were disputing too much. Like hatfields and mccoys. I say thats great because that means these are signs of vitality, of life, not a movement thats cracking up or on its last legs. People are fighting and debating and arguing so strenuously because something of value his concern here and that is conservative movement, which is still a major actor in american politics. At the same time, we have an opportunity to accept change. I think thats part of what it means to be conservative today, not to be so resistant that they wont allow anything to happen. Even edmund burke said change is inevitable. The question of being prudent change and thats what i as a traditional conservative am looking for to the right kind of leadership, the right kind of debate and discussion was to i welcome all thats going on right now, all the various strands all the various strains of conservatism. Thats good stuff coming out of that will be a bigger better conservative movement in the years ahead. I want to read you a quote, barry would just go absolutely crazy if he were watching this today. He would be yelling at the television, he would think its embarrassing the situation we have with donald trump. Its not the Republican Party or the country that we do 25 or 30 years ago, that was Susan Goldwater on march 21, 2016. Right. Well, i think theres something to be said for that. At the same time, goldwater was a practical politician. He was not just a man of principle, which he was the conscious of the conservative but he was also practical person. He wouldve said, wait a minute now, 63 Million People order for the sky and why . And what is he doing . I think he would begin saying, lets see, Supreme Court nominations, deregulation, tax cuts, strong military, National Defense being built up come being concerned about trade thats not just free but fair. I think Barry Goldwater wouldve applauded all those things. And pretty sure he would have. At the same time, he probably wouldve said Something Like why didnt trumps mother wash his mouth out with soap. And make him understand that we dont need a potty mouth except goldwater would not have used the word potty. How did you become known as a conservative historian or the historian of the conservative. I dont think i am. I think the historian of the conservative movement is george nash. He wrote a marvelous book several years ago now called intellectual history of the conservative Movement Since 1945. Thus the bible. Thats the premier we refer to want to know what happened 40s, 50s, 60s, up into the 70s. George nash s painstaking brilliant historian. Account him as the historian the conservative movement. It so happens i written some books and written some biographies and written some histories may be m coming up libby from fifth or sixth maybe im making my way up in this race. I didnt start out to be a historian. It really started out all those years ago to be a novelist. That didnt work out so well. I wrote three very bad novels, which never got published, thankfully. Because they would have been an embarrassment. Then i got into political writing which is where was for 20 to 25 years. One day i said, im burned out. Ive had it with worrying about campaigns, all of that. I want to go to the academy i want to teach i want to write. I went back to school, get a phd, began teaching, thats why bed these last 20 to 30 years. I guess ive also picked up a little bit from churchill and i love that one line and said what is history going to say about you mr. Churchill . He said i know because im going to write it. Well, i think what im trying to do in a small way with my works is to paint a picture of the conservative movement, sometimes from the inside, sometimes a little bit from the outside so that people 20o0¥0 years from now will be able to refer to my books and understand the conservative Movement Better and in more depth. One of the books you wrote is reading the right books, died for the intelligent conservative. There are 109 books some my favorite books are in their. The conscious of the conservative, my own biography goldwater, which i think is a pretty good book. Bill buckleys got amanda el abia man at yale we put economics, politics, history and so forth, and what we did this to take a book like the road to serfdom and boil it down in a page or page and and a half to try to get people to see what it is perhaps to spark their interest in it and make them pick up the whole book and read it. Actually, that little book is only 125 pages or Something Like that is one of the hardest things i ever did because i had to read a book and then condense it down to 300 to 400 words. That really is not easy. That takes an amount of concentration and focus to do that. I couldnt do it for more than a couple books in any one day stop it took us a while to come up with the 109 books. To watch the rest of the edwards interview and other authors on indepth visit our website booktv. Org and click on the indepth tab at the top of the page. Here are some of the current bestselling nonfiction books according to washington dc politics and prose bookstore. Topping the list is President Trumps niece mary trumps critical look at the president and the trump family too much and never enough. After that Time Magazine National Political correspondent molly bowles the autobiography of House Speaker nancy pelosi. In how to be an antiracist a a steps followed by former Obama Administration chief Protocol Corporation marshall look at the importance of diplomatic protocol and adequate. Wrapping up our look at the some of the bestselling nonfiction books according to politics and prose bookstore is the splendid and the vile historian Herrick Larson study abroad minister Winston Churchills abyou can watch them online booktv. Org. Hello and welcome to the Atlanta History Center virtual author talks series. I posted gdb on Second Thought and your host to be talk. Tonight and talking with lisa napoli about her new book up all night ted turner cnn and the birth of 24hour news. You can purchase the book directly from a cappella books, the link is in the chat on the right of your screen and the link is also