Of columbia circuit. A position he was appointed to a 1986 by president Ronald Reagan. He served as ahief judge of 2001 until 2008. In 1987, speing of judge ginsburg present ragan said he believes as i d that the proper role of the judiciary is to interpret the ross laws not make them. He bieves that inur democracy is for the elect representatives of the people to mak the laws. And the judges must never attempt to substitute their private will for t will of the people. You see, judge ginsburg remembers as i do the warning of james mattis the dissent for which theonstitution was accepted and ratied by the nati is not the guide to expounding a there can be no security for the faithful ercise of the powers. Judge ginsburgs got on to write many books for the cotitution. His newest book voices of our republic is a companion peace to his threepart a me elect perfect unit which shelso talks about this today. This is of our public features about the constitution personalities dignitaries and everyday heroes to help answer the question of why the constitution is so important and how it can be applied to political discourse today. Each person emphasizes a different part of the constitution of the bill of rights, the 19th of men and beyond. And why this particular passages are important, serving as a key resource for those looking to better appreciatehe foundation of amican government and to increase our understanding of this applicationuring the initial creation and still today pray we now invite you to aroid Virtual Program coming to you fro leadership academy. With juDouglas Ginsburg and chief learning officer anthony penny. Welcome everyone. My name is tony penny im the chief learning officer at the Ronald Reagan president ial foundation institute. Today it is my honor to have jue Douglas Ginsburg with us. He served as chief judge of the u. S. Court of appeals for the d. C. Circuit from 2001 to 2008 and has been on that court since 1986. He worked in the Reagan Administration and taught law at harvard, george mason the university of chicago, columbia and others. We a really excited to have you on today. Were really excited to talk a little bit about this project you have been working on. douglas what i am doing is part of a broader reaction to that. This was education. I think that oconnor really started theall rolling dozen years ago when she resigned from the court targeted what is it, american, they created an educational materials from pbs. And they distribed theeries to 170,0 teachers of history and civics. So going to reach about a Million Students a year for long ashe issues remai pertinent. Im sorry to say that i thi that a long time. So im hoping this will hasten the move and toestore civics to basic education system. In the lastear, for states have done just that. Two legislatures and to governors that required it. Messaging system florida, texas and illinois. Im hopeful there will be any more come this year and the next. Anthony have been on board here for about ten years. My very 31 person that eight interviewed was justice oconnor. She talked quite a bit about civics and how important it was. Ill share a quick favorable with the most impact. One of the students got up and asked her how do you reconcile your personal opinion and youre making a decision in the Supreme Court. As you look at the audience and she said, bring me my purse. Somebody bring me my purse of her person brought her her person she decorated it and she said, i dont recognize my personal opinion of reconcile with this and she pulled out a copy of the constitution whi was a beautiful moment for civic learning and the impornce of the constitution which is one of the reasonshile your series and looking into t book that you put together. It has absolutely is, very important. Douglas the framers antipated this problem. And how you make judges loyal t the law. And also to the constitution. And their solution was for federal judges a lifetime appointmentnd no potential of reductio in salary ever. So theres nothing to fear to the constitutional and theres no other compeng val. You did that to behind when you take that oath. And you have every reason to do so. Cedric absolutely. And i want to say, as we come into this contacts for audience of the day after the election. We sll have not been decided, were sll, while there are being coued. We are encountering any would are is as polarized as it has been a long period of time that we have the division between our political ideologies and the people who adhere t them. In your introduction to the boo you wrote, running through that variety. Talk with variety of people contribed is a consistent centraly of the constitution and america life. The big and diverse country which u. S. Has been since the moment ofts founding, the constituti is what unites us. I wonder given the context of e current political moment, about the lifetime appointment of the jges who are inome ways sheltered from the politics of the moment. How do you see the constitution helping restore this america is united around a single document and set of ideas. Douglas but we are still united around that set of ideas because this will be argue about. What is mean and how should be applied in should be changed. That intensive partisanship and division that we are talking about, was with us right from the beginning. I think you know your history. Thank you taught history for recall. The nearly American Republic was almost, if not more partisan and divided and we are right now, as least as much so. The newspapers ran constant against one candidate because they were in secret correspondence with the other candidates. There were outrageous claims made from one side against the other personal mall addictions or malfunctions and so on. It was extremely bitter. And it has been that way. Much, maybe not every year but often on throughout our history. It is nothing new. And certainly, ive lived through it before the watergate era buried in just as recently as a year ago. The attempt to impeach President Trump. That was a real spectacle of civics out work because the people in the senate in the house argui about what were they arguing about. The any of the impeachment clause. What could be an Impeachable Offense in 1789. That was the question. In front that were arguing about. You dont have to agree as long as of both arguing aut that, the republicans are safe. Should we just disgard that. Overthrow it then we would be in real trouble. Anthony absolutely. And i think you do such a great job of this in the series of setting up this idea, the really the countryas been about kind of a battle over those ideas that are embodied in the constitution since the very beginning. We go back to the constitution, the convention itself was a battle of ide the plate out of the course of the summer of 177. Douglas an important aspect of that ishat the constitutional that emerged was a product of seral important compromises. Legislation, the made compromises. In order to get anything done. That is sometng that we become less good at im afraid. They start leglatures have become less goo at that. That is wha makes the policy work. And of cours the carts, they don operate that way. Somebody wins and somebody loses freedomn the legislator, ordiry politics and horsetrading everybody goes home with something, if not everything they wanted. We accept that is legitimate. Thus what we agreed to live by. Anthony that is absolute. Its interesting the way the discourse if you thinkbout, and i think the class of ideas happen in very short form. We think about the origina action of ideas,he federalist and anti pheasant under federalist. These are and form long writings. Douglas and in the daily newspapers. That was the medium of disseminatn. So they were longern todays for sure. And generally mor persuasive and more elegantly written. They were addressed to t public. The constitution is addressed to the public. It was put out for the convention the ratification by we the people. It was meant to be uerstood by the peoe. It is not meant to be somhing that you have to be a lawyer to read and understand. And clearly it helps to study. So you can get a good idea of the constitution of the structure and its purposes edictably by reading it. Y dont need to a lawr to read the long history of the deed to. Don need a lawyer to read the constitution to understand it. Anthony its amazing that if you buy a house, likely the document is going to be five ten times as long as the document the sense of the legal system for the United States it. Anthonyit. Douglas yes its five large pages. Handwritten. Anthony can you point out, eres scenes of you talking with reenactors at the philadelph kind of engaging th the founding witches in some ways the video sers his comments and gauging with nning and try to reconnect americs to the founding of the country. I knew i let a phrase and who are involved in the civic learning use this example to talk about the importance of cic learning. Those doctor franklin when he emerges from the convention he is asking, what have w got, a republic or a monarchy. And he turns to the person who ked he said a republic if you can keep it. Then i think is become kind of a rallying cry for people who believe in the importancef civic learning. As i know you do having created this is a focus of our work here. In some ways, do you think that constant battle of ideas is how we keep the republic. Douglas it is. I think that was well put. In the republic, were represented them directly. Is not a democracy. We dont vote, you and i on whether to adopt this or that law. Theres the occasional referendum or initiative where you are in california and any other states. By a margin of the legislature makes the laws we just make legislatures. And they are, they saw themselves out into parties. The framers did not anticipate that. Did not want that. But that is what happened. It is that Constant Exchange of used and proposals and so on the keep the republic vibrant and contemporary. In one of the important points that comes out of the show that i think we will get into is that the constitution and the laws under it, are not updated by courts. But they should n be anyway, they are updated by the constant political interaction. Amg the people the representatives. Anthony yes so lets get into parts of the show and in your work and she wanted to pull o. Especially ten oh three more mulberry versus medicine the concept o judicial review. So w is that important for the folk to know. Douglas is foundational. It comes in 1803, very early in the republic in which chief Justice Marshall known as the great chief justice, reasons as follows. We have a written constitution. In other places, that is the greatest innovation in political life i think ever. Something like that. We written constitution, it is of the were the framers agreed to. I with the people of the states ratified and agreed to. And some of the Legislature Passes a law, when Congress Passes a law, for the executive takes action. Take a law and, that action hold up music constitution say, where is this authorized. Is it authorized. And if it is not to be found in the constitution, that is null and void. The opinion, Justice Marshall said, is emphatically the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is. So the Congress Passes the laws in the executive to the present and subordinates enforce the laws. And when theres a dispute, they say what it means greatest is determined whether its consistent with the constitution. So whenever somebody goes to court, challenging something is kind of unconstitutional. Theyre asking for judicial review. The court to review the action of the congress or the executive against the constitution and say, is this really authorized. Anthony ao interesting, when i think of the judicial system, and some ways i think of the blind lady of Justice Holding the skills and balancing this, how do we create that balance. And really the founding of the country, the set up of the system of government itself is all about balance. On one hand he had the judicial system was bound and announcing the cases before it. In front of the constitution. Have the three branches which in theory are dying to balance each other out so theres no one branch has too much power right. Douglas important is check and balance each other. Ill give you an example. E judiciary my ranch, all we ca do issue a a piece of paper that says what we think the law is andou are ordered to do this without that i it. We dont have the power ofhe prs, we dont have the power mr. Framing depend upon the congress to fund injured intent judiciary. We depend upon the executiveo enforce our juments. A simple as that. Take congress. It dends upon coming you can pass laws but they depend upon those executives to enforce laws in the depend upon the judiciary to ierpret those laws. They in turn find the executive and the executive cannot do anything f which the funds are nothere appropriated. , nothing. He envisioned that as an blossomed into something much largest, much mor influential i think because of so any disputes being bught to the cour. The courts are asked to resolve so any more legal questions than i think ever couldve been anticipated. We are much more interest as a people. And i think even as early as 1830. During the United States criticized they judiciary is compared to what was at the time, i dont think it is grown influence or importance beyond more than proportionate with the other branches. The whole government is much greater, not just in size but in terms of what it undertakes in the framers ever can possibly have anticipated. Now the idea there would be a national or federal government of any power at all, not much but any power at all or education. That is a state and local function. Wouldve been unimaginable. When they framed the union. And some of those encroachments are in perfectly legitimate and others are probably based on an overly aggressive interpretation of the constitution. But they are what we have. Anthony with that, i want to go to the next case that you wanted to highlight we just 1905 case, the state of South Carolina versus United States. Why is this important and why should be below the intent about this. Douglas nothing really changed from marbury versus madison in 18 oh tee. This of South Carolina case decided in 1905, and i think en until 1935, what is a nothing change, it was understood and agreed and enforced by the courts that the constitution meant one anointment, the meaning of the constitution does not change part to the words do not change except by amendment. The words dont change, the meanindoes not change. And we have lost that is the unifying principle starting with some court decisns in the 1930s that created the debate the rents are tri operatively in the courts and law schools. And that is how should the constitutionacouldconstitution. And understood by the people right and tn agree to it. And ratified it. Then what else. In the alternative for socalled living constitution. Basically means whatever the judges think ought to be adjusted to the contemporary problems. The judiciary is a nondemocratic branch. Were not elected, we a appointed. Anour power is circumscribed. And it should be. But to say that the judges can update the constitution according t what they,ive out of Nine Supreme Court justices thank you so required, is t so any policymaking roles that belongs to the congress. Nonetheless, it is happened. And i think if you want to roll that 31 take a well see h the debate is framed. The written constitution is all the mters we the people is how it starts. Im trying to any people worship the constitution and we are being ruled by people who have been deador 200 years. W should the living interpret the words of the dead. The debate comes down to the documents originally made, versus the living constitutio an original is in the simply the proposition that the meaning of the text of the constitution must remain the same until it is properly changed it. Is actually very hard to discover often with the original meaning was right because of the constitutional often does not give you that much affirmation. We delude ourselves of we believe that there is some objective meaning are correct answer. I dont believe it. And that is true, what is the point of having a written constitution in the 31 place. Of one of the living, i believe the constitution is they will be circumstances where we have to interpret the meaning of the word. I happen to be fairly limited in how far i am willing to go. But he doesot say and stick with that until eternity. Article five of the constitution specifically contemplated in the constitution got it and should be amended. The problem is that process is extremely difficult. Its very hard. I aggressively think about everything constitution iss a starting poi. But it is not the ending point. Of coursee do our best to understand what the text meant at the time. But for all of the debatable issues, that is a starting point your living constitutionalist, he can be whatever you wanted to mean. In fact the only living constitution is the constitution is followed a 80s that has almost nothing to do with modern judicial review. Because the constitution is not clear. It. For not writing on a blank slate but we are filling the blanks and figuring out with the constitution should be. The constitution does evolve but it evolves slowly, at the time that it needs to be tweaked all of us agree that the constitution should be updated. What we disagree on is who is to do the updating. That is with the political process is for. To answer those difficult questions of the last people that you want to be changing the documes of the judges. The judiciary isot lessened by the constitution to add to or subtract from the text of the constitution. With the Supreme Court says that it meanss not actually the constitution. The constitution is the constitution. Guide and that the constitution should evolve, is really inconsistent with the in the law. The law of the length o the supreme law of the land. The alternative is a law that is forever in ctain rated no more stable, no more reliable tha popular opinion of the time. And opinions change. The words dont. Anthony succumbing alchemy you sa, between 1803 and 1905, theres not much difference. Looking at the constitution. Even though there are big changes in the way the wor works. If you look in the early 18 hureds, in the role of the executives, George Washington for example is very different president han say Teddy Roosevelt that com in the 19 hundreds, very dferent from what we see today. You come down onhe side of the evangelism. Explain why tt is the way we should be looking at this document. It. Douglas i think Justice Kavanaugh captured it. There are times when the constitution has to be updated. I had 27 amendments per unit the 31 time square pass in the 31 couple years after it was ratified in the 3111 years they were added. The other 17 of them long in the last 140 years or so. Very important matters arise sometimes, and nurses widespread view that the constitution needs to be amended. Professor said that its hard. It is meant to be hard. It takes two thirds of the house in two thirds of the senate and three quarters of the states. Thirtyeight states have to agree to change the constitution. So to reserve for the very important matters. Most things can be accommodated by ordinary legislation. And if they cannot, then we have to decide is it important enough to change the constitution. So women suffrage, 1920. It is extremely important right. The civil war amendments. Extremely important to. Ending slavery, ensuring equal protection for all persons. Entering the vote. The constitution should vote didnt happen, it took another 100 years basically. For that to be reality the sense was overwhelming and should be. We are ver imperfect in implementing it. We have a constitution revised by the judges, just five out of nine jtices, they he no democratic legitimacy. They do not know with people would prefer. We shoul not be putting the figure in the wind toee which way ocular opinions leading. It can be very hard to justify. Public per an unpopular opinion can be nothing more than the majority humanizing the minoty. When Supreme Court in 1993, decided the case of ferguso with someone i am looking for. The case in whiche said that the equal reduction clause is satisfied if the state provides separate but equal facilities. We had delivered thator 75 years. It was a departure fm the words of the constitution. It some of that evil cnot be equal, separate, is different. To a lot of Supreme Court cases, an condemned several generations in the minority to live in the inferior circumstances to be relegated to the secon best of everything. Schools, hotels, everything. The whole point of the constitution is to protect the minority. Is not a racial minority, its any honorary could be religious minority or a minory opinion on some topic. To preventhe majority of materializing the minority. As the court is no better than the congress if its no better e public opinion, and we have no guarantee. We hav no nothing against the majority. They voted hitler and the power, majorities kept slavery. For a long time. The majority has t be reined in by the constution. Anthony i seems like for the folks think the aument for the living constitution tha this press is too slow. And i think we have lived in an age now wre people wt something and they wanted instantly. If i want to hear a song, can pull it up instantly. Dont have to go to buy record or cd or anything like that. Douglas whether saying is not just that is too slow but i dont like the way it is. I would have to convince a lot of people to get it changed. Ituch easier to convince five justices on the Supreme Court than 38tates to change the law. End of t justices succumb to thatemptation, well it invites further fight back. Anthony do you feel like there is also kind of efforts to circumvent that process. I know in t videos, you talk about one, thencredible growth of regulatory agencies which you make the point that these regulatory agencies are three branches combined into one. Douglas the 31 sentence of the 31 article of the constitution says all legislative powers granted rein are vested in a congress of the United States. And with the congress has done if they exercise their legislative power, they say were going to make certain decisions are going to be hard and any people. Will that is controversial. That is unpopular. Regardless votes, Financial Support from reelection. So is much easier to say lets take that over to the executives and let them think of decisions. So instead of voting for a particular degree of pollution control, this just vote for clean air and turn it over to the Environmental Protection agencys producer that avoids having to offend anybody. Great, we offer cleanair. While then he comes into actually making the decisions. About how that will be achieved. Than some factories are going to be close and some jobs are going to be lost. And some rivers are going to be polluted and some are not in someone. In the apa makes those decisions to the congress. Plus a rep. Government. They have departed from the model that we are given in which they legislative and the executive in implements a lot to say to the executives, go ahead, you make the laws. So now, about 18 relations every year with the force of law but up by the agencies. Everyone law passed by congress. So who is making our boss today. It is an alphabet soup of agencies. The federal trade commission, securities and Exchanges Commission the Consumer Finance protection board. And on and on and on. Their scores and scores of them are easy for the represents. They dont represent citizens at all. These are agencies that inviting sometimes one person five persons in the majority of them may represent the president s policies. However that is in any given moment. Thats very indirect. You can reelection congressman have agreements. And then they get back in ap sorry that was epa. And i voted for cleanair by the way. And then, they authorize the agencies, not only to iue regulations that have the force of law, the lislative activity but to enforce them, the execs execives and then to judge whether the citizensiolated them. James madison said the combinatio of tho functions in one hand the very eence of tyranny. His ego before one of those agencies aused of violating one of those regulations, i you do not have a a lot of time and a lot of money have no chance of getting to a real court to riew what their decision was an ess essay, we violated the regulation. You find 12 llion or hundred 50000. Now is been two years and you go another couple of years. To gethem course to review that decisio worse than tt, they been told by the Supreme Court. They dont actually reviewedhe decisions make sure is not completely unreasonable. In the statute means x, the can only as themselves is it unreasonable interpretation of the century. Lightning it means why but its not crazy so i guess this would be fine. So the performing allhree functions against the constituti and then to be allowed to, especially the final word on what the law means. Contrary from what i quoted from chief Justice Marshall. Emphatically duty in the problems of the judges of the judiciary to see say what the law is. By telling the judge and he signed, that i tried to persuade himo stay. And he said to me. I just cannot go on deciding whether the secretary was reasonable. Anthony fair point. It on to back in. There is a point he topics it extensively about the Commerce Clause in the video. Douglas so this very simple. Regulating. Demonstrated, not controversial. And among the several states, any trade across the state line. It also came to me and i the railroad and strips that cross state lines to bring the goods. So congress has Regulatory Authority over intrastate trade. And that means it did not have authority over labor relations, mining, manufacturing, retailing, and that is what so upset president roosevelt in the 1930s. Because in the emergency of the economic depression, was continually proposing that congress was passing legislation that dealt with things that were beyond the power of the Congress Read and under the Commerce Clause or anywhere else. But in 191937, in this idea that even if something did not cross state lines, nonetheless, came within the authority of the congress to regulate. You can take a look. Ernies anyway, the descendents, hemingway home is dedicated to preserving the legacy traded end of his cats. U. S. , anybody else the chickens need no reason to cross the road. In our life for that matter. But when the federal department of agriculture got wind of the museum, dictated how they should be cared for those cats. They said these cats are southern tip of florida will never cross the line. They were merely born. When i am in new york and that was boston, that was interstate commerce that the kind that could be related with two people traded something comes out of my interstate commerce in the same state and therefore could not be federally related party that was the intention of the framers. The framers did not design the almighty federal government they can reach down right into your pennies. Earlier barnyard. During world war ii, there was a farmer who right and for the crane to his own animals. The federal government had a program of the time is said and dictated how much wheat the farmers could grow on their own land. The guy said thats not constitutional because litigation interstate commerce. Highest court in the land thought otherwise. If an in the convoluted analysis, they declare because that meet cannot be used in intrastate commerce, it is through some kind of displacement. Youre stretching it like a rubber band to apply to any kind of business was originally meant to be just for crops border commerce. Some disagree. In the economy like ours, things really are interconnected. Logos on one farmers farm really does affect what happens elsewhere so when the Supreme Court said gives congress the rights to regulate previous not just engaging in some kind of trap to expand, recognizing economic reality. And it becomes, does it affect commerce and then everything affects commerce. When the do something or you dont to do something. Once you have the power over anything that affects commerce amongst us you basically have the power over everything. Everything. Aiming hemingways cats. I can do not, these cats were featured on the website and has cat related merchandise in the gift shop, there is a substantia connection and that opens the door for the federal government to come in and control and not making that up. Douglas is a literature major and i love hemingway the fact that the federal governmen could get involved with cows and selling cat sks on the website is just incredible. It is really just wife i could doot is what he kid you not really because people had agreed to this interstate. Thank you divided clause which we saw before, quite substantially. Casing sli show that. 1942. Douglas apologetic this is. Even if it is local, may not seem like interstate commerce. Even i the effect is indirect, still withi the rch of the congress. Now does dugas another fed and cared for in key west have a substantial effect on interstate interstate commerce. As a practical matter which is become of this, is a discernible effect on interstate commerce obviously very indirect since the cancer go anywhere. Just on the website. The federal government basically haseen able to reach an, yes your backyard. Mccance is a substantial amount of cats, is a one cats. We have ten cats operated to know the federalovernment has to get involved. Douglas president reagan understood all of this. Was very thoroughly educated. Mostly selftaught in the political theory of the founding. I have seen some of the books in the library in his library in the Reagan Library museum. With extensive annotations in the margins. And he used the speeches for a decade or so. In a very thorough education and political philosophy and theory. Anthony the next but we have is a Commerce Clause is revised. Douglas what we were just discussing. It substantially doesnt mean anything. Anthony yeah. The next thing i want to talk about is from the fifth amendment through the taking plus. Douglas is a more recent underage. For the bill of rights, nor should property be taken. Stop controversial. Mean the market rate. Not your sentimental value in something but your market rate. Question that arose a dozen years ago was what is a public use rated intuitively is not a hard question. The road, courthouse, schools, public uses. The court has in cases involving things like hotels and theaters since this public use in the sense of public use them prior to becoming that. Scheduled to be sort of public use and understanding them is a public purpose. In the court public this changes this. Just a dozen years ago. We see charlies case new jersey. Is a category god, a member the 31 time ever broke a string dad said he broke it, youre going to fix it. The 31 musical director one of the casinos, came to me a said charlie, i have a lot of pianos here. So this what started my career and piano tuning in atlantic ci. Athe beginning of the 20 century, it was the playground and after world war ii, his fortunes declined greatness even gambling casinos. And lost big. And much of americas playground is now casino wasteland. To this film is not just walls, it is a crosssection ofy life its like a living breathing thin we were blessed t be able to come as immigrants to this country. My parents had survived the holocaust. An idea of actually owning something that we could not be thrown out of was huge. But maybe charlie could be found. In 2014, state judge ruled the Casino Reinvestment Development could seek his home, using the power o eminent domain. We had 45 days to vacate and it would be bulldoze as all the other buildings by next to me. They had been bulldozed. Does the public use provision of the fifth and mm and any meeting. It was effectively nobody five four vote. The constitution provides that private property may be taken for public use with just compensation play. If the Supreme Court remote public use rated public person purpose which is much broader. They werent even sure exactly what they were going to use it for. I kept saying where do we live, since russia or north korea. So charlie went to court. In three years later from the judge came and manifested abusive made of. But in the end, charlie prevailed. If an infamous case of kilo versus london, kilo was not so lucky. This is a prime course that we cannot decide what it public purposes. Soul of the city council decided that in this in print is good enough for us. And i thought the justices were supposed to meet the constitutional decisions. In the battle goes on. And so he had leaned the grndwork for this. New jersey loss but why were they even trying. Why would they think they could do this. Because in kilo, the city in london said we want to raise ese houses here. And clear the space for pfizer the pharmaceutical company. To build a complexith offices in research and so on. They will paid much more in real estate taxes and property taxes because the property will be worth mu more. And will have these houses on that. The Supreme Court said, thats a public purpose. Had we know, w know because city Council Voted for it. St be a public purpose. So that was such an departure from public use from saying the courthouse or railroad, is a complete shock. In the aftermath o that, 46 states have cnged their law are madet clear that their lot does not authorize that undertaking. T in any cases, they did by statute and sometes it was court decisions. Some of themre vy clear and importan for instance, a municipality cannot take propty except for a public use and if it takes something, i cannot sell it for ten years. So then that he is afraid he cant it over t pfizer. And an exception requires neck to the legislature lislature, both houses and the governments signature. Sie very serious. In alace not quite so much. The fedal government now can do or take things for a socalled public purpose. So think of it for just a moment. What they did to that cause, we saw them. Can you see how it reads now. Is the opinion. Here it is. A public purpose such as Economic Development will raise more tax revenue. Thats not interpretation. This division or revision ofhe constitution rated he didnt think so im just looking at it, bear in mind the 46 states rejected it. But not in the state. This on our understanding. This was so desbilizing to the prerty of people own, it was intolerable. And why because it was a huge departure from our understanding of theonstitution. Anthony i can only imagine if your home orny city or local government, we think we can make more mon if you take your house rated and looked like his family h lived there for generations. Iust have those memories of Family History taken just for the purpose of additional tax revenue. That seems silly. Another question. Something that you talked abo extensively in the video. I think that something that people are interested in for a date for president ia site here the Reagan Library. And so theres often a lot of controversy and dissent discussion on executive orders in action frighn in the videogame examples one of which i think any would argue possibly about the emancipatn proclationd the other results ecutive order nine oh 6h woods authorized the incarceration of japanese americans what you think rated bushes the public know about executive actions. Douglas well in particular the president is the chief executive an has to be able to on a daily basis issue directions t his subordinates. Not to mention the defense establishment. He has to be able to iue orders. As a perfectly legitimate function. Emancipation proclamation was a military order. It was issued by president lincoln in his capacity a commanderinchief. In afraid the slaves only the areas in the insurrection. The mility districts socall confederate state that were still in a state of insurrection and thats why when the war was over we need a 13th amendment to put a real emphasis are end to slavery forever. The executive action to be invoked or changed by the next president. Thats what happened when president obama entered the climate accorded rated and President Trump just resend it. They are ready and dealt with president obama entered into in order to contain Nuclear Weapon developmt. That is something that was i think perfectly clearly a treaty. Nodding executive agreement. Executive agreements are also legitimate like executive orders. Theres a reason for jeff to the Senate Confirming a decision of the president that ultimate counsel against secondary city and some other countries not the capital which was done with precipitate reciprocally so the other country can open a cancer. But this was an important matter. The arundel was huge. He didnt submitted to the senate because the senate that the senate was not going to ratify it. How any senators would stay up as a women, use submit that to the senate. Fewer than a half does not believe. So there was another executive order in agreement in the case. And really questionable thing party was revoked immediately by the next administration. Now president truman, im sorry president roosevelt issued an executive order turning the japanese americans on the west coast essentially the camps, that was also justified as a military necessity. If the justification was very and compared it to princeton for mash military matter. There is a bit of hysteria i think at the time. Its difficult to go back and judge and really understand how people felt and feared. I can tell you having grown up in the midwest, in 1960s, when nuclear war was a threat, we were hiding in her own desk. It is school if there was a nuclear explosion. It window to get it but that was the mentality of the time. I dont mean to excuse roosevelts position on the Supreme Court. He since it regretted that i think. They repudiated their own approval of it. There was a very difficult time. So president clinton issued an executive order. Cannot imagine a more legitimate one. Directing all departments and agencies in the executive branch to make decisions so far is consistent with the law that tended to implement or favor his american rivers initiative. Somebody ashley challenge that. And of course the president can say th but i want you too. Try to lather members. The executive Branch Business to executive order. Anthony we have about six minutes left. It just a couple of questions and ill give you a chance to make sure you have time to talk aboutome things in your book that sortf thing. You mentioned tt the iran agreement. You also talk about declaration of war, the power exclusive click given to congress which is not happen since world war ii. An congress has succeeded some of it by not standing up. Why didnt the stand up and y, we need approval. Rackham congress does itead of as a witness and, you cant send troops over there. We need to declare war. Duhink the checks and balances, that worked in place in history, that those balances are out of whack. One fresh maybe has assumed too much power. Douglas yes. Clearly there are circumstances such as an attack on the United States which the president would need to act immediately. In the case of pearl harbor, esident roosevelt went to congress oreclaration of war. We have less to wk. Every war declared by the ngress has the full backing of theeople. If he is otherwise they wouldnt endorse us. They would not authorize it. So when you get a very contversial war like vietnam, is never declared. Another coness did of course continue to approiate money. Th passed a resolution the presidt johnston interpreted it. As tugh it were declaration of war giving authority to virtually do anything he wanted to. Now the authorization for use of military force as for the congress in 2001, as bis for president ushs interventions in afghanistan and iran. Considering background for that, the attack on the twin towers in new yk andhe pentagon and what probablyouldve been the congress, and that py not gone down. I think the authorization for us of military for was. Clearly aimed it at a justified with respect to afghanistan. The president took it into rock rated on his own. I think that when things like that happen, we are out o whack worried civilia control of the militaryhich is one of the points inhe video, and i discuss with the former chairman and jointhiefs of staff is an extremely important principle. The framers were quite familiar when Julius Caesar never general for the last 2000 yeaeizing por over the republic. It made it quite clear that the civilian control over the military. Anthony i want to wrap up a couple of the questions for you career had interesting intersections. Unless you specifically, you mentioned in the video that when you work parking in Chancery Court for one of the arguably great legal mind is an influence in the history of the country. Close hundred if you could share memory about that. Douglas Everybody Knows marshall as the architect can lawyer in the School Desegregation cases in the 50s. And in the Supreme Court and the culmination of a 20 year campaign, organized by great Justice Marshall partied and colleagues and robinson and hastings. As a great accomplishment. No question about it most of his career up until theime until he went into court. Thirtyone the Second Circuit and then the Supreme Court. It was spent defending the blocks accused of rape or murder usually a white victim in a black defendant. In the deep south. And he took his life in his hands almost every time that he went from new york together to defend those cases. His life was threatened and almost lost on more than one occasion. Was about to be lynched by sheriffs deputy had came along and broke up the party. No times when he cannot stay at a hotel. He was there with families in different places partied is the bravest person i havever known. I doubt it that i meet anybo else ever that is that brave party to. Anthony thinking that was a beautiful bit memy and reminder of his impact and bravery. In the last question i have before we wrap up as you had a chance to work in t Reagan Administration. You met president reagan. Somebody near and dear to the people who work here. Any memories about Ronald Reagan. Douglas well yes, i hav three or four occasions to interact with him assemblies. They were always very rewarding because he not only was interested in the isss but always had an appropriate story in which to illustrat his points. And i learned lot in those encounrs even if i had anti trust iny own field. Any talk to me about, i give presentatis to the cabinet. About the legislature reforms. And he said let me tell you what happened when these antitrust laws broke up the studio system in hollywood. In the case was i think in 46. Innocent that they had made films, they could not own it but the distributors werehe exhibitors in the movie houses. And is only change the industry. I have the opposite effect of what it was intended for. Ofourse it was intended to make the indusy more competitive. To stop the somatic competive conduct. Unexplained how it concentrated the industr and changed and reduce the number of studios that wereiable. It changed everythingn it with the nobo anticipateds actually counterproductiven some ways. In making it less competitive. And in case, bringing history of his own knowledge. I did teach something about it. But to give you an idea of different the times were, when the president ninated me for the court of appeals of the dc circuit where i had been last 34 years, went to the senate late in the term. Youre about to go home and theyre going home for november elections. We got a hearing in september and about i think i late october just days for the bke up and left for the 86 selections. There didnt introduce me to the judiciary committee. Kennedy of massachusetts because i was from massachusetts. So he was an illustration about things that have changed. Just would not happen today for the chairman of the committee of one house to introduce the president of the opposite partys nominee for important post. Anthony thank you for sharing the story and thank you for joining us today. I encourage everybody who is watching us. To please, you can define his video more or less a Perfect Union on amazon prime. Anywhere else they can find it. Douglas the passport for those who are members. Its free on amazon prime. And also that free to choose network. Org. It has it as well because my interviews for George Washington and benjamin franklin. And so the teaching materials for the schools on affirmative action. A history of race cases in the Supreme Court. And is called becoming