Member of congress . It comes as no surprise that our national security, even down to neighborhood security is a top priority for me. Whichthe foundation on the American Dream that we love to talk about is founded. Relations, orty metal justice reform, making sure we keep guns out of the hands of people that did not have them, which has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, but to do with people that are mentally ill, criminals, domestic abusers and terrorists. Success, is the key to and making sure that every child regardless of zip code has access to quality education. Protection for men and women who protect us, our veterans as well as protecting our seniors and making sure they can retire with dignity and respect. How do you think the orlando shooting, the worst mass shooting in u. S. History, how has that impacted the debate on guns . When i was born, crime was at an alltime high. I made reduction a top priority, and my second priority was removing gun crime on the street. Most homicides were committed with firearms. Thels shooting shooting that occurred in orlando should have the title of being the deadliest mass shooting. I really believe it has provided an opportunity like all other Mass Shootings in our country for both sides of the aisle to come together and get to work on this issue so we can better protect those we represent. Are you feeling that from your fellow colleagues . Is there momentum for that . I think it has been hijacked somewhat by Second Amendment rights. Carriedun owner and i one in my profession for 20 years. I get that, it has nothing to do with Second Amendment rights. Even though it is a tough conversation, we have seen some movement on both sides of the aisle. We just need to work hard to keep that momentum. On Police Community relations, he said you wanted to make it a priority. What advice would you give to this new administration about dealing with that issue that has become so thorny . The overwhelming majority of the men and women who protect and serve us do it well and would risk their lives for strangers. Have we had some issues that need to be addressed . Tocourse, and as we continue half as we continue to hire the best men and women to do the job and make sure they have the best training and equipment, as we talk about training, lets make it mandatory so that every polices, willwho be better equipped to police more diverse communities. Have you thought about what committees you would like to serve on . That is still a work in progress. What i know is that the protection and safety of our mine, is a top concern of as well as making sure that we keep america moving. In orlando, we have 66 Million People who visit Central Florida every year. Transportation is certainly a key concern. We are still trying to work through that progress. Thank you so much for your time. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Television Companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Next, Supreme CourtJustice Clarence thomas talks about the life and legacy of his friend and armor colleague, the late justice antonin scalia. This was part of an annual Conference Held by the federalist society. [applause] thank you all. Thank you for that amazing introduction, it makes they want to quit while i am ahead. Moment of personal liberty to recognize my dear friend and the entire scalia family. I would also like to point out that my bride is here, virginia. And we seem to travel like nuns. We travel in pairs here. [laughter] i have been very, very fortunate, ive seen many of my friends here. Quite a few of my former law clerks and my adopted law clerks are here. I have no idea how many. Would you please stand so i can at least see who you are. [applause] well, thats pretty humbling. Thank you all. This is an unbelievable crowd. This is an amazing conference or convention and an amazing dinner. That was a very touching video. It certainly got to me. Im wondering, im sitting here pondering, why is this spoon and this fork up here . [laughter] its amazing the things that distract you, you know . [laughter] before i go on, id like to just also say good evening to martha alito and my colleague sam alito who are here. [applause] im not running for office. These are important people in my life. [laughter] starting with that beautiful film and so much of what is going on here, much has been said about my friend, Justice Scalia. Since his untimely and very sad passing this february. And much more will be said during this convention. The convention appropriately dedicated to his legacy. Though much may be said about him, little needs to be said for him. His opinions, books, articles, speeches, lectures, and countless other exchanges of ideas leave his voice forever with us. Many of you may recall but not so fondly the heady days of the , 1970s when the emphasis in constitutional law was on rights. There was also a focus on the use of judicial power. In those days, we began the study of law with marbury vs. Madison. The constitution, though, it was set out at the beginning of our case books, was but an afterthought. Rarely to be consulted or disturbed. This state of affairs did not sit well with Justice Scalia. He traveled far and wide, challenging students and all who would listen. I can hear his voice, what do you think is the reason that america is such a free country . If you think that a bill of rights is what sets us apart, youre crazy. Every Banana Republic in the world, every president for life, has a bill of rights. The bill of rights for the former evil empire, the union of soviet socialist republics was he woulder than ours then make his point. Without the structural constraints that the constitution places on government power, the bill of rights is just words on paper. Or in a more originalist vein, merely a parchment guarantee. Limits on judicial power were of special concern to Justice Scalia. This concern informed his approach to statutory construction and constitutional at constitutional interpretation. Our role as judges was to be confined to the words of those who drafted the constitution or enacted the law in question and what those words meant to the people when they were drafted. In short, the original meaning. We as judges do not get to freelance or put our personal gloss on these laws. Even in areas in which others might just tune out from boredom, such as jurisdiction, standing, or ripeness, Justice Scalia was ever vigilant, guarding against judicial power being exercised where judges had no authority. Thus encroaching on the authority of other branches or the states. Once this abiding concern in Justice Scalias commitment to the canons of statutory construction who else would labor so diligently and exhaustively on a book on the 57 canons of construction . As an aside, i watched on a number of occasions as he dragged himself out of his office after laboring over his court work only to work endless hours on his book, reading law. As complicated and intricate as these canons may sound, they all serve a single purpose, uphold the structural constraints of the constitution in order to protect our liberties. We as judges employ the canons to discern the commonly understood meaning of the words chosen by congress. We do not resort to our own predilections to divine what Congress Might have intended. As hard as he worked, he seemed to savor every chance he had to argue for an approach that enhances liberty and restrains the exercise of government power. Along the way, he seemed to relish doing his work, sprinkling it with humor and his wonderful flair for prose. Though the work was monumentally serious, he just seemed to have fun doing it. And how well he did it. I cant resist citing a few of his memorable quips. When he drafted a particularly good one, he loved to give me a dramatic reading. [laughter] brother clarence, you have to hear this one. Then in not so quick computer search took place until the handy work appeared. While a judge on the d. C. Circuit and the statutory interpretation case about labeling requirements for Meat Products of all things, he quoted bismarck to warn us that, quote, no man should see how laws or sausages are made. [laughter] later in lambs chapel, he famously described the courts lemon test for the constitutions establishment clause as and i quote some ghoul in a night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad about being repeatedly killed after being repeatedly killed and buried can say grrr he always did that when he read it. \[laughter] it talks about our establishment clause jurisprudence once again frightening the little children and the School Attorneys of center marichis Union Free School district. I dont know where that came from. But he always did. To register his disagreement about the constitutionality of abortion buffer zones in hill v colorado, Justice Scalia said if forbidding peaceful, nonthreatening but uninvited speech from a distance closer than eight feet is a narrowly tailored means of prevent, the obstruction of entrance to medical facilities, the governmental interest the state asserts, narrow tailoring must refer not to the standards of versace but to those of omar the tent maker. \[laughter] [laughter] i have no idea where he gets these things. [laughter] likewise, in maryland v. King he rejected the courts decision that swabbing the cheeks of arrestees was a constitutional search. In his words, and i quote, i doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection. And in lee vs. Weisman, Justice Scalia lamented, i find it as efficient embarrassment that our establishment clause, jurisprudence, regarding holiday displays has come to require scrutiny more commonly associated with interior decorators than with the judiciary. But at least he went on, interior decorating is a rock hard science compared to the psychology practiced by amateurs to decide whether a prayer during a Graduation Ceremony was too coercive for high school students. To be sure, he would be biting at times. Of the courts opinion, in National Endowment for the arts vs. Finley, he said, the operation was a success. But the patient died. [laughter] what such a procedure is to medicine, the courts opinion in this case is to law. [laughter] and scalia the critic did not discriminate. Of my majority opinion in navarrete by the way, i did not get a dramatic reading of this one. [laughter] of my majority opinion in navarrete vs. California, a case involving the constitutionality of a search of a suspected drunk driver, based on an anonymous tip, he wrote, and i quote, the courts opinion serves us a freedomdestroying cocktail. I have no idea where he got that. [laughter] he blamed his law clerks. But i have better ideas. Justice scalia also asked the Big Questions that have long perplexed philosophers and judges alike. Questions like what is golf . And pga tour vs. Martin, he wrote, i am sure that the framers of the constitution aware of the 1457 edict of king james ii of scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross and that the judges of this august court would someday have to wrestle with the ageold jurisprudential question for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them. [laughter] is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer . [applause] in one Campaign Finance case, he reminded us of the timeless truism that Campaign Promises are, by long democratic tradition, the least binding form of human commitment. [laughter] and in another, that we American People are neither sheep nor fools when it comes to campaign speech. And we will not soon forget Justice Scalias rebuke of legislative history in chisholm vs. Roemer. There the court reasoned that the absence of legislative history could be likened to the dog that did not bark. Justice scalia responded, and i quote, apart from the questionable wisdom of assuming that dogs will bark when something important is happening, we have forcefully and explicitly rejected the conan doyle approach to statutory construction in the past. In ascertaining the meaning of a statute, a court cannot in the manner of Sherlock Holmes pursue the theory of the dog that did not bark. We are here to apply the statute, not the legislative history. And certainly not the absence of legislative history. Statutes are the law. Though sleeping dogs lie. For decades in cases big and small, Justice Scalia delighted us with his command of the english language. His rapierlike pros and often sidesplitting humor. But tonight, i charge us with the following responsibility that these words spoken and written by Justice Scalia not be the final words in support of originalism and constitutionalism. Rather, they ought to be a prologue. 153 years ago, almost to the day, president lincoln said at gettysburg, the world will little note nor long remember what we say here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. That we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. And that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth. Justice scalia has done his part to preserve power liberties and to properly interpret our laws and our constitution so that this government of the people shall not perish. His lifes work is now ours to finish. At the risk of being repetitive but with the hope of clearly establishing a point, Justice Scalias project was simple. If we adhere to the structure of government, prescribed by our constitution, we protect liberty and freedom. The limitations on legislative power in article one, the limitations on executive power in article two, and the limitations on the judicial power in article three, those are our constitutional safeguards. Those protect our liberty and our freedom. Madison put it best in federalist 51. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this. You must first enable the government to control the governed. And in the next place, oblige it to control itself. Justice scalias daily task as he saw it was to oblige the government to control itself and to convince americans to implore their government to do the same. Only with limited government is our liberty secure. For Justice Scalia, the constitution is a prescribed structure, a framework for the conduct of government. In designing that structure, the framers themselves considered how much commingling of the branches was acceptable and set forth their conclusions in the document. The constitution answers this most important question. Who will decide . The congress, the president , the courts, the states, the people . And when the branches of government dare to tinker with the constitutions answer, to that most important question, the question of who will decide, Justice Scalias wrath was sure to come down upon them. Perhaps Justice Scalias project requiring more than mere parchment barriers may seem academic to some but it is anything but academic. As Justice Scalia in his dissent, the separation of powers may prevent us from writing every wrong. But it does so in order to ensure that we do not lose liberty. Without this separation of powers, the picture Alexander Hamilton painted of an allpowerful congress, quote, the hideous monster whose devouring jaws spare neither sex nor age nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane becomes a reality, that hideous monster the reserve power of the states, it devours our freedom and our most innate desire to be left alone. With unchecked congressional power, congress can commandeer the states to do the work of the federal government, that it cannot do as Justice Scalia wrote for the court in prince vs. United states. With unchecked congressional power, congress can shirk its legislative duties and avoid political accountability by delegating legislative power to a group of outsiders. As Justice Scalia humorously stated, in mastretta vs. United states, what results is a sort of Junior Varsity congress, incompatible with our constitutional structure. Without the separation of powers, the branches take it upon themselves to determine just how much of the purely executive powers of government must be within the full control of the president. In morrison vs. Olson, the wolf came as a wolf according to Justice Scalia. When congress appropriated executive power for itself, and created the office of independent counsel. Without the separation of powers, the executive branch no less coopts the legislative power for itself. With unchecked executive power, federal agencies are emboldened to legislate without limitations in the nearly 180,000 pages of the code of federal regulation judicial deference to Agency Decision making becomes a rubber stamp for agencies to do as they please and they can freely pretend that congress hides elephants in mouse holes in Justice Scalias words when congress instructs them to act. Finally the judicial power is unrecognizable. As the political branches of power so too do the courts. Today it is the view of many that this the Supreme Court is the giver of liberties. What an odd conception of government that we the people are dependent upon the third branch of government to grant us our freedom. It is this last point to which we remember Justice Scalia so well. At times seems incapable of admitting that some matters, any matters are none of its business and from his dissent, i quote, the days decision says that my ruler and the ruler of 320 million americans coast to coast is the majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension and fact and the furthest extension one can imagine of the courts claim to power to create liberties that the constitution and its amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine always accompanied as it is today by extravagant praise of liberty robs the people of the most important liberty they asserted in the declaration of independence and won in the revolution of 1776. The freedom to govern themselves. With such unchecked judicial power, we americans leave it for the least accountable branch to decide how existing rights should expand or contract. A decision that so often hinges upon which particular rights are judicially favored at the time and which are not. With such unchecked judicial power, we leave it for the least accountable branch to decide what newly discovered fundamental rights should be appended to our constitution. Of course, as Justice Scalia remarked, these newly discovered fundamental rights are neither set forth in the constitution nor known to the nine justices of our court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the kansas city telephone directly. And i add i had rather bet on the in kansas city. [applause] or perhaps nine truckers at a flying j truck stop. With such unchecked judicial power, the court day by day, case by case, is busy designing a constitution as Justice Scalia once quipped instead of interpreting it. In any ordinary year, Justice Scalia would have spent the summer teaching these lessons about the separation of powers to a group of students studying abroad. And by this time, he would be back hard at work on a biting but always insightful and entertaining opinion imploring the branches of government to respect their constitutional roles and their limits. But last, this has been no ordinary year. This summer, i had the distinct but sad pleasure of filling in for my dear friend in a separation of powers course in nice, france, and my colleagues and i very sadly have begun this term without him. When i joined the court in 1991, scalia and i would have seemed an unusual pair. An odd couple. He raised in queens and the son of an italian immigrant and a first generation american. A professor of romance languages and the other a schoolteacher, and i, raised a decade later by my barely literate grandparents in savannah, georgia. But together, we soon became our own band of brothers. By 1991, Justice Scalias role on the court was well established. I merely joined the fray or more accurately was thrown into it. It was my great honor that we spent almost 25 years together in pursuit of this common goal. To preserve the structure of government crafted by our framers. What i will treasure most, though, is much simpler. The chance to spend so many years down the hall from my friend nino, whether he was with me or against me in a particular case, we did what we thought the constitution obliged us to do. We honored our oaths and we trusted each other. Tonight, i charge each of you to join this band of brothers as shakespeares king henry implored, preparing his own troops for a seemingly hopeless battle against french, the good man shall teach his son the story of our fight and in it shall be remembered, we few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother and gentlemen in england now abed shall think themselves a curse they were not here and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks that fought with us upon st. Crispins day. Each of us here need not think ourselves accursed for our st. Crispins day lies before us. And whether we in this room here tonight ultimately win or lose the effort to reclaim the forms of government that our framers intended, it is our duty to stand firm in the defense of the constitutional principles and structure that secure our liberty. Like Justice Scalia, we must do what the constitution obliges us to do. It is now for us the living to be dedicated to the Unfinished Business for which Justice Scalia gave his last full measure of devotion. Thank you. [applause]