He argues that majority rule is inevitable but not inevitably reasonable. A concept he believed lincoln would support. This is an hour. Host a splendid institution where i am honored to serve as dean. Im pleased to welcome you here to the auditorium where the second lecture in a series, hosted by the college of law entitled the new lincoln lectures what lincoln means to the 21st century. We are privileged to be hearing from a remarkably accomplished and ideologically diverse set of national thought leaders on lincolns legacy and his continuous relevance, 150 years after his passing. As i said when i introduced our inaugural lecturer bob woodward in january, the law school has chosen to focus these lectures on Abraham Lincoln in part because lincoln undeniably is among the greatest lawyers in americas history. The fact that he assumed many other important roles, president , legislator, military strategist, newspaper owner, merely adds to his legacy and his legend. As we know, many of the themes of lincolns life and his lifes work, the treatment of race and noncitizenship, the relationship between the federal government and the states, the scope of executive power, the interplay between the president and the Supreme Court, the conduct of a president ial Election Campaign in a time of bitter partisanship among others dominates discourse today, nearly as much as in lincolns era. Thus it remains the right time for all americans to reflect on lincolns meaning to each of us and all of us. This is especially true for those of us here in illinois. In a real sense, the university of illinois, located between springfield and chicago is mr. Lincolns university. As we and champagne prepare to celebrate our own centennial next year, we must never forget that we were among the first of the landgrant universities created in 1867 by the act signed into law by mr. Lincoln five years earlier and the only one in the original group founded in lincolns home state. And who better to help us at this time and in this place, think about what we can learn from lincoln as a country and as individuals then george will, one of the finest minds this region has ever produced. He was born and raised in champaign where his father was on the faculty here. He attended the Child DevelopmentLaboratory Program in town and went on to graduate from the University Laboratory high school. He worked for the now defunct or Vanna Currier newspaper where i understand he had a friendly rivalry with roger ebert who worked summers in champaign. From champaign, mr. Will went on to Trinity College and Oxford University and then on to princeton where he earned his phd. And the rest as they say is history. He is undeniably one of americas most prolific and it lentil thinkers and writers. His 12 books include one mans america, statecraft. His regular column has been syndicated by the Washington Post since 1974 and today i appears in about 500 newspapers. 32 years, he was a panelist on this week. He has been awarded the Pulitzer Prize for commentary, other awards were editorial writing, among many others. In 1986, the washington journal called him perhaps the most powerful journalist in america. He has also been dubbed americas leading poet of baseball. For me, three things stand out above and beyond his innumerable contributions. First, his television thing. I refer here not to fox news or on the sunday talk show this week although i must say i learned a lot about how to think as a lawyer by watching him on that show on sundays in the 1980s and 1990s although he, like Abraham Lincoln, did not attend law school. He is such a household name that like many people, he was second, is his loyalty and dedication as evidenced by the fact that he is a diehard cubs fan. I have tremendous respect for cubs fans and i wish he and the cubbies well but i think it only fair to tell him he will have to wait until 2017. Finally, moving from the diamond to the gridiron, he has reported to have said it speaks badly for a university to have a good football team. On this point, i must disagree but i should add that if his observation is true, i very much hope that the converse is also true. If so, over the past few years, we have been in even Greater University than i couldve imagined. [laughter] it is my great pleasure to welcome him to the podium. Before he begins his remarks, although today is super tuesday, kindly, he has framed his remarks around president lincoln and the meaning he has to him that he will not do a Political Roundup in his remarks. After the formal program, there will be a q and a and he will take wide and broad questions at that time. Let us welcome him out onto the stage. [applause] george will thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much dean for that generous introduction that proves that not all forms of inflation are painful. With regard to the cause, it is the case that i only write about politics to support my baseball habit. You talked about waiting. Since 1908, the last time they won the world series which was two years before mark twain died. That 107 year rebuilding effort is over. Now, to the 16th rather than the 45th president. Here in Central Illinois where men are men and where i am from, people develop or at least in the 1940s and 1950s, they did develop what i consider an admirable midwestern reticence about themselves. Although i left champagne herb and a to go to college in 1958, four months after my 17th birthday. I have never not for a moment ever stopped thinking about myself as a midwesterner. I am in the words that are the title of hamlin garlands once famous book published 99 years ago, a son of the middle border. As such, i still it here to what i consider a midwestern reserve in talking about myself. I maintain a midwestern inclination not to share my feelings with others and to thank others for not sharing their feelings with me. [laughter] which is why there hangs up on my office door in my Washington Office in the georgetown section, a framed new yorker cartoon which is my personal proclamation against todays confessional culture. The cartoon depicts a man dressed in a suit and tie and reclining rathers deflate on a psychiatrist couch with the psychiatrist sitting behind him, pen and notebook in hand. The cartoon is captioned and the man says look, call it denial if you like but i think what goes on in my personal life is none of my own damn business. However, the deans agreeable summons to speak on this occasion was an invitation that was somewhat biographical. To lift a curtain and shine some light on my life work. One influence on my lifes work i should say was work, some of it related to this university. One of my summer jobs was as a human scarecrow, to chase birds away from an experimental garden plot run here on the campus. Back in the day, i was a pin setter in the bowling alley. Another summer, i worked for a local Building Supply company that supplied the concrete for the assembly hall. However, the largest influence on my lifes work was and still is Abraham Lincoln. Who i have come here to explain why, when of the most important events in my life, one that continues to shape my thinking about the most fundamental problems of the nations public life, is an event that happened 87 years ago. 87 years actually before i was born. The event was the work of another man from illinois, senator stephen a douglas. The event was 1854 and nachman of the kansasnebraska act. It is not too much to say that a great question posed by that act continues to reverberate in the nations life and certainly in my professional life. It reverberate in the nations life, not just because the civil war is the hinge of American History, and the kansasnebraska act which repealed the missouri compromise of 1820 was unquestionably the spark that lit the fuse that led to war. If the civil war was not an irrepressible conflict before 1854, it certainly was after that. The missouri compromise had been the work of henry clay. Lincoln, in the first of his debates with Stephen Douglas called my idea of a statesman. The compromise somewhat diffused the slavery issue and sectional animosities for three decades. It did so by for bidding slavery in the louisiana territory north of the line that included the kansas and nebraska territories. The kansasnebraska act introduced by senator douglas empowered the residents of those two territory to decide whether or not to have the institution of slavery. The acts premise was that the distilled essence of the american project is democracy and that the distilled essence of democracy is majority rule. And that therefore, it was right that there should be popular sovereignty in the territories regarding the great matter of slavery. People should have the right to vote it up or vote it down. Lincoln disagreed. He responded to the act with control. The most morally luminous career in the history of american democracy took its bearing from the principle that there is more to americas purpose, more to justice, then majorities having their way. Considering my origins in the land of lincoln, there is a personally satisfying imagery which i did not recognize at the time. And the fact that 50 years ago, i submitted to the Politics Department of Princeton University a doctoral dissertation entitled beyond the reasonable majorities. The title came from the Supreme Courts 1943 opinion in west virginia. The second of the flag salute cases involving Public School children who were jehovahs witnesses. As told by a professor of new york university, in his splendid history, the two cases which culminated in one of the most striking reversals by the court in its history began on an october morning in 1935 in minersville, pennsylvania when william a 10yearold fifthgrader refused to salute the flag during the pledge of allegiance. The teacher tried to force his arm up but william held on to his pocket and successfully resisted. Next day, his sister lillian, 11, a fifthgrader, also refused to salute the flag. Explaining to her teacher the bible says in exodus chapter 20, that we cannot have any gods other than jehovah god. At that time, feldman explains, the flag salute closely resembled the straight arm nazi salute except that upon was to be turned upward and not down. The National Leader of the jehovahs witnesses had recently given a speech announcing the not see salute and several witnesses children around the country had come to the conclusion that lillian explained to her teacher. Saluting the flag was idolatry. Lillian and william were shunned at school, the Family Grocery store was threatened with violence and boycotted. School district changed saluting the flag from a custom to a legal duty and the children were expelled from school. Their case went to the Supreme Court. More clouds lowered over the world. The context was not favorable to the witnesses. They were pacifists. They had opposed u. S. Participation in the First World War and were opposing any u. S. Involvement in any war in europe. June 1940, days after the nazi troops marched into paris, the court ruled 81 that the School District had the power to make saluting the flag mandatory. The opinion for the court was written by Justice Felix frankfurter, a former member of the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties union. He was jewish. He had been born in austria. Which of the not these had occupied in 1938. As a jew, he was anxious to avoid practices that allowed schoolchildren to be treated differently because of their religion. The case of millersville versus the family said quote an interest in fear of in the hierarchy of legal values, National Unity is the basis of national security. Frankfurter said his personal opinion was that the school board should allow the witnesses children their dissent. He was however as most political progressives had been for many decades, and advocate of judicial restraint regarding the actions of democratically elected bodies. And he thought the court should acknowledge that the elected school board had made a defensible, meaning reasonable, choice expressing the well of the majority of its constituents. The eight members of the majority had all been appointed to the court by president franklin roosevelt. Whose anger with the courts refusal to be deferential towards congresss enactment of the new deal legislation led to his illfated attempt to attack the Supreme Court. The center of the case had been appointed by president calvin coolidge. Who i should say parenthetically was the last president with which i fully agreed. Minersville flag salute law was unique in the history of american legislation. It forced the children to express a sentiment which as they interpreted, they do not entertain and which violates their deepest religious convictions. So, deference to the School Boards legislative judgment amounted to the surrender of the constitutional protection of the liberty of all minorities to the popular will. As feldman says in 1940, the idea that the court should protect minorities from the majority was not the commonplace that it would later become. Stone had first introduced it in 1937 burying it in a footnote in this became one of the most famous and consequential footnotes in court history. Taking their cue from the court, many communities across america made the flag saluting mandatory. There was an upsurge of violence against witnesses including that by a mob of 2500 people who burnt down the witnesses king hall in kennebunkport, maine. 1943, with the world war raging, the court agreed to another flag salute case concerning jehovahs witnesses for the purpose of overturning the decision that it had reached 36 months earlier. Writing for the majority and a 63 decision, Justice Robert jackson who had not been on the Court Earlier said the following the very purpose of the bill of rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy to place them beyond the reach of the majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the court. Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote. They depend on the outcome of no elections. First as a graduate student, and then briefly as a professor of political philosophy, and now for more than four decades as a washington observer of american politics and governance, i have been thinking about the many vexing issues implicated in these two flag salute cases. The issues include the source of american rights, the nature of the constitution, the role of the Supreme Court in construing it. And, the rights of majorities. This is why i say that the kansasnebraska act reverberates in my professional life, it forced the nation and me later to confront to confront a question that constantly takes new forms but never goes away. It is the question of the limits of our commitment to majority rule. It is the question of how majoritarian we should be in our public life. This is a question of particular moment here at this distinguished law school because it concerns two questions that are i hope and assume at the center of Legal Education and scholarship here. The first is the nature and purpose of a written constitution. The second is the legitimacy of judicial review and particularly whether judicial review really does involve what has been called a counter majoritarian dilemma. There are those, and they might be an american majority, who believe that majority rule is the sovereign American Value that trumps, if you will pardon the expression, all others. They believe that the degree of americas goodness is defined by the extent to which majorities are able to have their way. Such people are bound to believe that it is the job of government to facilitate this by adopting a modest deferential stance regarding what legislatures do. And regarding what executive Branch Officials and agencies do. Here, judicial deference is said to be dictated id nature of the modern presidency. This began with the presidency of Andrew Jackson but did not fully flower into modern Communications Technologies especially radio and then Television Changed the nature of the american regime by changing the nature of political campaigns and of governance. The current believe is that because president s alone are elected by a national constituency, they are unique embodiments of the national will and hence should enjoy the maximum feasible untrammeled latitude to translate that will into policy. The twofold problem is that majorities can be abusive. And some questions are not properly submitted to disposition by majority rule because there are some, actually there are many, closed questions even in an open society. But we must ask, how aberrant, how frequent are abusive majorities . A related, but different question is when legislatures which are majoritarian bodies act, how often are they actually acting on behalf of of majorities . My belief, based on almost a halfcentury observing washington, is this as government becomes bigger and more hyperactive, as the regulatory administrative states become more promiscuously intrusive in the dynamics of society and the lies of individuals, only a steadily shrinking portion of what the government does is even remotely responsive to the will of the majority. Rather, the more government decides that there are no legal or practical limit to its practical scope, and actual, attends, the more time and energy it devotes to serving the interests of the minorities, often very small minority factions. So, paradoxically, as government becomes the acre its actions become smaller. As it becomes more grandiose in its pretensions, its occupations become more minute. Let me offer a few examples from governments below the federal level. This person emigrated to america from pakistan in 2000, settled in nashville and became a taxi driver and then got a very american idea. He started a business to serve an unmet need. He bought a black lincoln town car, and began offering cutrate rides to and from the airport, around downtown and in neighborhoods not well served by national taxis. After one year, he had 12 cars. Soon, he had 20. And 15 independent contractors with their own cars and a website. And a lot of customers. Unfortunately, he also had thereby earned some powerful enemies. The cartel of Taxi Companies had not been able to raise their rates since he came to town. Those companies in collaboration with older Limousine Companies that presented him competition, called upon the City Government regulators to have him raise his prices and impose crippling regulations. Another example. Meadows was an africanamerican widow in baton rouge. She had little education and no resources. Other than her talent for making lovely flower arrangements which local Grocery Store hired her to do. Then, louisianas horticulture commission, there really is one, pounced. They threatened to close the store in order to punish it for hiring and unlicensed flower arranger. Meadows tried but failed to get a license. Which required her to take a written test to make four arrangements in four hours, the adequacy of the arrangements was judged by licensed florists who were acting as gatekeepers to their own profession. Restricting the entry into the profession of competitors. Meadows, denied reentry into the profession from which the government had expelled her, died in poverty. But the people of louisiana were protected by their government from the menace of an unlicensed flower arranger. Elsewhere in louisiana, the monks of saint joseph abe also attracted governments disapproving glance. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina damaged the trees that for many years the monks had harvested to finance their religious life. Seeking a new source of revenue, they decided to make and market a simple wooden casket in which the abbey has long since buried their dead. The monks were unwittingly about to embark on a career in crime. Louisiana has a state board of them walmarts and Funeral Directors. Its supposed purpose when created in 1914 was to combat infectious diseases. It has however long since become a regulatory it has been taken over by the funeral industry it ostensibly regulates. At the time the monks began making and selling caskets, 910 of the Board Members were Funeral Directors. One of whom was principal income sources was selling caskets. In the 1960s, louisiana had made it a crime to sell funeral merchandise without a Funeral Directors license. To get a Funeral Directors license, the monks would have to have had stopped being monks. They wouldve had to earn 30 hours of College Credits and to a apprentice one year at a licensed funeral home to acquire skills they had no intention of ever using and their abe would have to become a funeral establishment with a parlor able to accommodate 30 mourners and they wouldve had to install and involving facility even though they only wanted to make rectangular wooden boxes and and not handle cadavers. The law requiring all of this served no purpose. Louisiana does not stipulate casket standards or even require that the burial be done in caskets. Furthermore, louisiana citizens can buy caskets from out of state from amazon which Sells Everything for example. Obviously, the law that was brought to bear against the monks was an instrument of unadulterated by the Funeral Directors to protect their caskets selling cartel. When private interest bend to government howard to their advantage in order to confer favors on themselves, often by imposing impediment on potential competitors were actual competitors. Now, you may well be thinking that i have wandered far from the kansasnebraska act and you may be wondering what this all has to do with Abraham Lincoln and the work of a political commentator. Here is my answer. The Government Action that was used to prevent a pakistani immigrant from entering into his chosen profession of operating a transportation company, and the Government Action that blocked an aspiring flower arranger from exercising her skill and can find her to die in poverty, and the Government Action that blocked the monks from supporting themselves from making and selling wooden boxes, all of these actions and thousands like them from coast to coast should be, but usually are not, considered unconstitutional. They should be struck down even though they have issued from majority principles. They should be struck down as violations of a natural right, the right that lincoln understood is a right to free labor, the right that was of course at the core of the slavery crisis. It is the on in numerator but surely implied constitutional right to economic liberty. The laws of bridging that right survive and proliferate because courts have long since, since the new deal, stopped doing their duty to defend economic liberty against risktaking enemies. In a sense, the problem began in louisiana 16 years before the monks monastery was founded in 1889. It began across the lake from the monastery in new orleans. That city had rewarded some butchers, a lucrative benefits. The city had created a cartel for them by requiring that all slaughtering be done in their slaughterhouses. Some excluded butchers went to court. All the way to the u. S. Supreme court. Challenging this law. They lost when, in the 1873 slaughterhouse case, the court in a 54 decision upheld the law that created the cartel. In doing so, the court effectively expunged applause from the 14th amendment. The clause, written to nationalize the rights of american citizenship says no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the united states. The court construed the phrase privileges or immunities very narrowly. So narrowly that it disappeared from constitutional law. A melancholy fate for a phrase that was as i say intended as a shorthand for the full panoply of rights of national citizenship, particularly for the benefit of the newly freed slaves. Intermittently since then, and steadily since the new deal, courts have abandoned the protection of economic rights including the fundamental right to earn a living without arbitrary and irrational government hindrances. Instead, courts have adopted the extremely permissive rational base test for judging whether Government Actions are permissible. Courts almost invariably hold that if a government stipulates our reason, any reason, for a law or regulation that burns Economic Activity or if the court itself can even imagine on the legislatures behalf, a reason for the law coming even if the law or regulation reeks of then the court should defer to the elected legislature, elected city council or other to two shins that is the ultimate source of the law or regulation. Indeed, in 2004, the 10th Circuit Court upheld a notably ludicrous oklahoma law requiring online casket retailers to have funeral licenses. To obtain such a license, applicants are required to take several years of coursework, to serve a oneyear apprenticeship, to embalm 25 bodies and take two exams. Upholding this travesty of an oklahoma law, the court wrote with complacency, that while baseball may be the National Pastime of the citizenry, dishing out special economic benefits to certain instate industries remain the favorite pastime of state and local government. The court did not say what it might as well have said majority rule requires that courts only reluctantly and rarely engage in the judicial supervision of democracy because majority rule is the essence of the american project. There are however two things wrong with this formulation. First, it is utterly unrealistic and simpleminded to think that there is a majority support for or majority interest in or even majority of awareness of comic even a tiny fraction of what modern governments do in dishing out advantages to economic factions. Does anyone really think that when the nashville City Government dispenses favors for the taxi and limousine cartels, it is acting on the will of the majority of the citys residents . Can anyone actually believe that a majority of louisiana citizens gives a tinkers dam about who sells caskets or arranges flowers . The second and more fundamental fallacy behind a passive judiciary is this we know, because he said so, clearly and often, that lincoln took his political bearings from the declaration of independence. Which brings me, and by an admittedly circuitous route back to 1854 and the nebraskakansas act and to lincolns noble recoil from the ideal of popular sovereignty in the territories regarding slavery. That recoil propelled lincoln from semiretirement back to politics. Lincolns recoil against the idea of untrammeled majority produced the most luminous public life in our nations history and i believe in our world history. Her many years and several reasons, many of my fellow conservatives have on reflectively and imprudently celebrated judicial restraint. For many years, i also was guilty of this. Reasons for this include an understandable disapproval of some of the more freewheeling constitutional improvisations of the war in court and the reasonable belief that the law schools that train future judges and the long reviews that influence current judges are on balance not balanced. They give short shrift to conservatism. It is high time for conservatives to rethink what they should believe about the role of courts in the american regime. Another reason many conservatives favor judicial deference and restraint is what can be called a conservative populists temptation. Conservatives are hardly immune to the temptation of pandering, to preach the majorities are presumptively virtuous and the things that legislatures you are necessarily right because they reflect the will of the virtuous majority. However, the essential drama of democracy derives from the inherent tension between the natural rights of the individual and the constructed right of the community to make such laws as the majority deems necessary and proper. Natural rights are affirmed by the declaration of independence. Majority rule, circumscribed and modulated, is constructed by the constitution. Some of these the Goldwater Institute in phoenix in his book the conscious of the constitution it is logically chronologically prior. Because it sets the framework for reading the constitution, it is the constitutions conscious. By the terms in which the constitution articulates the constitutions purpose, the purpose is to secure unalienable and natural right, the declaration intimate the standards by which to distinguish the proper from the improper majority rule. Freedom is a starting point of politics. Governments powers are secondary and derivative and therefore limited. Liberty is the goal at which democracy aims, not the other way around. The progressive project, now entering its second century, has tried to reverse this by giving majority rule priority over liberty. When the two conflict when they inevitably and frequently do. This reflects the progressive belief that rights are the result of government that they are spaces of privacy that the government has chosen to carve out and protect. If the sole, or overriding goal of the constitution can be reduced to establishing democracy and if the distilled essence of democracy is that the majority should rule in whatever sphere of life that majorities wish to rule, then the court indeed is a deviant institution. Such a reduction understanding of american constitutionalism is passing strange. It is excessive to say as often as has been said that the constitution is undemocratic or antidemocratic or antimajoritarian. But one component in a system of liberty. The principle of judicial restraint distilled to its essence is frequently the principle that an act of the government should be presumed constitutional. And that the party disputing the act of the constitution bears a heavy burden of demonstrating the acts of unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. The contrary principle that i will call judicial engagement is that the judiciarys principal duty is to defend liberty and that the government, when challenged, bears the burden of demonstrating that its action is in conformity with the constitutions architecture, the purpose of which is to protect liberty. The federal government can dispatch this burden by demonstrating that its action is both necessary and proper with the exercise of an enumerated power. A state or local government can dispatch the burden by demonstrating that its act is in the constitutionally prescribed limit of its police power. Judged on the texas Supreme Court, has cogently addressed and largely resolved the supposed counter majority difficulty. There are he says two different but not equal majorities involved. He begins as judicial review began in 1803 with marbury versus madison. In which Justice Marshall wrote the powers of the legislature are defined and limited and that those limited limits may not be mistaken or forgotten. In distinguishing between proper judicial deference to legislative majorities, and the dereliction of the judicial duty to police majority excesses, he says, in our democracy, the legislatures policymaking powers going unrivaled is not unlimited. The constitution is supreme. And desirable is not a synonym for constitutional. Although the political branches decide if laws passed, it is for courts to decide if laws passed muster. If judicial review means anything, it is that judicial restraint does not allow everything. To avoid a constitutional Tipping Point where adjudication resembles abdication, courts must not extinguish constitutional liberties with nonchalance. This requires fidelity to the super majority against what other majorities must be measured. The super majority that road and ratified the constitution. They must remain judicially enforceable that are in irreconcilable with constitutional commands. Because the Texas Constitution like the u. S. Constitution is irrefutably framed in prescription. It declares an emphatic no to myriad government undertakings even if majoritys desire them. Judicial review means preventing any contemporary majority from overturning yesterdays super majority, the one that wrote and ratified the constitution. Federal judges are accountable to no current constituency but when the constitution, todays judges are duty bound to be faithful to the constituency of those that framed and ratified it. This is the profound difference between an improperly activist judge and a properly engaged judge. The former creates rights that are neither specified in your implied by the constitution. The latter defends rights the framers actually placed there and prevent the elected branches from usurping the judiciarys duty to declare what the constitution means and implies. It is not true that, as stockton declares in the play the enemies of the people, the majority is always wrong. It is true that the majority often is wrong. And that the majority even when wrong often has a right to work its will anyway. Often, but not always. The challenge is to determine the borders of the majoritys right to have its way and have those borders policed by a majority institution, the judiciary. So, to the deans question about how lincoln has influenced my life, my answer is this. By his noble rejection of the kansasnebraska act and the idea that popular sovereignty is the way to decide the question of slavery in the territories. He concentrated my mind on two timeless truths. One, that majority rule is inevitable but not inevitably reasonable. The other is that moral reasoning, properly done, and the constitution properly construed, both of firm that many things should be beyond the reach of majority. Thank you very much. [applause] host that was terrific, provocative. I have a lot of questions myself but i will not ask them. I will open the floor to all of you to do that. I do want to give mr. Will, a token of our appreciation and a reminder that he is always welcome to come back home. One more hand. [applause] host that concludes the formal presentation. In a moment, we will open the microphone to a few questions. We dont have a ton of time but maybe about 10 minutes for people to ask appropriate questions. He has been gracious enough to answer a few. If you want to ask when, please come up. George will can we bring up the house lights so we can see . Let there be light. Host here we go. You made reference to a legal footnote. George will where the Supreme Court without justification decided it had a hierarchy of rights. There would be some declared fundamental and others declared inferior. That the court would make that distinction and that invariably as it turns out economic liberty basically the liberty for which we fought the civil war would be an inferior and not a fundamental right. Good evening. My name is paul. Im a second year law student. My question tonight is regarding justice scalia. The movement on american conservatives. And judicial restraint in reference to popular majority. It is a product of progressive thought. Who embodies . George will i am wearing my federalist necktie. A society found in 1982. Justice scalia was a very important mentor and progenitor of this. Justice scalia and i, i knew him before he was on the Supreme Court. He and i had a robust disagreement that when president s overstepped their bounds, it is not the judiciarys duty to jerk the leash of the executive branch. His answer was to impeach the president. I told him i thought that was awkward. [laughter] and unrealistic. But anyway, the closest on the Supreme Court to my view on these rings is clarence thomas. I think he has a healthy disregard or refusal to genuflect in front of stereotypes. If it is wrong, get rid of it. He would relitigate the slaughterhouse case. My son is a second year lost in at the university of virginia and i have told him that his lifes work is to get rid of the rational base test and relitigate the slaughterhouse case. Clint bolick, just appointed a few weeks ago to the arizona Supreme Court. They all understand this. We are gaining on the rascal. [indiscernible] [applause] george will i can tell you the latter in about two hours. I can understand why numerous people in our society are sad, angry, and uncertain. For white males without college education, they have not had a raise for 40 years. Economic stagnation, assumes that life is passing them by and that the system is indeed rigged. In my judgment, Big Government is always rigged in favor of the strong, and the articulate. I understand it but what i do not understand is this man as a vessel for that anxiety. He is an anticonstitutional authoritarian. He in every instinct prepared to double down on what i consider the most disagreeable feature of the obama years which is his executive overreach. And he is as i said in a recent column, the breath and depth of his ignorance is the eighth wonder of the world. To take one example, his sister is a federal judge. In defending her, not that anyone attacked her, but in defending her in the houston debate last thursday, donald trump said why, she is so conservative, she signed a bill that Justice Alito of the Supreme Court also signed. This man who proposes to head the executive branch of our government believes that justices signed bills. He is surely the first president ial aspirant in American History that would flunk an eighth grade citizen exam. It is astonishing. It will be a long time putting him back in his cage. Host time for one more. [indiscernible] george will well, many lincoln stories i am not sure of their providence but one of my favorites is lincoln supposedly said if i call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have . Five . No, because calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg. Words to live by. [laughter] [applause] host thank you all so much for being here. I wish you all a good night. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] i love American History tv. I had no idea they did history. Thats probably something i would really enjoy. With American History tv, it gives you that perspective. Mr. President. [laughter] my name is bob willard