, the National Constitution Center Hosted a discussion on how the bill of rights applies to todays debates on freedom of speech, the right to privacy and other issues. Speakers include the constitution center, also, the American Enterprise institute, and also the Aspen Institute. Welcome to the greatest assembly of the defenders of freedom ever. We have peter goettler, arthur brooks, Walter Isaacson, neera tanden, and Anthony Romero of the aclu. A big round of applause. [applause] jeffrey the National Constitution center is indeed a convening space of the greatest thinkers on freedom and called its usual liberties. It is impossible to imagine more distinguished, engaged of a group than the one you have today. I will plunge in. We have on the side of the stage a beautiful document. There are many documents here at the National Constitution center. I hope you are able to see the gallery as he came in the copy of the bill of rights and the declaration of independence. This is a very special document related to Thomas Jefferson. It is a broadside, which means it was displayed after he spoke. It was displayed in boston, printed on silk. You can see the now ail marks where it was hung on a wall. I think i can read about it from my notes than from this beautiful script. He said, every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called different brother eatheren by different names. We are all federalists. Pause for the changing of the page. A great suspense about what will happen next. To wish to dissolve this union let them stand undisturbed where reason is left free. Walter isaacson, was he describing an era of good feeling or with things just as bad then as they are now . Walter they were just as bad. You have to member the john adams had just put Benjamin Franklins grandson j in jail. We had suddenly become partisan. There was no difference between the federalist and the republicans, or whatever. That is not necessarily a bad thing. The key to what jefferson said is that we may have differences of opinion, we do not have differences of principle. That is something that i think was true back then. The founding of the nation was so new and cool, people felt they should be reward for coming together and finding Common Ground, instead of the incentives of being divisive. I was walking in and could not help myself looking at franklins grave. When he was across the street i benjamin tal when they were doing the constitution, and they were pulling themselves apart he finally got up. There was a big difference on the big statelittle state issue and he said, when we were young tradesmen here in philadelphia, and putting together a table, and the joint did not quite go together, you would shave from one side and put it together, and so to hear we have to part from our demand. His point was that compromises do not make great heroes, but they make great democracies. That was the difference between that period and now. Jeffrey we will explore how civility and empathy has been lost. We do not all have to agree. I want to tease out agreements and disagreements in the Mission Statements of each of your organizations. As we talk about liberty lets focus on constitutional liberty. Obviously, we would disagree a lot on policy. Here the Constitutional Center we would like to introduce this new edition with a brilliant introduction written by yours truly. I want to start with peter goettler. I think it is fair to say that cato is the most jeffersonian of those onstage. Your Mission Statement says that you are founded because of catos letters, published in the eight teat century 18th century that influence the architects of the revolution. At cato, what is most important in defending liberty. Is it the rights enumerated in the bill of rights or the structural limitations set out in the constitution itself . Peter it is both. We have a relatively unique perspective from many people in the world. You mention that there are copies of the bill of rights here today. We really like the bill of rights. There are many people who would like to treat the night than them as an inkblot, and attempt amendment the 10th amendment as an inkblot. When you mentioned differences it was a very partisan time, possibly more rancorous than today. I think there was a more consistent view on the proper role of government and what was being established by the constitution. You remember in the ratification debates, one point of contention was whether there should be a bill of rights or not. Many people believe that they do not have to be a bill of rights because the powers of the federal government were strict Legal Limited and enumerated and that we ran the risk of having a bill of rights in suggesting that these were the only rights that were protected. At cato we have a very strong natural rights eastview of liberty. It is inherent in the attention that you mention in the constitution. Jeffrey Anthony Romero, cato and the aclu have agreed on a number of cases and have filed briefs from nsa surveillance to Marriage Equality. There was something in peter goettlers statement that suggested that they care about all of the bill of rights the economic stuff as well as personal liberty. Is he suggesting that you care more about economic liberty than personal liberty . Anthony no. The aclu and cato have a history of working together. For us, our Mission Statement, you have to take that and come alive. These are not selfexecuting truths over 95 year history, we have done that. Everything from the scopes trial to our defense of japaneseamerican internees to the questions around miranda the right to remain silent loving, the right for interracial couples to marry, griswold, the right to cut contraception. We took this pencil and make them real those principles and made them real. The idea that you need an organization like ours to take the fullness of our aspirations and apply them to everyday lives , in ways that we cannot fully apprehend at this moment what it means 30 years from now. I think we stand on the couu of a major rights revolution. Sours is a country that has moved forward in the granting of rights. This year will be the year that the Supreme Court grants full Marriage Equality to lgbt couples. It is a prediction i feel very confident doing, even on cspan, because i think there is no wait for us to lose jeffrey. We have to remember i hope im not wrong that has taken us decades to get here. The first samesex marriage case that we filed was in 1971. Now we are in 2015, on the cu sp of granting samesex marriage to all couples in america. I think that is a remarkable testament to my organization and to the work of many on this panel. The economic issue is important. We have the very first lawsuit that goes from homeowner to investment bank. We have detroit homeowners who are targeted by subprime loading targets. It has been certified as a class. It looks of there were clearly racial dynamics behind the recession and the affected for people and lowincome people of color, especially with the impact on the country. I think it is a place where we coincide. Where we decide to spend our energy and nuance might be a place a difference. Jeffrey there are a areas areas of catos policy the would disagree with. Anthony i think there is room for evolution on all ends. As soon as we have cato join us on my detroit subprime lending debacle case, i would be more than happy to look at the issues affecting upperclass white folks in america. We focus on where we think the need is greatest. No offense, there is room for many of us in the sandbox. Peter there are clearly limits to comedy, even on a panel like this. Jeffrey arthur brooks, you just wrote this new book. You say that preenterprise advocates have not been willing to make moral argument, and that is a mistake. You think more arguments should be at the core of the Mission Statement which is devoted to increasing opportunity and free enterprise. Tell to what degree are constitutional arguments are part of your mission . Arthur thank you, jeff. What an honor to be here where we all caps about these arguments and how freedom can be manifest. At aei, we have been around since 1938. It is actually not an economic mission. It is to give more people a better life. We have to back it up. Here we are at the National Constitution center. If you look to the language of the decoration, the second paragraph language of the declaration, the second paragraph it is moral english. Life, liberty, and not property, pursue of happiness. This is a really new idea and the history of the world. It is a new age idea in the history of the world, as a matter of fact. If you read this the way it was intended by the way, Thomas Jefferson was asked a few years later why they used that language he dropped the word property, why . He said it was dictation of the american mind, but really it was dictation of the american heart. That is what was really important of the time. The whole concept, the notion of building your life, this whole country including today, the daughters of the american revolution, the descendents of the mayflower. There was only one direction to go, and that was up. That is a profoundly moral saying. That is the mission of my organization. In a commercial republican stanch asie, that requires what system . It is the system that brought me into the movement for Economic Freedom. It is the system that has taken 2 billion people out of poverty since i was a kid. That system is one of globalization, Property Rights rule of law, free trade, and most importantly, the American Free enterprise system. What im saying is that what looks like an economic phenomenon is nothing more than stanchtitation of a moral paragraph that we can live today and share with people around the world, which is a profound moral thing. If we do not see it as a more thing, we are missing the boat. Jeffrey there is no doubt that the framers were inspired. We have this interactive that you can see in the bill of rights gallery, and cspan people, online, where you can click on any provision of the bill of rights and the state constitutions, and trace the spread of that liberty across the globe. Neera, i want to ask you, when arthur talks out natural rights, it is very based on the declaration of independence, on individual liberty. There is not a lot of equality in their. Despite the declaration will miss that all men are created equal, it took the civil war taxa codify in the 14th amendment equality for all americans. The center o four americ Progress Center for American Progress talks about as progressives, people should climb the ladder of economic opportunity, shared global prosperity, harness the strength of diversity, are you more focused on the quality . Does the linkage of liberty resonate less with you . Neera i think all of us share a profound commitment to liberty and freedom. The conflicts of our time are ones in which we are constantly debating the meeting ofaning of liberty and brought quality. Obviously today, we are focused on the opportunity of real freedom around samesex marriage , an issue that no one was talking about 100 years ago. I think some of the conflicts around liberty and economic liberty, and its conflict with ideas of opportunity and mobility, where they exist freely go back not to hundred years, but 100 years ago. Some of the debates we had 100 years ago, we had courts that were considering economic liberty as a paramount value in striking down protections that the state offered to protect individuals themselves from a marketplace that was running amok against their own interest. I do not think of these economic liberty issues as economic liberty as opposed to the state itself. Often times these issues of economic liberty are ones in which it is one persons economic liberty against anothers. Anthony romero mentioned earlier , around the subprime mortgage interest, that is the rights of africanamericans not to be redlined against the market interest. These are issues where economic and interests are in conflict. I think we should have a robust discussion as to what that means. I may disagree with others on this panel about which value makes sense in that moment. I would argue my view of liberty is as strong as theres. Theirs. Jeffrey peter arthur, neera reference the progressive era. Many decisions were denounced fro liberal and conservative justices. Now, peter, there are distinguished cato scholars who argue that the court was right to strike down those laws, and we need a new judicial engagement to protect economic liberty against threats to it. Do you agree . Peter that is absolutely right. You have gone through an era in which particularly conservatives were out crying activism. We think there is a role of preserving the constitution a framework that we discussed earlier. The court needs to be an important line of defense when the legislature overstepped its bounds. In response to some of the things that neera said, our concern is that when coercion is used in the economic arena, when the government coerces Economic Agents in order to generate a specific outcome is obviously something that is at odds with our idea of liberty. Jeffrey arthur, aei is a white tent wide tent. What is your sense of how the conservative movement is negotiating how vigorously the court should intervene to protect liberty today . Arthur i think to understand the differences of opinion here is the concept of liberty from 200 years ago or 100 years ago different and a great way. What we are faced with is to competing understandings of what liberty means, or freedom means. There is a n absence of coercion. Later, as there was progress in american philosophy, there was this notion that freedom not from coercion but to certain rights. What were trying to ed defined today is from and to. I think a lot of us believe the balance is not quite right yet. The interesting thing is figuring out if we need to go further in the realm of entitlements and personal rights more freedom to, instead of less. This occurs at aei, by the way and on this panel, which is kind of like aei. Jeffrey or the National Constitution center. Walter, you are the leader of the Aspen Institute which so well brings together people of different policy. To what degree does the founders vision seeks to people on issues of liberty, society, and Technology Today . Walter phenomenally well. Surprisingly well when you go by to the constitution and read things and see how they apply. Also balance we have to realize there is a balance between conflicting moral principles at times. The most obvious being between a quality and individual liberty the notion of community and the common good, or general welfare or economic pure freedom. One thing that the Aspen Institute was founded on was this principle of a compass, in which you found the balances of values Community Versus individualism, equality versus economic growth, whatever may be. What you try to do is understand it even though you are on a certain tilt one way or the other, understand what the other side is about. In theory, find some Common Ground where that moral principle can hold. Arthur talked about the need to put it in moral terms. There is a reason that we are here. It is partly because we want to lead a moral life and understand how to create a moral society. One of your precursors, if i may call him that, is michael novak. He wrote a book that gets on this balance well, this notion that capitalism exist but not just in and of itself as a natural right, but is there to benefit the common good as well as to benefit the individual. What can we do right now . Lets take nereeras concept of more economic equality. One place where we could find Common Ground is on opportunity. If you work hard, everybody should at least at with some semblance of a Good Opportunity. We have lost that in society even in the time that i have been around, certainly sense ben franklin. When i went to school, there were a bunch of schools in new orleans. This was after desegregation. Now, we have created a more separate society, where depending on your to the zip code r circumstances apbob putnman said we have lost the sense of equal opportunity. At the Aspen Institute, we can get to 70 or 80 of people who agree on these particular moral principles, and will leave the 30 aside. I think sometimes, when you were talking in the last panel about weaponize he disputes, weaponizeing disputes, im not sure that we face a crises of pizza parlor owners catering gay weddings. Somehow or another, we try to make these into disputes instead of finding Common Ground. Jeffrey one thing that elevates disputes is legalizing them. Anthony romero, the aclu under your leadership has struggled impressively with clashes between liberty equality, and hate speech, which weibel talk about on a leader panel we will talk about on a later panel. There are some today who would strike a different balance. How have you tried to reconcile those values . Anthony it is ultimately when rights clash that we have this greatest challenge. We at the aclu, and we, as society. You need to find a way to balance them out. Ultimately, the court has been the body to decide who is right. I think those are tough issues. Where it is not tough, is in the context of religious refusal. I find it, and i was watching in the green room the earlier conversation, this question of the pizza parlor owner having to serve a gay wedding. The only reason you find this great resurgence of people to many the religious freedom and demanding that religious freedom is under attack is because we have made advances on lgbt equality. There is no surprise that they woke up in the last four years to save their religious freedom is under attack. That is not true. The religious freedom is a strong and vigorous as ever in america. They woke up and solve the political context around them changing. Lgbt people are getting their rights. As a plan b, they wrote cynical leaders, came up with a right struggle in as a way to carve holes in the advances for lgbt equality. If you say the pizza owners do not have to serve the gays and their wedding, the gays will not get pizza anywhere. And texas, it is not that you will not be able to get the one baker who will give you a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding, or the other one will they will all the client. All bedandbreakfasts will decline. Then, the right of the samesex couple to have a marriage with dignity, conferred to them by law, will be nill. We have to of impact this right to framework which is really just a clothing for bigotry and discrimination. This resurgence for the desire to exert religious liberty of disenfranchised poor little groups that now find their inability to worship the god the way they wish is certainly in no greater peril now than it was 10 years ago, just the world has changed around us. Jeffrey thank you for those strongly expressed views, which we welcome here at the concert show center as we think there are good views on all sides. Peter, dont know if this is for you, but senator michael he was here and gave a spectacular talk about his book and vigorously articulated the argument on the other side which is essentially since the court has not upheld discrimination against gays and message as the same constitutional status as africanamericans, therefore it is not yet appropriate to refuse to grant exceptions from antidiscrimination laws. I could keep going by stating his argument but peter, does cato have a dog in this fight . Peter another easy one. Jeffrey we have about 15 more minutes. Peter you asked the question earlier about distinctions between cato and aclu. We sit shoulder to shoulder with him on the issue of gay marriage. We do have a difference of opinion on the other side. We do think there is a legitimate economic liberty argument to be made and religious liberty argument to be made. People being able to refuse participation and gay weightings in gay weigddings. The issue of the photographer, who actually pretty space in the ceremony and a significant way. It is easy to make the argument that no one will be able to be served. They weddings will be changed. We always placed great faith in the market and the incentive of economic players to serve their best interest. We think, as walter said, there are many people, very sympathetic to a sea change in the country with respect to the Public Opinion on gay marriage. I am a little incredulous that people are not going to find pizza makers to cater the wedding. Jeffrey neera, do you want to weigh in . Neera i would just like to point to the fact that here we have liberty on both sides. I would note that the liberty interest of pizza owners, hotel owners etc. Were once articulated in the 1960s during the civil rights struggle. The issue be are dealing with is do you think the lgbt folks should be a protected class not subject to determination . That is really what is at stake here. You can articulate liberty interest on both sides, and as a progressive, i believe the liberty interest of the person who is discriminated against is an important and paramount liberty interest. The feeling of being discriminated against because of who you are is very different from any other experience. Part of the beauty of the constitution is it recognizes minority interests in a democracy need to be respected because the majority will not always respect that. Beauty of the constitution is it has expanded its vision of who a citizen is from the days of our first founding, when African Americans were threepfifths of a person to today, where we are one of the most evers and striving countries because we have values of tolerance and acceptance as core American Values that started in the constitution. Jeffrey peter . Peter one of the cornerstones of our philosophy, and the reason i found libertarian philosophy compelling is because we have been talking on this panel and the Previous Panel about issues that create a lot of rancor and strife in our society. It is always the case that this occurs when the state is involved in places where perhaps it should not be. If the state were not already involved in marriage, licensing marriage, defining marriage, we would not have had the very difficult discussion that we had over the last two decades about gay marriage. If we did not have a government monopoly in schools, we would not have demonstrations about what is in our textbooks. One of the reasons i find libertarian philosophy very attractive is because so much of the things that we argue about would really disappear. You would have calls for civility in our discourse and politics. The incivility is injected with government power is used to do things that create disagreement. Jeffrey arthur, do you believe that all of our rancor would go away if a libertarian policy were adopted . [laughter] arthur i would be willing to experiment a little bit with that. [laughter] arthur i would like to say quick word about civility. This is of a talk about a lot internally at aei. Just a word, caution. I think it is a dangerous when we talk about what is written on the hearts of the people with whom we disagree. I write for a wellknown newspaper in new york city, not known for his conservative views. Once a month i write a column in the new york times, and i do not read the comments afterward. The reason i dont is because i do not feel that if id by people i do not feel vetti fied by people in the comments. Im politically right of center personally. Not a lot, but farther than many here. The reason im in the conservative movement is because i care about poverty. That is it. I do not care about billionaires, their tax rate, i dont care. I know it sounds insane to a lot of progressives to be the conservative movement because you want to lift people out of poverty, but that is my view. When i hear that the i secretly want to give taxpa breaks. We are in a period of divisive leadership in this country. We need optimism and unity around core American Values, and the only way to do that is fight against even though i want to do it too, want to talk about people who disagree with me anthony let me interrupt. Arthur go ahead, anthony. [laughter] anthony when someone refuses to serve a gay man at a restaurant because he is holy hands with his Partner Holding hands with his partner. That, in our society, should be unacceptable. I have lived it, i know what it is like. Ive action checked into the hotel room with my longterm partner in Foreign Countries and when i show up for a double bed, and they find out it is two guys at the front desk, they say, you cannot stay here. Yes, i went to a hotel room down the street in the polanco district of mexico city, but it almost ruined vacation. When the pizza man puts up a sign pizza, subjects himself to the screening of the Health Department, puts up an exit sign to comply with local codes and laws peter we could get rid of the Health Department too. Neera i just want to advertise what pizza place does not want the Health Department either . Anthony they have agreed to enter this government controlled space. Government should not allow them to determine who is served and who is not served. It may be for all sorts of different reasons, but i daresay that the reason you find this resurgence of the use of religious liberty is because we have made progress on the lgbt front. When someone refuses to serve me at a restaurant or hotel based purely on the fact that im a gay man, i will call it homophobia. I will call it i will not call it religious liberty. It is homophobia that should not be shanked sanctioned in this country. Jeffrey this question jeffrey this question of whether or not it is homophobia will be center of the Supreme Court discussion in june. The fact that we can have this discussion in constitutional, rather than personal terms, is what allows this discussion to be so civil. I would refer everyone to the phenomenal debates on these topics that we are having in washington, we launch our town hall debates. On june 2, we will have a debate on the constitutional issues of Marriage Equality with evan wilson, who is considered the thurgood marshall, among others. We have nine minutes left. Im going to throw out one possibility. The fourth in the midis much embraced by the right and the left. I can recite it by heart, but you can all get your copy, it is now available on amazon you can buy a there. The fourth of them is the right for people to be protected. The Supreme Court recently decided that police, when they arrest me, cannot take my cell phone and read my emails. A cell phone is not like a cigarette packet. The year before that, they ruled that police cannot put gps on our car entries are movements. Any dissenters from the panel of the view that this violates the fourth amended . Amendment . Arthur i will not stand up for what do you call a . Like, lets hear it for extreme intrusion walter there is an interesting issue there, which is privacy. When people debate privacy, i often feel that we have not gone to the moral question of why do we want privacy. I know what i want it. I do not think we start with the foundation of individual autonomy. The whole moral question of what we are building on, and at times, when does privacy which we call privacy become anonymity. The reason you do not read your comments online, or the reason i got an email today that someone is lost in uganda, is because an amenity allows people to hack into sony. Im not making argument here, but i think we have not had a full discussion of the moral implications of anonymity and the moral rationale for what we call privacy. Jeffrey if i could, you and i have had great discussions about this. When we become more abstract about the moral issues the debate goes away. When i say, do you support autonomy the meaning of the universe and life i imagine many of your members would get off the boat. Arthur sure. Talk about expensive, and expensive intrusion into the understanding of what people have of natural law and the morality that governs their lives, to say that effectively, you do not just govern your lives, but you can invent your own universe. Here is where we are trying to find the balance. Neera and i were having lunch the other day, and it was really interesting, here is the thing that we agreed on a lot, which is the importance of dignity. Individual dignity. The link your life is a question of dignity. Privacy is a question of dignity. Anthony should not be subjected to what he is put through when he is checking into a hotel, or going to a restaurant, because of his dignity fundamentally. That is what we are talking about. The framers were not saying this is an inefficient way of doing things, but it strips dignity from each person to do that. Fundamentally, it is a m inmoral, so we need a bill of rights so that legally we avoid that, but if we are in differentndecent people, those papers would amount to nothing. Adam smith talked about the fact that you do not deserve a republic based on these rights and freedoms if youre not a decent person to conduct yourself with morality. The same is true today. We can have all the legal discussions we want, and we should, about whether or not you are served, which you should be, but if we think it is a question of law as opposed to decency, that is what comes first in my view. Walter we are sitting here, so to speak, between 1776 and 1789, whenever they do the bill of rights, and this is new in enlightenment, this notion of individual autonomy and dignity. I think you said peter, the bill of rights is not like beethovens symphony. You have to take all as a package. I think that package is sort of an alignment enlightenment notion too. Neera i agree it would be a a better world if people were inherently decent. I ask is to look at the last 100 years of the history of the United States and recognize that it was also people fighting for changes in law that created a world that better respected their dignity. We are in the 50 the anniversary of selma. People had to protest to make the log recognize that they were true citizens of this country. That was a legal change. It needed to happen. People were not doing it on their own. The law interacted with society to create a changed world in which African Americans today are treated differently than they were. I wish we all were born that way. It takes change and lin law. That is a great part of this country that we have institutions that can be changed by public protest, public action to make a more perfect union. Jeffrey with that beautiful sentiment, it is time for closing statements. We have been given some homework which is each every your institutions, we hope will be inspired next year to mobilize americans across the country to debate freedom. If i could ask you to identify a freedom or set of freedoms that you think is important to promote, and tell us what you and your institutions will do to inspire americans to promote it. Peter we sat together 18 months ago, and you said you had a new idea for a holiday. I woke up in a hotel for a very slow internet with very slow internet, and for a second i thought, i guess the wall street journal does not publish on freedom day. Cato institute is nonpartisan. We are nonpartisan for a reason. Once we cigarette the table from one another, i am a member of one party, you are a member of another. Your ability to persuade and engage in honest debate is mortally wounded. I think we need to focus on trying to get ourselves up above political process and thinking about these are our guys, we love our guys the people on the other side, they dont have as arthur said, you should not be impugning someones intent and integrity. I think we have to find areas where we can rise above that. I think there is an unbelievable bipartisan assault on the rule of law all right now. The rule of law is ultimately what sets us apart. It lets liberty work its magic when we are ruled by law and not by men. I think this is something, if we are honest with ourselves, and try to take ourselves away from the political discussion, it is something that we should be very concerned with. It is not a sexy topic or around what specific one specific issue. We can agree that it is a problem and something we need to address, and the end does not justify the means just because it is in service of a policy outcome that we happen to support. Jeffrey thank you so much. Arthur . Arthur i would like to ask that each one of us ask ourselves what am i doing today to set someone else free . The conversation about freedom especially United States as we enter another dreaded president ial cycle im sorry to tell you, if you are not reading the news is all about what are we doing to protect our freedoms. I think we have to ask, and i think it is a Good Opportunity to do so, what am i doing as a warrior for the freedoms of others. Im not tell you what your balance is on freedom or your explanation, or your definition of freedom, but what are you doing . Ice of the proposed this. I would propose an examination of. I will do this as i go to sleep. I will not ask myself, what mean thing did someone say about me in the new york times, i will ask myself did what i say set someone free . Is my answer is no, i have done something wrong. If my answer is yes, im going back tomorrow to the office, and i will fight someone. Walter i will build on that, i hope, though it is hard to top that. Going back to your original question, what principle is most important, and what will we do about it. The principle that is most important to the foundational creed of the United States is the principle of opportunity. The land of opportunity. No matter where you are born when ben franklin comes over, it is to avoid the aristocracy so that everybody has an opportunity. That is why we have individual freedom, and also widely work as communities to make sure we build the right tools, or do the right thing. Any kid, no matter who their parents are or what their zip code is, will have an opportunity to succeed. I think that underlies almost all of from the declaration of independence to the bill of rights the underlining principle is that america is a land of opportunity. This unites people who strongly believe in Economic Freedom and people who believe in pursuit of the common good. How do you do that . First of all, you try to not polarize that issue. You can easily polarize it. Or, we can say, we are all in this together. After hurricane katrina, you got the sense, we are actually all in the same boat, lets figure out what we will do. At the Aspen Institute specifically to answer your question, we have been thinking about this over the last six months. , we are creating a whole new division of the Aspen Institute on opportunity. Every person in this room has had a lot of opportunity including being in this room. When you were in high school college, whatever, you had chances to do things in the summer and afterschool programs. That used to be the threat of American History thread of American History. Something wacky not wacky, horrible has happened in the last 40 years which is the divergence of opportunities has widened instead of narrowed. I think instead of pontificating about it, we will try to make sure every city has programs. I see mike here, he started us on this route with the Aspen Challenge which went to high school denomination and said, do a really cool project we will find funding, take you to washington to show it off but it you are going to have that same opportunity that i had when i got out of school at 3 00 and we started doing projects. Based on what mike has done and many other people, i think we can each ask ourselves, after we ask ourselves that question that arthur asked, what do we do to not only climb the ladder, but to give someone a hand up on the letter . Ladder . Neera i could not agree more about that. To answer your question about what we will be doing, i would like to knowledge that there has been a lot of rancor on this panel. Cato and cap have worked together on samesex marriage. They were a very early supporter. There are many areas in which we have reached across the aisle. Another area this is but a by the Fourth Amendment question if you look at the last several decades, the Mass Incarceration Movement is part and parcel of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary to come in on the side of the state versus the individual in the Fourth Amendment and other cases. Cap, aclu, and conservative groups like americans for tax reform and freedom works, funded by a Broad Coalition of folks from the coat brother Koch Brothers foundation to mcarthur ford, and others are working on a new and that coalition is very much talking about issues like Asset Forfeiture but also issues like sentencing reform. This is an area where i think we all recognize theres a broad problem and a Broad Coalition including conservatives and progressives can solve it together. I am hoping that we will have more Supreme Court cases that are recognizing the individual right and the importance of the Fourth Amendment over the next several decades. We hope we will have reform on the legislative site as well. I would just close by saying exactly that. For us, the place where we can work with individuals with whom we may not share everything but we share a common goal of making a difference in the area of mass incarceration. We will disagree with our opponent on abortion. We will disagree with our opponents on lgbt writes. But on places where we can coincide, it is incumbent upon us to coincide. This is a remarkable moment. The window of opportunity which has never been flung open before, it is an economic issue. It is absolutely at the core of how government has used its taxing power and the government taxpayer money to building this great epidemic of over incarceration, 2. 3 Million People behind bars. What took us 50 years to build since the war on drugs will take us decades to undo. We are thrilled to be working with coke industries. We are thrilled to be working with the american iraqis council. Who come to us not with the economic imperative but the moral imperative. This is not just about balancing budgets and checking deficits. This is about, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is about turning the other cheek. This is about whether or not america is a country that believes in the value of redemption, and whether each one of us should be judged for the rest of our lives for the worst act we have done on our worst day of our life . If we do not believe that rule should apply for us, it ought not apply in our criminal justice context. I look forward to working with anyone else with whom i might disagree. We will just park those issues and we will Work Together where we can. We will get some things done. Thank you very much. [applause] this has been a superb constitutional conversation. My expectations were high and you have surpassed them. I have heard, i would not say rancor, but engaged debate, and ive heard some important agreement on fundamental issues like the moral foundations of american liberty, the importance of opportunity, and the dangers of mass course duration. As for the national carts mass incarceration. We will continue to be the national hosting platform for this type of conversation. On the web, in philadelphia, and around the country, and we will educate the United States citizens on the constitution, hearing the arguments on both sides so that each of them can make up their own mind on how to celebrate freedom. We are now going to celebrate our own freedom by taking a 15 minute break, and we will return to hear the great Walter Isaacson interview mike bezos. [applause] at that same event philanthropist mike bezos father of amazon founder jeff bezos talked about his experience and agreed to the United States from cuba as a boy. He talked to the president of the Aspen Institute for 30 minutes. Walter the immigrant sometimes is the one who best understands the concept of freedom and what america is all about. Tell us about your experience as an immigrant. How did you get here, what did you feel . Mike thank you. For allowing me to be here. The conversations have been so unbelievable that i am over the top already, doing something that we take for granted, these discussions, these conversations. It is unbelievable. So go back to 1958 back in cuba and i was at that time maybe 13 14 years old. I was fine. I was a teenager, doing my thing, going to school, minding my own business
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.