gave a positive image and got fdr democrats. say theympaign, people are coming over to our campaign who have been democrats their whole life. it cuts across racial, party lines. if we have the shared value, that is how we win. states.purple, and blue >> we love the story. >> oh, sure. [indiscernible] >> thank you so much. >> of course. here.are we? oh, right [indiscernible] you guys want a picture? blocking thes lens. photo-bombing? c'mon. >> you want a picture? yeah. >> what is your name? meetn? very nice to you. sir.good to see you, coming out.r thank you for that. >> thank you for everything you do. >> tomorrow, our road to the white house coverage continues with more from the iowa state fair. we will hear from florida representative, the chair of the democratic national committee. also hear from chris christie and bobby jindal. >> follow the c-span cities tour as her travel outside the national beltway. tour isdea behind the to take the programming from american history television out on the road. we will produce pieces that are and try to get a window into the cities people would normally go into. they have rich histories and a rich literary scene. >> a lot of people have heard the histories of the big cities, but what about the smaller ones like albany, new york? what is the history of them? we have been to over 75 cities. most of our programming on c-span is event coverage, these are not those type of pieces. they are shorter, they take you someplace. they take you to a historic site. >> we partnered to explore the history and literary culture of various cities. >> the key entry to the city is the cable operator that then contacts the city. it is the cable industry bringing us there. >> we are looking for great characters. we want viewers to identify with these people that we're talking about. >> it is an experimental type of program. the roading people on to places with a can touch things and see things. it is not just about the local history, because that really placed into the national story. >> if someone is watching this, it should be enticing enough to get the idea of the story, but also that this is just in our backyard. >> we want viewers to get a sense that i know that place just from watching one of our pieces. >> the c-span mission, as we do with all of our coverage, bleeds into what we do on the road. itin order to do this job, is done the one thing we wanted it to do which is build relationships with the city and our cable partners, and together some great programming. watch the cities tour on the c-span network to see where we are going next. announcer: a look at the future of civil jury trials. the aspen institute hosted a panel of litigators with kenneth feinberg to discuss whether the right to a trial by jury is disappearing. they examined the rise of arbitration. this is over one hour. over one. welcome to the conversation about the disappearing civil jury trial. i have a great privilege of heading this wonderful institution. which has a mandate from congress to disseminate information about the constitution on a nonpartisan basis. what we have the opportunity to do thanks to this wonderful program is to delve into a provision of the bill of rights that many of us are not familiar with. that is the seventh amendment. we are going to ask, why is it , whiche civil jury trial represented 20% of all trials in 2% ofnow represents only federal triers and less than 1% of state trials. it is a disappearing right. we were going to discuss why that happened. let's begin with a text from the with thison in begin beautiful new edition of the constitution from the national constitution center with a thrilling new introduction by yours truly and david rubenstein about the relationship between the constitution and the bill of rights. we will explain how the rights that were promised in the declaration are implicit in the constitution and work codified in the bill of rights. let's turn to the second amendment. the fact that i cannot do the seventh by hart suggests that it is less familiar to me. i can find it right here. here it is. in suits of common-law with a $20, -- thisxceed is one of the two places where the dollar amount is specified -- the right of trial by jury shall be preserved and no fact shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the united states then according to the rules of common law. to begin our discussion, we have our honorary, one of the great lawyers of the united states and one of america's most passionate defenders of the civil jury trial, steve sussman. in addition to his extraordinary work as a litigator where he has represented plaintiffs and .efendants he has had the greatest of all civil triers of the past generation. he has created a program at nyu to explore the value of civil juries. what did the framers have in mind when they wrote those words? if you are a delegate at the constitution, would you argue that the same words should be inscribed? clear that: it is the revolution and the constitution and the bill of rights were very much bound up with this idea of trial by jury. -- not freely right speech, not carrying weapons, nothing, not equal protection, not to process. trial by jury is the only right mentioned both in the declaration of independence as a grievance that the king has mentioned in article three of the ofstitution, and the subject three of the first 10 amendments known as the bill of rights. amendment number five guarantees six,ight to a grand jury, the right to a jury trial in a criminal case. article seven, the right to a jury trial to be preserved in a civil case. it was all about jury trials. if you read the debates in the constitutional convention and the federalist papers, what you find is that the reason we have all isof rights today at because our founding fathers who got together to write the did nottion in 1787 ,nclude in the first go-around a right to a civil jury trial. southernfederalist states were very much opposed to even ratifying the constitution. unless the federalist promised that a bill of rights would be passed, which contained the right to a jury trial. so this was a strong tradition that goes back 800 years. anglo-saxon people. the colonists and founders felt that this was important. they felt that juries were necessary to protect them from an overreaching central government, from corrupt or biased judges, from -- a lot of it was economics -- because the jurors -- the idea of jurors --e that they were debtors protect debtors from paying creditors. there was a lot of that going on. so i just think that you have to have the history to know -- they were very concerned about their juries. excepttates constitution two container right to jury by trial. 1787 containerd right to jury by trial. in civil cases. before we get rid of it, we need to think about what we are doing and consider whether this is a right that is maybe worth keeping. question is your fair. if you are writing a constitution today, would you insert a constitutional right for trial by jury. argue that, of course you would. the name of this program is truth founding and victim compensation. i think there is no better way to find the truth then to have a jury of 12 people, a cross section of community, diverse 12 eyes, 12ears, hearts, 12 brains are better than one. sure, there are good judges and fair judges, but not all judges are good. when you keep in mind that in this country, two thirds of the judges are elected in partisan , it becomes important that we keep the jury to protect victimso compensate when there is some form of wrongdoing. all of the empirical research shows that almost -- almost without exception, judges who have tried jury trials think that the jury gets it right. lawyers who have lost jury trials think that the jury gets it right. even though you lose the case, you say, i deserve to lose. entire mock trial jury simulation industry, where you bring in a group of citizens off the street and you present a case to them. that convinces me that the juries get it right. there, you can watch them actually deliberate. you watch them behind one-way glass deliberate. and when you see them deliberate and when you hear the reports that they give of their deliberations, they are very conscientious. the second thing i would say is people,ross section of you are much more likely to get somebody with expertise -- more expertise in everything but the law then you will from a single judge. you get lawyers on juries, accountants, economists, , you get a very high quality of jury, particularly if you figure out how to make trials shorter which is something that the bar and bench has to figure out how to do. juries areso -- representative of the community, people are more willing to accept their verdicts. a jury gives a legitimacy. and jury also -- when you talk about truth finding -- truth finding involves who is telling the truth. juries are much better at identifying who is credible, who is honest, who is being decent and fair on the witness stand and judges. applyingy be better in the law and that is their job under our system. juries are told he have to listen to the judge for the law, but the fax you find -- once you find those facts, no other court can second-guess you. -- our an important founders put a lot of faith in the ability of a group of citizens to find facts. so amendment says they are good at doing it that no other court or jury can second-guess what the jury has found. there is a very important role that juries play. jury service is one of the highest manifestations of being a citizen. whenever any underprivileged or minority group has fought for its rights, whether it be blacks or women, the fight always begins with the right to serve on a jury. and that is funny. i mean, you can go to youtube and google jury service and say there is a lot of fun made it up people avoiding jury service with excuses, but in fact, the people who serve really do become better citizens. i suspect that the next supreme same-sex --n whether you can discriminate against people because of their sexual preference, may well deal with whether a lawyer can exercise a challenge against a potential juror because they are homosexual. the law is very clear, you cannot do it on racial grounds or in gender grounds. so it is important. the empirical research done on that is that people who serve on juries are much more likely to vote than other people. they are much more likely to pay their taxes can other people. it makes them better citizens. and the final point i say is judges -- think about elected judges -- we live in a citizen's united world where judges get elected by raising money. there are no limits. there have been cases in this country where big corporate interests have stopped to buy supreme court justices. that doesn't cost much and it doesn't cost much to buy a trial judge. so that when you appear before them as a litigant, they remember who you are. think to protect the average victim, you need to have a jury. you can't rely on a judge. the founding fathers believed that judges could be corrupted, bright. you know who the judge is an advance but you don't include the 12 jurors are. you cannot fix the jury. for those reasons, if i were writing a constitution today in this country, i would insert a right to trial by jury. mr. rosen: thank you for that superb opening statement. that deserves a round of applause. [laughter] [applause] it is my great pleasure to introduce bert ryan. he went on to one of the most distinguished careers as a constitutional litigator and advocate of our time. inhas had recent victories -- in important cases like the shelby county case where the court imposed limits on the voting rights act and the court has agreed to take up the case he is involved in. bert, justicesusman -- justice for civile a case juries, like the fourth usndment right that protects against overreaching government and he said civil juries remain relevant because you have legitimacy, they are good at finding facts, and they are good for citizens who serve on it. i want to ask if you are at the constitutional convention, would you vote for the seventh amendment? just on the point of history, if you think about the way juries originated in england , they were in a world in which the king was absolute. he had absolute power, he appointed all officials including the judges. there was no independent judiciary. the only check on that was to ensure that groups of citizens -- particularly criminals -- could hold the authority to say, we know the facts, we have sworn to ascertain the facts, we are familiar with members of the community and people involved with the best ability to figure out what is true. to offset the absolute power of the king, you develop the jury. up to the revolution, the americas was under the jurisdiction of the king. and the king continues to assert absolute power. so the judiciary was not independent. have thewe constitution, a separation of powers in which we have an independent judiciary. that makes a big difference in context. theink we cannot read history is totally one-sided. you are in 1787, reacting to a past when one set of characteristics that may not be true today -- and i think i just say that as a prelude -- i don't think history commands us or to institute a seventh amendment if we didn't have one. i accept that we have one. in criminal cases, because you are sectioning people in bringing the weight of the community against them, i think the jury has a role in legitimizing criminal penalty. you shouldn't have to be punished unless there is a consensus that you committed the act. civil trials are different. they are varied. trials inst to civil leaving aside for the moment things like the fourth amendment subpoena matters, judges decide them anyway so they are really not the protection of the jury. why should we not look at jury trials as the the all and end all? first of all, a macro issue. this system would break down. if you look at the number of disputes that get resolved outside the province of trial, that is almost a necessary element of our system. if we trial -- all of us and be sitting on juries continuously. it would become our optic haitian. become our occupation. society cannot afford it. there is a cost to the civil system. what are the costs? you have to bring in people to sit. many of these people being in are -- feel they are being ousted from their occupations and being disrupted in a field that it is an undue imposition and especially because we bring in many more people than ever sit on a jury. so many people spend time waiting around to see if they will be on a panel and whether they will be the petty jury and they don't come away with that positive feeling, they come away feeling that the $30 is no recompense for disrupting my life and then because of that we have to have procedures to command them to comment -- to chase them if they don't. all of this is not free. the system is not cost-free. it imposes substantial cost. it is not like when you can round up the peasants and serfs and say, come in and be a juror. that is one practical consideration. a jury trial imposes costs on the court system. you have to have people to bring in the panels, to ensure that people show up when called, you have to have the same judge sitting through the trial. he may not pay attention to the testimony but you should. you have all of the same costs that you have in the civil system which is prevalent all over the world except here -- maybe a little bit in australia and canada. we are unique in this. that is another cost that does matter. they are going to litigate cases anyway, they are going to have discovery no matter who judy cates it. -- judicates it. around experts sitting figuring out what clues you might have to how somebody may react. our theory is on the one hand it should be across section of community and they should bring the community wisdom, but all trial lawyers know you move heaven and earth to make sure the jury is a community of people who agree with you. -- siegeve a preacher can get clues as to what kind of things may appeal. you have to push to see that you have people more favorable during a jury trial, you have tracking -- you get a group of people and pay them to listen to the same thing to tell you if it is going over well with the audience -- this is not cost-free. that is one reason people worry about a jury trial because you build up cost. so i think we cannot have a system where it is universal. it will work. it is impossible. if you have it in a can be -- if they find a class of cases in enoughhe stakes are big and the clash over fact over what happened in the world is big enough -- how do you distinguish that? how to decide what goes to a jury? should it be in the hands of litigants? there may be a better way to sort out jury cases from nonjury cases. on the micro level, assuming here is the case -- is it better to give it to a judge or jury? i think the sources of controversy over that are you have the statistics that pretty much judges and juries sees a case the same way. not getting any different results on the jury, why are we spending this money and time and effort to have one? it basically -- it is not universally true but it is true and 85% of cases. jury,, if you go to the in colonial times, there is a theory called nullification. the jury could decide rule of law or not, we are not doing this. we are drawing the line. these are the king's rules. the classic case always taught the john peter singer trial. are about to put them away in the jury says, no. we are walking out of here. this is a nullification of the law. controversialis in itself when you have an independent judiciary and when you have a legislator -- elected legislator and an elective executive it is a little bit different than having a king who rules by divine right. so to what extent juries decide cases on factors that you would not say are part of a legal framework but really part of their community? that is a tough question. you might not like it. but it is different and it does give an opportunity that if it doesn't exist in a system where judges at least are sworn to and will try to apply legal rules and say the results should be dictated by the rules -- now, i think that when you try a case, there are two kinds of facts that become involved. and particularly because of the many new remedies we have invented in the many new laws we have invented that are not just simple who done it? there are historic facts. what happened? there could be disputes. who said what to whom? who drove a car at what speed? these are historic and juries have common sense and probably would agree with judges most of the time about who is saying is credibly -- who is telling the truth, whose story holes together? we also have many cases dependent on what i would call predictive fax, they are theories about the world either scientific controversies or economic controversies and academically we have developed many new techniques to evaluate and now you call in 12 people who may or may not have ever heard of any of these techniques and you say, folks, you are going to see two economists up here with phd's -- they are not lying because they don't know anything except what the theories are and they are going to show you their regression models and you are going to figure out whether the prices be in charge were the result of a conspiracy or just the result of the way to markets work. and good luck. think that you can get an evaluation of those kinds of issues? you have drug liability cases. the issue is a capable of causing a certain kind of injury and this is something that if you look at the development of drugs and the fda and this could need an expert of panels you can wait for years. but the jury is told, you have to decide. you cannot say, maybe. you are going to vote. it is a very different system and whether considering the kinds of questions we bring to -- whether it makes sense to have juries's and other question. remember, at the time of the constitution, experts were not allowed to testify in court. they were not allowed. the 1800s, they can and in the criminal process with handprints and footprints and you would need an export but they are now universalized -- almost no case starts without some kind of expert if he can get in and you know they become the kind of narrators of the story and people use them and quite effectively to do more than their expertise -- they are allowed to jog conclusions -- not conclusions of law -- but they are allowed to speak to issues so they become very influential -- they were not known at the time and whether you would see the system differently given the way trials are conducted -- i mean, i think that is another very difficult question. and you see judges grapple with those kinds of expert issues and find great difficulty. one other thing i think that leads to is the question of time. because when cases are tried people say, this is a deficiency, the judge does not decide at the moment. he goes back, he can look at the transcript, he can look at the exhibits, and if you need to think about it, he can take a month to think about it, sometimes more. he is not told, you are going to be locked up until you decide. juries are told basically you better decide or we are going to keep you locked up for a while and so that instantaneous kind of reaction is very good for sorting out conflicting versions of real events in the past may not be the way to sort out more difficult controversies that are theoretically dependent. the last thing i would say being the devil incarnate is what we are seeing is kind of an historic liberal pull and tell because at the time of the constitution, the conservative forces were trying to enforce his were not necessarily on the same side and what you are tugging between is the as acation of rules of law predominant way to decide controversies versus the application of human judgment, community consensus, and how to codify the law. if you have a seventh amendment, that is only partially true to man --u turn over and i don't mean this only men -- men, women, whoever -- the job and the opportunity to modify the application of law. think in that situation, i would not pass the seventh amendment as it stands today and i think very hard about how to determine whether there is and should be a class of cases in which it is amenable and also the issues could be allocated between judges and juries because they always are. thank you for that opening statement. around of applause for justice what a pleasure to introduce ken feinberg. he is the nation's leading mediator and champion of alternative dispute resolution's. he has been special master of the 9/11 victims fund and was appointed by attorney general ashcroft. administered the $20 billion fund created by british petroleum for victims of the spell. he assisted the virginia tech president. he has had more experience than anyone else in ministering huge and complex alternatives to the civil jury system. you have heard the arguments on both sides. usant to ask first, tell what it was like to administer the 9/11 victims fund. is something like the 9/11 victims fund or the bp compensation fund a plausible alternative to the jury system? mr. feinberg: these funds i administer are a precedent for nothing. you will see them as aberrations . the 9/11 fund created by congress 13 days after the attacks, if congress had waited two more weeks, it would not have created this type of fund. bp oil spill, bp walked into the white house, saw president obama, walked out, and announced, we will create a $20 billion fund. 20 billion to compensate all of the victims of the oil spill. 1.2 million claims from 50 states. alaska, 35 foreign countries, sweden, norway. build it and they will come. [applause] these programs are not a threat to the trials. they are not a precedent and it is important they not be a precedent. the 9/11 victims compensation fund was absolutely the right thing to do after those attacks. .ound public policy the country wanted to show the world, we take care of our own. it worked. of all eligible families that lost a loved one in the world trade center, the airplanes, the pentagon came into the fund. taxpayer money. taxpayer money. don't ever do it again like that. you will never see it again. you should have read some of the e-mails i got during my administration of the 9/11 fund. my son died in oklahoma city, where is my check? there mr. feinberg, i don't get mr. feinberg, i don't get it. my daughter died in the basement of the world trade center in the 1993 attacks. it was not just terrorism. explain something to me. last year, my wife saved three little girls from drowning in the mississippi river and then she drowned a heroin. where is my check? bad things happen to good people every day in this country and you do not have a 9/11 fund. there was no 9/11 fund after katrina. after tornadoes or forest fires. to delegate all of this uthority, president bush, ken, i want you to do the 9/11 fund. no second-guessing, you decide. that is not the constitution. that is not checks and balances. president obama with the bp oil spill. great job, thank you. on behalf of the american people, you got out in 16 months , $6.5 billion, two people who suffered economic harm. all that was was a handshake between bp and the president. no laws, no regulations. that is not the constitution and that is not america. i get involved when policymakers decide, very rare. we have to think out-of-the-box. in a lot of what he says. is,fact of the matter policymakers, i don't decide these programs. congress, the white house, general motors. let's set up a fund. they call me. they want to avoid the cost of litigation. they want to avoid the inefficiencies and delays of litigation. i am paying people in 60 days. they want the certainty. victims want certainty. these programs are all voluntary. 9/11, 97% took it. bp, 92%. 99% takeneral motors, the money. point, why do people come into these programs? represented 350 people in 9/11. ask him. 97%, we must be doing something right when we set up these programs. just remember, i am not here to wage another view between bert and steve. i think the trial system, whether you like it or don't like it, it is here to stay. it is part of our heritage, part of the fabric of our country. if you think you are going to change the seventh amendment or if you think you are going to somehow as a matter of constitutional policy undercut the role of the jury in our society, you are dreaming. these twouestion for eminent law clerks, a better question for steve and bert, why aren't there more trials? that is not a constitutional convention question. what is wrong with our system today that more people don't take advantage of the seventh amendment? studiedme, it is better , not in a law seminar, but in a history class. what i do is no threat to our legal system, to our lawyers, or to our judges. these are rare aberrations and they should be seen as aberrations, not to be encouraged. [applause] >> superb. question isnk his excellent. the seventh amendment is here to stay. why is it so few people take advantage of it? tell us the history that led us -- let the numbers to decline. what would you do to increase the numbers and have more people take advantage of their seventh amendment rights? judgestrial lawyers and have done a very bad job. disputethe competing resolution? people will always have disputes. you will have a service, what is litigation competing with? whatever you are selling, if your product is too expensive, or not deemed to be safe, the competitor will win out. that is what happens with arbitration. arbitration is private dispute resolution. arbitration does not create any these are paid, private judges. lawyers have been at fault and the judges because they juriesn a way, hobbled in finding the truth. the jury is not supposed to read anything in the paper or look at what is on the energy that -- what is on the internet. werey of your peers supposed to come to court because they knew something about the case. now we are looking for the lowest denominator on juries. trials go on forever so that the judges -- the judges allow them to go on for weeks. the consequence of that is the only person who serve our juries are unemployed or retired. that is not good. the jury instructions are totally incomprehensible. -- a lawyerossibly cannot sit there and listen. a lot of things -- i read this book written called "a trial by professor.princeton the judge said he would not answer it. you don't get written instructions. you are not allowed to discuss the case. to make ityou can do difficult for people to comprehend, we have done to our jury. there is a lot that is wrong with the jury. itany event, a lot of originates with the business community. in the 1980's, they began thinking all litigation was bad. that is only held lawsuit abuse reform and a lot of changes -- that his family had lawsuit abuse reform. as a result -- that is when we had lawsuit abuse reform. you cannot buy goods and services without agreeing to give up your right to a jury trial or any kind of trial. every time you click on the internet -- i tried to get in with my iphone this week to the itunes store. here and conditions, check if you want to go further. if you did not check, you did not get in. contract. [laughter] i am not kidding. no one can read that on an iphone or laptop. i am sure that i waved my right to a jury trial, limited myself to damages. the supreme court has blessed this. , ayou are a consumer patient, employee, every time you sign a contract, you give up your right to trial by jury, to access the public justice system. that needs to be changed. badly. interesting. if you are a criminal or accused of a crime and want to give up a jury trial, the judge explains to you, you have the right to a trial and if you do not exercise, this might happen. do you understand? you speak english? makes the accused speak in court so we know there has been a voluntary knowing waiver under the right of the sixth amendment to a trial by jury. why don't we do that under the seventh amendment? we have the supreme court sanctioning these click through contracts. a study done by the consumer protection finance bureau, the results were published. 90% of the people who are subject to a mandatory arbitration clause are not even aware they are subject to that. understanddoes not that you are losing your right to trial by jury because you are voluntarily giving it up every time you buy anything and big overreaching, corporate america hiding behind these arbitration clauses to avoid facing a jury. a lot of reasons why we are losing. i think the arbitration is one reason. , eight of them is nine supreme court justices have never tried a jury case. different than in the day when i was clerking for the court justice. he was a trial lawyer in alabama. he wanted to protect the jury because he had done it before. all they see are these outlier reported in the popular media. if we got rid of it, maybe we could save the seventh amendment. >> we have about 10 minutes left. vote at the end of our discussion and you will have to decide whether or not if you were a delegate, you would vote for the seventh amendment today. >> earlier, jury nullification was mentioned. thing thatesoteric could be used. it and i wantribe you to amplify on a point you made. >> jury no citation was at the core of the most -- jury no as occasion was at the core of the nullification was at the core. he cannot argue that he did not criticize the king. worgreater the truth, the se the offense. a jury refused to convict him because they did not think seditious libel was appropriate in a free society. a similar case, john wilkes is accused of printing anonymous pamphlets criticizing the king. he objects to the general warrant is invalid because it did not specify a specific place. violated thees it natural rights of the english people. those are two examples of jurors refusing to convict people. do you really believe given that constitution, the fact that we are now a democracy and no longer ruled by a king means that civil juries should not retain the right to nullify what they consider unjust laws? nullification,of you have an arbitrary authority, you have had no voice in the shaping of those laws. suddenly, you are up against them. the king has said, i know what seditious libel is and i have proven it. the jury says, we don't agree with it. one of the things was, they collect,e a right to but it is unfair. it is making law. why do you want 12 people arbitrarily chosen to make law? a little bit different. everybody wants to nullify something. you have a ruling about gay marriage, you have governors who say, not here. massive resistance to desegregation. those are nullification's. not so easy to support a theory of nullification when your alternative is a democratic process. steve talked about arbitration, these rulings are under a federal law. congress could change the federal arbitration act and say no more of this. the number of jury trials declining rapidly before the widespread application of arbitration. here is something that will get you mad, but it has nothing to do with it. have you considered how elimination of consensual arbitration might affect some parts of the economy? would you work as an investment advisor if you know a jury rather than arbitrators will decide whether a disappointed investor gets his or her money back? are you equally passionate when defending the right of defendants to jury trials in class-action settings once there has been a determination that takenare common issues away from a jury and the defendant does not have a right to a jury trial? -- susman: well, the answer i do not think it has that much of an effect on the economy. arbitration has only become big in the last decade. it is something rather new. the economy was doing fine. frankly, if parties are equal in bargaining, they can resolve similar dispute in any way they want, arbitration, arm wrestling, casting lots. -- when iroblem with want to buy something, i cannot even read, i go to check something off and give up my right. i don't really have too much of a problem with your investment advisor situation because if i -- i find an go investment advisor that does not require me to do that. view onvent, that is my that. >> back in the day, when he was a law professor, he developed a theory called economic theory of tort. i would like to hear from each of our speakers, your view of the interaction between the economic theory of tort and the right to a jury trial. >> do you want to explain what it is? >> [inaudible] >> let's start with steve. [laughter] mr. susman: i honestly don't know what that means. i think i have an idea. yale.not go to you are talking about what role does tort adjudication play in society. in some societies, let's say scandinavia, you have a social contract with the people as a whole. tosomething adverse happens you, it is the public responsibility to care for you. -- aour beating blame tribute in blame is secondary -- attributing blame is secondary. culpabilitycreate a outside the criminal system. in the u.s., we do not have a social system. in that sense, tort is a vehicle for people compensating themselves for injury as well as attributing blame. you do not have to have a blame theory. if you put a dangerous commodity, you know it is going to injure somebody, you have to build that into the price. , trying to of things take away this question of finding blame in each case. you want to reserve blame for cases in which there has been bad conduct. great many contacts -- great many -- if you are building in an inefficient mechanism, there are two problems. that will come back in the price and it is random. if you think of people similarly injured, somebody thinks about going to allow your and another awyer. -- to a longe courts. people fear the they do not want to waste their time. a tort system is random. the greatest advantage of the scaredstem, everybody is of the jury and that is why you can settle more cases. whether they are well settled is another question. is like aear factor nuclear deterrence. the jury trial and maybe some of the myths around it lead to that kind of behavior and maybe they are the cause of the fact that we do not have jury trials. it on the 9/11y commission? runfeinberg: we do an end on theories of tort. we invite people to come into a system which does not to fix .lame, does not deter it compensates, that is all it does, individual victims. 3%, decidedple, voluntarily not to come into my program. i met with them and i said to each one, why aren't you coming into a program that will compensate you in 60 days with an average award tax-free of $2 million? wifewould say, i lost my at the world trade center. she would want me to sue to make the airlines safer. to make the airlines safer. you are not going to make the airlines safer by suing. the airlines are as safe as they are going to be. even if you believe that a lawsuit will help make the airlines safe, let the other 93 people sue. people litigate to make the airlines safer. come in and get your money. >> without the threat of a civil gm everal, would bp or put up that kind of find? mr. feinberg: i doubt it. >> tell me of any kind of civil case where the biggest issue, the one that amounts to the most money is not intent. i have never tried a case where intent is not the key issue. just like it was the issue in the obamacare supreme court case. who better than a jury of your ascertaining what people really mean and think and intent? d? you do not have to prove willfulness to win. all you have to prove is that you infringed the claims of the patent. you know that better than anybody else. in a lot of big-ticket cases, intent is not the issue. in a pharmaceutical liability case, did they really intent to injure somebody? if the warning was inadequate, was it an adequate because they wanted to protect the drug? intent is not necessary. is the warning objectively sufficient or not sufficient? there are a great many cases where intent is not an element. we have moved away from that for economic reasons. a lot of cases are just absolute liability. intent has nothing to do with it. mr. feinberg: these programs like 9/11 have nothing to do with liability. nothing. they have nothing to do really with justice. they have very little to do with fairness. what is just and fair if you are giving someone to million .ollars who lost a son they are all about mercy and very rare. they are no one comes to me in any of these programs and says, thank you. gratitude. appreciation. don't expect it. yourself. you are going to really -- it is debilitating. you get the money out the door and you move on and it is mercy because it really is not fairness and it is not justice. [applause] >> it is time for our vote. you have heard the best argument for and against preserving the civil jury system. the question on the floor is, if you were a delicate at the constitutional convention, would you vote in favor of the seventh amendment or not? everyone who would vote in favor -- >> [inaudible] favor, raise your hand. everyone who would vote against, raise your hand. .he seventh amendment wins join me in thanking your panelists. >> this weekend, politics, books and american history on c-span. live coverage of presidential candidates at the iowa state fair continues. we will hear from chris christie at noon and bobby jindal 1 p.m. wisconsin republican governor scott walker holds a town hall meeting in new hampshire. on c-span2 saturday, but tv is live at the inaugural mississippi book festival at 11:30 a.m. haley barbour and panel discussions on civil rights, history and biography and a literary lives of harper lee. sunday morning at 10:00, katie kiefer shares her critical thoughts on the obama administrations relationship with millennial's. saturday afternoon at 5:00, columbia university's andrew dolcart on the preservation of the history of the mission created to protect them. p.m., three films on the pilot district project, a program administered by the johnson administration to help improve poor relations between the police and the community in d.c.shington, get our complete schedule at c-span.org. >> with the senate in its august break, we will feature book tv programming weeknights on c-span2 starting at 8 p.m. eastern and for the weekend, here are some book tv special programs. saturday, we are live from jackson, mississippi for the inaugural mississippi book a.m.val beginning at 11:30 with discussions on harper lee, civil rights and the civil war. 5, we arey, september live from our nations capital for the 15th annual national book festival followed on sunday by our live program with former second lady and senior fellow at the american improvises -- enterprise institute, lynne cheney. television for serious readers. >> now a discussion of the candidates and issues in the 2016 presidential campaign. journal, thisn is just over 40 minutes. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from our new york studio is steve forbes. we are going to be talking about politics. give us an assessment, your assessment of the race so far. what you have seen is an interest in the race. it is absolutely intense and unprecedented. donald trump stirred things up and that has a lot of interest in the first debate. there is a lot of deep dissatisfaction in this country about where the country is that, where the economy is at. the democratic side with bernie sanders. it has not gotten as much play is the donald trump phenomenon, but you have this senator, socialist out of vermont who is ahead of secretary clinton in new hampshire, moving up fast in the national polls. people want big change and they are very unhappy with where we are today. host: mr. forbes, this is a rather indelicate question. what are the drawbacks for a wealthy man running for president? --st: donald trump's mind zero. [laughter] no mattern you run, what your background, when you go in that arena, you are going to expect brickbats. it is like the nfl. it is a contact sport. if you are rich, they are going to say you are out of touch. if you are not, they are going to say you have no achievement. field you arethe getting into. you are doing it voluntarily. if you don't like getting bruises, don't get in the ring. host: you ran for president twice. did you suffer those brickbats? guest: of course. i called it the hazing process of american politics. in 1996, when i started to gain traction, there was what you might call the honeymoon period, where the national press was all aw's and then overnight, it turned. nothing you did was right. every day, they found something wrong. with the american people look at in that process, even though they don't do it consciously is can you handle the pressure? the presidency, you are going to get stuff thrown at you you don't anticipate. it comes almost every day. people want to see how you handle the unexpected things when you are in that arena. y discussing the issues that you think are important so far? -- i: in the first debate think it is going to change with the second debate -- i thought that was inadequate discussion of the economy, hardly any mention of the tax code, no mention of the federal reserve and our credit markets, and very little discussion of health care . i think that is going to change in the second debate and you will find the participants are much more active and less passive than the first debate. if they don't show well in this debate, they are going to be thrown off the island, in effect. you will see the candidates put forth a lot more specific proposals, get to issues that are very much on people's minds. host: let's put the phone numbers up in case you want to (202) 784-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8002 independents. get through on the phone lines and still want to make a comment, try twitter. the chairman and editor-in-chief of forbes media and ran for president in 1996 and 2000. he has written several books, as well. what if donald trump gets the nomination for your party, mr. forbes? guest: to get the nomination, it is very different from having an early lead in the polls. to get it, you are going to have to show you can unite the party, you are going to have to win a number of primaries. we are still a long way from that. it is still several months before we have the first contest in iowa. to win a nomination in a political party, you have to show you can bring the different parts of the party together. the parties in america are unlike in europe and elsewhere. you have groups of people together who have very different interest from one another. one quick example. in a normal economy, you go to iowa. iowa republicans have much more interest, as a whole, in social issues than economic issues. in new hampshire, you find just the opposite. much more interest in economic issues and hardly any interest in social issues as a generality. disparate groups that you have to bring together and show skills in doing that. to get the nomination, it is not enough to have a rise in the polls. you have to demonstrate in the primaries and the caucuses that you can bring the disparate elements of the party together to get the majority of the delegates. host: what is your assessment of carly fiorina? demonstrated, and what they called the kiddie she demonstrated and put in a very impressive performance. as a ceo, you are accustomed to getting brickbats and you are accustomed to a lot of pressure in dealing with different constituencies. nothing like politics. i attended a dinner with carly fiorina several's ago -- months ago and people were very impressed with how she comported herself and how she answered the tough questions. it did not surprise me that she did very well in that secondary debate. it is clear that she will be at the adult table so to speak in mid-september. host: have you endorsed and are you going to? guest: no. i'm with a couple of several other people, like art laffer and steve moore, we have been putting together meetings with various people with the particular candidates to discuss specifically changing our horrific tax code, making changes at the federal reserve, economic issues. we agreed when we started to do these events that we would not endorse until after we had an opportunity and people had an opportunity to talk to all of the candidates. that process is still unfolding. i don't expect to do anything until at least around christmas time. host: are many of them friends of yours? guest: i've known many of them over the years. some better than others. so, yes, most of them are not strangers. [laughter] host: didi fredericks tweet san, dr. carson is very popular and places second in many polls. what are your thoughts? guest: i think dr. carson's rise and he did well among the republican base in that first debate, i think dr. carson exemplifies the deep dissatisfaction with politics as it is today, with the present people in politics, and that people want a big change. think his great knowledge and quiet demeanor has impressed people. he is someone who has done substantive things in his life -- not just made beaches speeches. one of the things that came out of the first debate though the whole focus was on donald trump is that the republican bench, so to speak, is very deep and very strong. you had a lot of impressive people up there. you will get even more an impression on the september 16 debate. that is why the situation in the republican party in particular is so fluid. you have a lot of people who are very plausible. that is why carly fiorina is going up and dr. carson is going up and governor kasich has had a rise. host: let's take some calls. steve forbes is our guest. matt is calling in from new york on our republican line. caller: good morning. good morning, mr. forbes. guest: good morning, matt. caller: what you were saying about the brickbats, the newest brickbats is the term "anchor baby." hillary clinton was first lady years.lary --eight the term anchor baby has been used for decades and now it is an offensive term to hillary clinton. position to in the actually say something about it, she didn't. everybody knows what anchor babies are. there are no two ways about it. jeb bush and donald trump are being condemned for saying what the truth is. you know what? it is time for the republicans to start coming to the gunfight with a gun instead of a knife. they started to back in the days of newt gingrich, but now it seems like they are backpedaling and apologizing for telling the truth. what you said is true. i would like to see somebody stand up. i'm not saying i'm a trump fan, but i tell you what, i love his attitude. host: i'm sorry, matt. i thought you were finished. mr. forbes, any comment? exemplifiesnk that the deep dissatisfaction, the worrying anxiety that is around the country today. we have had the worst economic recovery from a sharp downturn since the 1930's. there is a feeling that things are falling apart around the world. the things are not going right here at home, that the labor markets are not as strong as they should be. people are frustrated and are looking for new faces. it doesaller indicated, not mean that he, at the end of the day, or when the primary come, you will end up voting for donald trump were dr. ben carson or somebody else, but he wants a vigorous debate out there. you will see very vigorous debate on immigration, on taxes, on spending, on the huge spew of regulations we have had that are --shing mall businesses small businesses. we will have lively encounters in the next debates. host: is there a republican candidate that you would not support of this point? guest: no, i'm looking at the field. i want to see with a put on the table. i want to see how well they thele the pressure when brickbats come flying at them. ronald reagan demonstrated that he never lost his demeanor, which was one of his great characteristics. he demonstrated he could take the pressure, take the criticism , and not lose sight of the purpose for his candidacy. , that isk in history one of the mistakes that ross perot made back when he ran as an independent in 1992, was pulling out of the race and then coming back in. you cannot do it. if you are in it, you are in it until you win or are out. host: travis is a republican in detroit. caller: hello. speaking of new faces, i'm generally have voted republican over the years, but recently i have become disillusioned with the party and i found an independent candidate that has been getting some press lately called deez nuts. i was wondering what your views on that were? what his chances are? if you wanted to know wanted to address that mr. forbes. guest: [laughter] names, talking about new you will see more -- there is the feeling that secretary clinton is on the revolt. of colorfule plenty stories and lively people out there in this process. host: 600 people have declared their intention and filed to run for president at this point. guest: i think there are a lot in the white house -- in the race for the white house. you will see a lot of unanticipated things happen in this campaign. john kerry may get in the race. there is talk about al gore. they said, look at all these democratic candidates. all of them are eligible for social security, what does that tell you. there will be plenty of grist for the mill for the comedians. nuts has been identified as a 15-year-old farm boy in iowa. guest: sadly, you have to be 35. [laughter] host: robert is calling in from greenville, north carolina. good morning, gentlemen. i would like to ask you what you think about citizens united. i would like to ask you who was worst. when donald trump says he has bribed all kinds of politicians with money donations, is he the worst guy for bribing the politicians were for the politicians taking the bribes? thank you. on citizens united, which was a supreme court decision saying that companies and unions can set up organizations to supposedly independently support candidates, i think that case is a way waystation to finally removing a lot of the campaign restrictions that were put in the aftermath of watergate in the 1970's, which has made our election laws almost as convoluted as our tax code. i hope eventually through the supreme court or through acts of congress, we should get rid of these restrictions. be allowed to give what you want to a candidate and to stop all of this convoluted stuff. make it open and transparent and be done with it. , instead get to that of the complicated way that you have to do it today. host: what do you think about set aboutd trump giving politicians money and they do what they want? guest: i'm sure there were times when he wishes they would do what they wanted. people are looking at his candidacy and what he is saying because a lot of times money is given for access. ,f you allow absolute openness you should be able to do it. he got hillary clinton to come to his wedding. that was the only example he cited. i'm sure in the next debate, they will press him. host: is mr. trump a friend of yours? yes, i have known donald trump for years. his father was a major real estate developer. his father broke into manhattan back in the 1980's, so i got to know him way back then. host: are your daughters at all interested in politics? guest: we have five daughters. none of them are interested in politics. none of them have exhibited any appetite for it. they follow it. they are glad they saw it, but it did not entice them to enter the arena area -- arena. [laughter] host: mark is a democrat. caller: good morning. i wanted to reiterate what mr. berniehad said about sanders. he is always labeled as a socialist democrat. we never hear about the s democrat -- capitalist republicans. we were a country founded on the people. being a socialist type. bernie sanders is the chairman of ways and means. we have seen the squandering of wealth and the greed that can happen with a purely capitalistic approach. which is becoming stronger and stronger. we need someone that is there to speak for the people and he speaks to the people. a lot of people get a wrong impression when he is called a socialist. i wish they would just drop it and leave it as democrat. but i think he has a lot of great things to say and need some more airtime. thank you. host: steve forbes? guest: in terms of the label socialist, bernie sanders calls himself a socialist. in vermont, when he runs for the for thend before that congressional representative, on the ballot, you had republican, democrat, and socialist. he filed as a socialist and he caucuses in the senate with the democrats. they like his vote, so they let him in the caucus, they put him as a member of their various committees. the socialist label, bernie sanders puts it on himself. that is not something the press did or his opponents did. bernie sanders will be live tonight on c-span at 7:00 p.m. from south carolina. we will carry that live. liveward, he will join us for a call-in program. bella is in miami. you are on with steve forbes. caller: good morning, mr. forbes. guest: good morning. caller: yes, good morning. this is in reference to your run in 2000. i was a volunteer then in miami. guest: thank you. caller: you are welcome. the reason i did this. it is due to the factor that i was caught in occupied china as a child. my father was u.s. navy. long story. he served under admiral harry yarnell. fdr ignored the mock raid on pearl harbor that yamamoto covered. that is why never vote democrat. why did you back out of your run? i want to know whether this might happen in this next election. of both the 2000 race and the 1996 race, when you lose, you don't get the votes and you don't carry on. even though we came close on some of those are -- early contest in 2000, close was not good enough. when you don't win, you pull out and move on. it was not something i wanted to pull out of or voluntarily pulled out of. the votes were not there. host: do you agree with privatizing public education? guest: i believe, in terms of education, parents should have a choice. nevada has put in a couponarent can have a -- where parents can put in a coupon if they don't feel that their particular school meets the particular needs of their child, they can put that child in another school. i think one of the things we're discovering is that one size does not fit all. a particular educational environment may not work for another kid. there are some kids who thrive in single-sex schools rather than coed schools. we have seen it with our daughters. each one is very different. what works for one may not work for another. it is not privatizing, it is giving people a choice. it gives people more choice if you don't go to a neighborhood that happens to a good school, you suffer. live,less of where you you should be able to put your kid in a school that meets the caps off needs -- meets the kid's needs. aanndk we need truth diversity in terms of education methods. host: steve forbes, at one point in your runs for president you were pretty much in front of the pack. you were in first or second place in opinion polls. what is that feeling like? guest: it is a very pleasant feeling. [laughter] guest: you hope it can last. we were thinking, this is great, we are moving up. i had read enough history to know that those things don't necessarily last. this one did not. you move ahead, you do go through that hazing period, you do get the brick that. that is part of the american political system. we don't have a parliamentary system. we see the process unfolding in the republican party now and we will see it among the democrats. you have a lot of people running , but people want to get to know them and they want to see if they can handle the job, handle the heat in the kitchen, as hairy truman put it. host: what do you think about the fact that iowa and new hampshire are still first and i can when it comes to the nominating process? again, even though i didn't win the process, i think it is not a bad process. in both states, you get very involved in what they call retail politics, even though you are running for president. you do get to know people. you get to know issues, you get to know concerns on a personal basis. you do not get those through position papers or reading polls or scrolling the internet. it is face-to-face. you get a real feel for it. in iowa, you've got to demonstrate you can put together organizations. new hampshire is a traditional primary. to demonstrate going throughout the state that you can win the support with people looking at you very closely. they are not impressed with candidates because they see them all the time. in do not get in a bubble those states. the system is unlike any other. i have not seen a better one around the world yet. is an independent in chestnut hill, massachusetts. caller: good morning, mr. forbes. i would like to ask you if your political views are more conservative than your father malcolm. i have a brief comment about what you said about the schools. that that is true, but i think in these privileged communities, like my own, we need to integrate more fair people are able to move into these affluent are better,there much better public schools. ,f course the more affluent their children tend to go to the private schools. i would like to know about your dad malcolm and how that compares with your views. host: i think we got it. thank you. steve forbes. had very father diverse views on a lot of subjects. i think i persuaded him on some things, like simplifying the tax code will before i got into politics myself. one of the amazing things about him was that each day he always had a fresh take on things. he taught us, as kids, he taught us to have independent minds, to come to our own conclusions. we would have vigorous arguments around the table, especially with one of our younger brothers. even though he was very forceful, very forceful, he appreciated when you could make an argument that could make him change his mind. died 25 years ago, sadly, so i have no idea what his opinions would be today. he would probably very much opinion a -- i would very much appreciate hearing because he had interesting opinions on things. the housingbout issue? the public housing issue? guest: well, you shouldn't be having the federal government forcing people to move or not move or trying to upset local communities. ,n the education thing, again as nevada is starting to do, give parents the means so that regardless of where they live, regardless of their circumstances, they can try to get a school or schooling method that best meets the needs of their particular children. to say, we must fill an apartment building here's a certain school. give people a choice of movement. people can live where they want and people should be able to go to schools that meet the needs of their kids. host: a tweet. what should happen to social security and medicare? guest: easy questions. not. [laughter] , even on social security though we have a troubled economy today and i think that is going to change in the next couple of years, we have enough wealth in this nation. to meet the obligations of social security for those on the row graham now and those who are going to go on the program and 10-15 years. the real problem comes with younger people, teenagers, people in their 20's and 30's, there for will not be them if we continue on this current course. people who are on social security and about to go on it, don't worry. you will get your benefits. for younger people, we should phase in having your own with properount regulations, where a certain amount of your payroll tax goes into your account, you own it, not the federal government. the more you earn, you will end up, even if you don't go on the stock market, you will end up, by the time you wish to retire, you choose when you want to retire, whether you want to do it at 60 or 90, you make the choice. if something happens to you, those assets go to whoever you want them to go to. right now, when you leave this existence, alls the money you put in social security, the politicians keep it. time,k this return, over would turn it into an asset rather than a liability. medicare has to be a part. we can meet the current medicare obligations for the next 10-20 years. i take issue with some of my republican party colleagues on that. it can be done. we need a more patient oriented system going forward, where you start to get real entrepreneurs coming in providing health care, more health care at a lower cost. we see little pieces of it like lasix surgery for the eyes where it costs less than it did 10 or 12 years ago because you have the entrepreneurial forces at work. you put in more patient oriented system. peter, is that, patients are not the real customers in health care today. it is all third party. the patient is not the real customer. that is going to change and is starting to change. when it does, the problems, the huge problems, are going to disappear. i'm writing a book on that, by the way. host: when is that coming out? guest: the end of november. host: ken is in florida. a democrat. caller: good morning, mr. forbes. guest: morning. caller: my question is about the republican governing of the economy. i have been around since 1948. without exception, every republican president has had a recession during their administration. some of them horrendous recessions like the 1982 and the 2007 recession. i don't want you to blame it on the democrats because eisenhower's recession was in in8 and george w. bush's was 2007, well into his administration with republican house and senate for the most part. that is what i think about it. of thewell, in terms recession, first of all, you did not mention the 2000-2001 recession. i begin to feel that one is bill clinton was leaving office. you can blame it on anyone you want. the economy was weakening visibly in the late 2000. trigger point, in terms of good economics, that is not a partisan matter. i think the previous administration, republican administration, made a huge mistake in allowing the bekening of the dollar to done by the u.s. treasury department, the federal. that had disastrous consequences . we would not have had the housing bubble of the dollar had not been undermined in the early 2000's. john kennedy had it right on taxes. johnson passed it. a major income tax cut. kennedy did not muck around the dollar the way that does today. -- rock with ronald reagan with ronald reagan, the recession came with a terrible inflation of the 70's. we got the great boom of the 1980's and 1990's because of the reforms that reagan pushed. in terms of taxes, if a democrat wants to have a flat tax, i would cheer. if a democrat wants a stable dollar, stable and value instead of what the fed is doing now treating it like a yo-yo, which is very disruptive, i would applaud it. there are no monopolies in terms of good policy. the is why i am looking at republican candidates right now who recognize the mistakes made in the 2000 and some of them are starting to put some very good proposals out there, particularly on the tax side. ,ost: kp potatoes tweets and medicare, medicaid patients are not the real customers. the next call for steve forbes comes from sean in cleveland. sean is gone. sorry about that. barry is an center arbor new hampshire. morning, mr. forbes. the last time i saw you face-to-face, you are running for president in new hampshire and we had some discussions about mandatory age-based retirement for airline pilots. guest: right. caller: you are planning on getting together with the other candidate and seeing who was worthy of support. you would broaden this to eliminating mandatory age-based retirement in the federal service broadly. if i had been able to continue to work as an airline pilot, much as i don't like to take chances, i would have been contributing to social security instead of drawing on social security and drawing on society. if someone wants to work, they should be able to work and contribute to the general welfare. i hope that your position has not changed and that you will continue to support this. host: we will get a comment in just a minute. very quickly, do you make a point of trying to meet as many of the candidates as possible in new hampshire and which way are you leaning as of today? caller: i'm somewhat of an independent. i try to meet and listen to as many candidates as i can. people asgs i like in diverse as bernie sanders, rand paul, ron paul, and ralph nader. these people tend to be mavericks. as i think steve was, a little bit, and still is. they all bring something to the table. i'm not really a fan of donald trump, but he gets a lot of support and attention because he is not one of the politics as usual people, as for example hillary clinton and jeb bush seem to be. host: thank you, sir. steve forbes. guest: in terms of retirement, i think, at the time, pilots had to retire at the age of 60. it has been raised since then. in terms of that, where you have a physically, mentally demanding job, if you take a test every few months, psychologically and physical, and can do the job, you should be able to do it. the only area where you might have a fixed retirement is for high executive positions or boards of corporations where they tried to bring in new people. at the very top, yes, i could see having a retirement age where you go into something else and let others move-in, younger people move in. like for pilots, that should be dependent on your own capabilities. we have learned a lot since the 1950's. when the pilot rule was put in, in terms of people's capabilities when they get older. host: what about the significance is of politics as usual versus mavericks, as barry put it? guest: mavericks, as barry calls them, often times bring new and change the course of debate. in terms of the flat tax, which i have been advocating, i think a number of candidates will be putting that on the table again. rand paul has already done it, others will be doing it. even though the u.s. have not done it, 30 countries have put in such a system and it has worked fairly well. yes, there is always a place. that is one of the virtues of the american system. it is not a closed shop. britain is almost impossible for someone who is not a professional politician to break into that system. and is. is wide open think that is a good thing. when things are not working, people want new solutions. host: david is in goldsboro, north carolina. a few minutes left with our guest. caller: good morning, mr. forbes. guest: good morning, david. caller: i remember when you were running. you try to include everyone in their debts your campaign regardless of race and everything. as of right now, it seems that every republican is scared to discuss race. i don't see many minorities at the republican meetings and everything. they all think republicans are racist. i would like to know what your thought is on that. i remember when you were running and and you try to include everyone in your campaign. think they are not willing to talk about racism and that is hurting them. that is hurting them politically. thank you. guest: thank you. thank you for calling in. this is what we were getting too earlier. the political parties must include many people to win an action all -- national election in the country. candidates such as rand paul have been doing a lot of outreach. hasrnor john kasich of ohio done a lot of outreach and when he ran for reelection as a republican, he did extremely well among minority communities because of that outreach. the candidates know this. they have been working on it. i hope they continue to do so. people want to hear the message and you've got to get the message to everybody if you want to govern this great country. host: his immigration an economic issue? covers notgration just economics. it is social and everything else. one of the things that will happen as a result of this, you will not get anything from congress in a year or so. when you get a new president, one of the things that has to be done is you have to overhaul and simplify our current if you play by the rules and try to get into this country, you end up in a legal limbo twilight zone where they lose your files, you wait for years, you go through hell to do it and that is not right. people who play by the rules should not be punished. that is the first step in terms of dealing with our immigration talent. -- challenge. host: have you think john boehner and mitch mcconnell are doing in washington? guest: i will not call them names, they are nice guys, but i would have -- i was hoping they would be more aggressive. in terms of pushing some needed changes in some of the regulatory abuses of this administration. that is part of the frustration out there, especially when you control both houses of congress. they have not found more innovative ways of getting some of these issues dealt with. there is still time for them to do it. host: we appreciate you coming in talking with our viewers. we look forward to having you >> on the next "washington markal," ali noorani and krikorian talk about immigration. and daniel raymond talks about the heroine response strategy in the u.s. we will take calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. this sunday night on "q&a," the college student has been visiting the graves of u.s. presidents and vice president since he was nine and documenting his adventures on his website. he talks about those visits and his interest in american history. >> the one gravesite that everyone has trouble getting to is the rockefeller. >> nelson rockefeller. >> how did you do it? >> we were able to get through it as an active god, as my father describes, he walked farther down the perimeter and noticed this gigantic tree had fallen. he went in and actually saw nelson rockefeller's grave and decided he would have to get me there fairly quickly after that. kurt d on sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." olc with the senate -- >> with the senate in break, we but future weeknights programs. for the weekend, here are a few special programs. saturday, we alive from jackson, inaugurali for the mississippi book festival at 11:00 a.m. eastern with discussions on harper lee, civil rights, and the civil war. on saturday, september 5, we are live from our nations capital for the 15th annual national book festival. followed on sunday with our live program with former second lady and senior fellow of the american enterprise institute lynne cheney. but tv on c-span [applause] c-span2.v on senator ted cruz of texas speaks at the des moines register soapbox at the iowa state fair. he lists the first five issues he would tackle on this first day in office and outlined his plan for education, planned parenthood, and the irs. he follows with a meet and greet with numbers with the audience. iowa state fair this morning. [applause] much.ruz: thank you very god bless the great state of iowa. [applause] how many of y'all watched the debate in cleveland? what an amazing array of talent that was on that stage. how fantastic is it that we have so many young, passionate, dynamic leaders stepping up to leave this party and to lead the united states of america. [applause] contrast: and what a with the democrats. [laughter] sen. cruz: i'm pretty sure the first democratic the base is going to consist -- democratic debate is going to consist of hillary clinton and the chipotle clerk. that is not fair. we cannot forget about bernie sanders. so now the democratic field consists of a wild eyed socialist with ideas that are dangerous for america and the world, and bernie sanders. [laughter]

Related Keywords

Alabama , United States , Nevada , Australia , Alaska , Vermont , China , Greenville , North Carolina , Washington , District Of Columbia , Des Moines , Iowa , South Carolina , Massachusetts , Norway , Miami , Florida , New York , Haiti , Canada , New Hampshire , Texas , Cleveland , Ohio , Wisconsin , Virginia , Columbia University , Mississippi , United Kingdom , Town Hall , Sweden , Shelby County , America , Britain , British , American , Haitian , Bobby Jindal , Steve Moore , Scott Walker , Nelson Rockefeller , John Kasich , Ron Paul , Ronald Reagan , David Rubenstein , Bert Ryan , Chris Christie , John Boehner , Ali Noorani , Lynne Cheney , Al Gore , Newt Gingrich , Bernie Sanders , Harper Lee , John Wilkes , Ralph Nader , Kenneth Feinberg , Steve Sussman , John Peter , Jeb Bush , Katie Kiefer , Carly Fiorina , Daniel Raymond , Steve Forbes , George W Bush , Ross Perot , Mitch Mcconnell , John Kennedy , Harry Yarnell , Ken Feinberg , M Haley Barbour , Hillary Clinton , Ted Cruz ,