Translating the values of the fifth amendment to the modern age. The fifth amendment, concerned about thought crimes, not exerting psychological pressure. He ended by quoting my hero about how government is the omnipotent teacher and you can see that in his letter he thought the court has to be a shining emblem for what Human Dignity needs. We heard the chief justice you can do the best job you could in the context of the law. Time will affect decisions. Youre suggesting its time for us to rethink the technology i think it is. I think miranda could be updated and could be more effective. There were at the love people thinking about this and hopefully, we can all come together and try to think about things like body cameras, video taping and interrogations. Other things that would update miranda. Thanks to both of you for being here tonight on our 11 of 12 cases in the landmark cases series. We appreciate your insight from the miranda case. Thank you so much for being in our audience tonight for your Great Questions and comments. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] our series concludes next week with the roe v. Wade. Justices ruled that the right is not absolute and states can restrict abortion based on the viability of the fetus. Find out more next monday live eastern, on cspan, cspan 3 and cspan radio. You can learn more about cspans landmark cases series online by going to cspan. Org landmark cases. From the website you can order the cspan landmark cases books, featuring backgrounds of each case. Written by tony mauro and push published by cspan. Landmark cases is available for 8. 95 plus shipping. An interview with senator Charles Grassley on the impact of landmark cases. Thank you for giving us an interview. That may start by asking you about your committees role. What is your responsibility . We would have everything to do with the approval of judges. It is an important process to go through. The Supreme Court is a powerful branch of government. According to madison, it is the least powerful. They turned out to be more powerful than madison had indicated. In the final analysis i think the role of ours is to make sure that the people that are on the court are qualified. Are qualif. Secondly, that they have judicial temperament to leave their only personal views out of decide. At they they decide according to the law and the constitution. Basically, just to make sure that they do the job of being a fair referee of the constitution. Both between the government and people and within the branches of government. Do you have a specific set of as a chair of the committee to view the court . Make sure wey to have a fair hearing. What is your relationship like with the chief justice and the justices in general . We interring ado with them. Couple of times a year im talk whats called a judicial counsel. A presentation with them attorney general did before i did. Its giving them an update what congress ofin the the United States. But it also gives me an opportunity to speak about cameras in the courtroom, which i know some Supreme Court justices dont like. Been an advocate for it. I had an opportunity to bring that up once again so they know pursuing something that maybe they disagree with. Be the final determinant of that. Thats an interesting thing to explain to people just to how the two branches interact and separation of powers. Thecan the congress be final determinant of cameras . Well, if we say that the haveme court has to cameras, they have to have cameras. I dont see how they can declare that unconstitutional. Not only that, i do it in the of the bill of rights where the cram has to be open to the public. Of course, it is open to the that canr those squeeze into a courtroom. I think that the extent to what or cases in the courtroom is open to the public on television and everybody has an opportunity to participate in that case. Just like everybody has an opportunity to participate in the congress of the United States through the division of the House Television of the house and senate. Gives think that it people an opportunity to understand the Judicial Branch government. I think what they understand what a president does, what a legislature does and congress does. I dont think theres in much understanding by the people what whatourts do particularly the Supreme Court does. I think it gives people an to appreciate what goes on and in lower courts, i to make sures more have more decorum. Now, theres criticism that hearing,confirmation particularly Supreme Court hearing have become politicized. To ask you whether it is more politicized than it may past. Een in the whether or not court always hads have politics . Say, itnk you would became politicized with rejections. An action with breyer and ginsburg to be less political. Thats why you see them confirmed overwhelming majority. Bush was elected, dramatic turnbe a of events. Mostly led by then people that the minority and led by speecheschumer giving about the fact that ideology ought to play a more Important Role in the selection of judges. It has become more politicized period of time. Particularly for the supreme and Circuit Court judges. Not so much for District Court judges this a good or bad thing bad. Why . Because i think that if you go 200 years without selection of judges and approval by the court being so approval by the congress being so got along pretty good. Another question about the selection of Supreme Court justices, throughout history, it has not been necessary for justices to be lawyer. You yourself, chair this committee and youre not a lawyer. Unusual but not exclusive. Im wondering whether or not these days its absolutely a Supreme Court justice to be a lawyer . I think so. Why is that . I know the law doesnt require it. I only think once in our History Court was a supreme justice who was appointed by either by lincoln or somebody lincoln. G i dont know exactly what year served. N ended upidered they being considered a lawyer. I think he was a medical doctor. That, i think every or soe out of the 120 have been lawyers. Of the an understanding law would be very good. Maybesnt maybe couldnt do it. I im not sure i recommend that particular point. I want to dive into some of the cases weve selected. Starting with mulberry. Being debated by sop side of the aisle who believe that the court should power. E judicial it it takes away the democratic process. What is your police chief . Belief. My belief is when you have legislative and judicial u need referee. Verse at mull bury said. Ry versus madison i think that as long as that final answer, the constitution has been amended to overturn Supreme Court decisions. In a sense, the people or the representative has the final say if they want it. Say thatbe wrong to the Supreme Court has the final say. Right. Instances thats any time theres an interpretation of law and over turnede Supreme Court cases by amending they felt that Supreme Court interpreted the wrong. Earlier, you referenced james madison. Word to say about his view in the Supreme Court . Think it has turned out to be what he wanted. Dangerous from this standpoint. They cant initiate action. Like the president of the united under the constitution or land. In our in the case of the legislative we can initiate anything we want to. Next is the dread scott decision. Its viewed about the the chief justice. Mark inwas a bad courts history. What happen do you think about scott and what it did to the history . The civil war. It was common sense that africanamerican could not be country. Of this it was an insult. Such an insult that civil war was fight over that. Going to spread almost to any place in the country. It led to what turned out to be good. The constitutional amendment is of Congress Moving done ahen has probably great deal of good over a period of time. On case law which the. Ourt interpreting applicable to the states. What happen predictions there on government and protections for the people. When we talked to senator leahy, he described the amendment to the constitution that came out of dread scott as thesecond founding of constitution. Do you see it in that scope . It it did the right thing by theng africanamericans right to vote. Which they didnt get in reality until hundred 100 years later. In the constitution the citizensvote and to be so thats vort very already important. Think its important from the for to everyat it citizen a lot of protection the government that bill of rights give to people of the country. E it was difficult to find 12 out of all the cases. Thehats basic that revolutionary war fought for and why the constitution was written. Government give rights to the people. Rights belong to the people. Up tonly those are given mutual rail benefit to other people. I dont think the 14th than of thees more original position of the constitutional writesters writers. In recent years, as this been so prominent in our society, you thought you suggested legislative clarification of the 14th minute. Want to get into the need to it, but the reclarify an amendment. Can do it my say whats to subject of the jurisdiction is. That. D try to clarify if i said, you got to do it by constitutional amendment, you ht as well ferc about forget about it. Youngstown1952, Company Versus sawyer. That with regards to president obama and executive action. Website. This on your about thealking guantanamo detainees. The Supreme Court set a clear establishing nose. Avoid a strike with the korean war. Court emphasize the exec above important thing that a president is strongest to exercise his power when he has congress with him. Instance, the Supreme Court made a decision that the exercised byer seizing the tort chore. Justice cases to sense 10. Oing to guantanamo it is frequently cited because its a landmark case from the of the Supreme Court being a true referee between the andches of government making sure that the president of the United States or in some the congressld be or leaving within the constitution. Particular case, the most important thing is not opinions the eight justices the the important thing is so often quoted now. Quotedrequently particularly when theres dispute between two bridges of government theres an interesting side bar. Trauma Trauma Program he got assurance that in thee would be found president s favor. About dread scott. Ames buchanan i wouldnt think that harry truman would do that. He did, i dont know whether there was any record of it. Obviously, edidnt get right want. E that he decision first19 world war. To that first like to hear all the discussions about the amendment right to communicate especially if the digital age. Let me give you a short to your question. A robably of there are very strong rights that the citizens have under the constitution. There talent limits youre about what that does in that exercise of free speech, lives of people in might get trumped as youre running theater. Predictions. Some i have of its very extraordinary to have any restrictions on the First Amendment rights as a legislature, where do begin to draw that line when people in the judicial, are their need to be able to follow ma people are the internet person. Is, you got to find a balance. Unrestrictedes and freedom. Find theying to find the balance on one hand. Thats what you trying to find a balance. Its difficult to find that balance. It and we eventually do action betherecent congress finding that balance. There was a concern. Interest toome preserve the flag. The burningelieve of the flag, for example is an amendment of first right. What is your response to them . My response can only be that the First Amendment was meant to protect verbal speech. Is an comfortable of that. O accept. E dont case. L move to another 1966. Nda decision, youve had some. How thatlk about decision affects the way we treat when people take up arms our country, they are company combatants. They arent protected by the constitution of the United States. Modified that say at if ite of hadnt been turned down by the voters of the state of iowa and referendum, it would have been overturned baker versus car. Theh said both houses of legislature or in the case of hasaska a single house, it to be basted purely on one person one vote. Thats the way 50 state legislatures now are determined. Chief justice describes the baker decision as the most significant of the cases during his tenure. Which considering the cases it so his tenure, why was important . Its been a long time since i baker versus car. Im not sure this will be justiceout by chief warren. This is the way i look at it. Thees an obscure part of constitution that says the federal government has to republican form of government in each of the states. The onlyobably immediate control the federal. Overnment has over the states republican form of government party. Mean a republican it means representative government. Saying, if youed have ballot portion legislature so people arent properly represented the form of government doesnt exist. State, we would have polk time, with at that 250,000 people. Had two representatives. I was a representative of a of only 17,000. Quite frankly, the people of were not guaranteed a republican form of government state legislature. Thats why baker versus car was essential. The only disagreement i would not had, at that time, im sure i would have had this disagree today, based upon what done, onel Government House based on geography and the other one based on population, if each of the 50 states decided way, should have had the constitutional requirements. Obviously, nobody argues with today. Ersus car Justice Thomas said further necessary about whether or not registered voters see any validity to that argument . No i think total population. Thomas heard clarence give that argument. I would disagree with it. Based upon people whether they vote or not vote. We have five minutes left. Our final case big social change off to be made by the representatives of the people. Decision. The courts were getting involved maneuvering. Wrong. Re by declaring that africanamericans could never be states. Of the united lot ofa lesson for a social change. Just look at the successful in america that has been done by legislative bipartisan way. Social security, medicare, social security, medicare, these were bipartisan decisions made. As theyve all been fully accepted. Wade. At hasnt is roe v. The division now is greater than wasas when roe v. Wade passed by the courts. Another one would be obamacare an example. Done entirely by democrat votes. Argues its an example, wade orits roe v. Obamacare. You ought to do thing as elected represents. Brown v. Board be an argument . That has to be accepted by American People. It didnt take long. Realize now,to brown has been modified by Supreme Court cases lately in last 20 years. That has not originally, it was busing of children from one part another. O you had Court Decisions that said you dont need to go that far. Even the court has made of brown v. Brown case. Were about 30 seconds out of time. Do you want people watching this sears no know about the history . Ourt and its what i want them to know is get the Supreme Court televised is the entire people can see whats going on and have more respect for the rule of law. We hope to learn about the oftory on the next washington journal, the founder and president of the Arabamerican Institute will talk about the debate over muslims in america and u. S. Strategy against isis. The we look towards Affordable Care act and the effort by republicans to block key provisions. Washington journal, live every morning at 7 00 eastern. You can join the conversation with your calls and comments on face and twitter. On facebook and twitter. Tuesday, state department cial envoy for climate that is live at 10 00 a. M. Eastern here on cspan. Abigail fillmore was the first first lady lady to work outside of the home. Teaching at a private school. She successfully lobbied congress for funds to greet the First White House labor a great may meet the was marketed as a color and stores sold clip on banks equal two women clip on bangs two women eager to mimic her style. The stories and more are featured in cspans book, first lady president ial stories on the lives of 45 iconic women. The book gives a great makes a great gift for the holidays. Stories of fascinating women and how their legacies resonate today. Share the stories of americas first ladys for the holidays. It is available as a hardcover or an ebook from your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. Be sure to order your copy today. Courtt week, the supreme heard oral argument in fisher versus university of texas at austin. The court will decide whether race used in university and College Admission policies is constitutional. Abigail fisher is arguing she was denied admission because she is white. This is the second time that case is being taken up. It was referred back to the fifth circuit for oral review. This is one hour 35 minutes. We will hear arguments this morning in case 14 981, fisher versus the university of texas at austin. Before we get started i will advise the lawyers this is our only case this morning so we intend to grant the parties 10 minutes of extra t