talked about national security law at the meeting of the american bar association followed by a discussion about cyber security and surveillance. this is an hour and a half. i m going to have a short introduction for glen because i think everyone in the community knows him and the biographies are in the packets. all i just would like to say is that i think glen s commitment to public service, his leaving private practice to come and first work with mike rogers and and now with paula kasony is the type of service our committee is famous for, which is it works with all ends and all parties and it provides profession professional advice and glen is the consummate emerging professional. can you address the crowd? thank you very much, harvey, for your introduction and it s just terrific to be here today. i look out in the audience and see lots of friends and colleagues in the national security sector and it s great on a personal level for me to see so many folks from my agen
president of the center to disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on nonpartisan basis. that is so inspiring. wonderful live c-span audience you can see the great members of the national constitution center like people around the country are inspired by this nonpartisan mission of constitutional education and believe it is crucially important for citizens to educate themselves about the constitution so american democracy can thrive and survive. in this mission, we are so excited to be partners with c-span. we have a wonderful collaboration a few years ago, landmark cases which described the human story behind some of the most important supreme court cases all times. that series was inspired by a common group death ruth bader ginsburg made at event a few years ago where she said how inspiring it would be to hear those human stories so people can relate to the cases and understand the principles behind them. that series was such a success that by popular demand, we
arizona. we hear arguments number 18 roe against wade. quite often in many of our most famous decisions are ones that the court took that were quite unpopular. let s go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who have helped stick together because they believe in a rule of law. good evening and welcome to landmark cases. we re about two-thirds of the way through our 12-week series looking at historic supreme court decisions. tonight s a 1954 case of school segregation, brown v. board of education. and we re going to begin this evening by listening to linda brown on the roots of this case. my memory of brown began in the fall of 1950, in the quiet kansas city of topeka, where a mild-mannered black man took his plump 7-year-old daughter by the hand and walked briskly four blocks from their home to the all-white school and tired without success to enroll his child. that tryi
off to the side, trying to pretend they are not happening, that is a career ending proposition for them. that is the first thing. the second thing is making the justice system work in holding people accountable so that their we should stop plea-bargaining. we should stop lowering charges. if some of the evidence is clear and there is a conviction we should be drumming these offenders out of the service with dishonorable discharges as publicly as we possibly can. should be making examples of them. one of the things that appears to be true although the data is a little bit squishy, back in the time of iraq when we had the surge and we had the army had to grow the force very quickly. and they were keeping people in a place, not stoploss, they were extending and pulling out all the stops. part of what happened during that time was the army in particular granted an unprecedented number of waivers for people who had criminal convictions, domestic violence convictions, rape conv
,atters of the constitution and the federal hay be as statute only applies in federal court. the federal habeas corpus can grant if relief is warranted. says pleasee acknowledge we are holding a prisoner in contradiction of federal law that used to do nothing about it, then the answer is federal habeas corpus? there s not a second answer the state can be required under the supremacy clause under its own procedures to enforce the federal law? if i were to take that position, i m not sure what would support me. martinez versus ryan suggested there are advantages to citing the federal hay be us statute the hay be a rather than what the court called a freestanding constitutional plan. a major advantage here is if you say the state courts are bound by the constitution, when it would go to federal hay be us, there would be a very efrin shall review. if you say the redress question in state court is a matter of when the issue goes to federal hay be us, it would not apply because t