Transcripts For CSPAN Washington This Week 20150307

Tomorrow, we start washington journal with a look at the Race Relations 50 years after selma. We will talk with Trevor Burress and Elizabeth Weir washington journal is live every morning at 7 00 a. M. Eastern here on cspan. A look at former governor jeb bush at the agriculture summit where numerous president ial hope holes are speaking. Hopefuls are speaking. The event started with governor Kerry Branstad who criticize the president for not acting on the renewable fuel standard and not supporting ethanol. Bush spoke about immigration saying that immigrants here in the United States must have a path to legal status. We will have more with governor bush tomorrow starting at 6 30 p. M. Eastern where he will be in a fundraising event in iowa. This is the first president that does not believe the American Power is a force for good and his will back as of that believe is not good for us or for the world. It has created uncertainty instability and now greater risks or the homeland. So the next president has to restore an american presence where our allies know where we stand come up where they dont think that we are pulling back not pivoting, not doing all of these things that create uncertainty. We are involved and they know we have their back and our enemies fear us a little bit. They know we will ask should certain things occur. Voids are being filled by asymmetric threats of terror and by states that are taking advantage of our weakness. Restoring the very basic premise, nurturing the alliances again, rebuilding the military shifting to the 21st century threats, we have new threats that did not exist just a decade ago, cyber security, threats of terror, defending the homeland and while we protect Civil Liberties we need to be engaged to make sure no attacks take place in our own country. This president by the way his former secretary of state has let us down in his regard. Collects tomorrow, wrote to the white house 2016 features remarks by former secretary of state fairly clinton who was honored at this weeks emilys list gala, and former governor jeb bush who spoke at a fundraiser in irwindale, iowa. The cspan cities tour takes book tv in American History tv on the road, traveling to u. S. Cities to learn about their history and literally life and this weekend, we partnered with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. The rising tide, the rising wind certainly drew them. They watched in amazement as both of these factors battered the beachfront structures. At the time, we had wooden bathhouse is out in the gulf of mexico. We also had peers. We had a huge pavilion called olympia by the sea. As the storm increased in intensity, these structures literally were turned into matchsticks. The 1900 storm struck galveston saturday september 8, 1900. The storm began before noon, increased in dramatic intensity, and finally tapered off toward midnight that evening. This hurricane was and still is the deadliest recorded National Event in the history of the United States. Watch all of our events from galveston throughout the day on cspan 2 book tv and on American History tv on cspan 3. In 2000, arizona voters passed a Ballot Initiative that amended the state constitution that transferred redistricting to an independent commission. The Arizona Legislature claims this violates the constitutional election clause. The, oral arguments in a case challenging whether independent commission or entities other than the state legislatures have the power to draw the lines of congressional districts. This argument is one hour. Collects your argument for us this morning, the Arizona State legislature versus the arizona independent redistricting commission. Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court proposition 106 permanently depressed the state legislature of its authority to prescribe congressional districts and redelegates that authority to an unelected and unaccountable commission. The elections clause of the constitution clearly vests that authority not only in the states but in the legislatures thereof. Thus, this a valid effort to really elegant read delegate that authority to an unelected commission is repugnant to the constitution vesting of that authority to the legislatures of the state. Its all right for the state redistricting. Arizona being able to use this commission for the state representation. Clemens it only applies to the Congressional Redistricting. That means that, if these commissions are as effective as the other side says, then we would have nonpartisan districts that would elect the state houses and the state senate. Then the nonpartisan gerrymandered perfectly representative bodies would take care of congressional districting. So to meyer are you suggesting that the lack of legislative control of this issue only or are you saying that we have to overturn gillibrand and smiley . Claimant we dont have to overturn gillibrand and smiley. The court was in fact that the legislature would do that it means than what it means now which is the representative body of the people. Sotomayor we made it clear that we are defining legislature in this clause as many legislative process. Clement im especially disagree. One side was saying the legislature means the legislative process in the state whatever that is. The other side said, no, he means the representative body of the people. This court said, action, we dont have to decide that dispute but we certainly agree that it means the representative body of the people just as we said five years earlier. What the court said is, first the delegate is clearly the legislature, the representative body of the people. But that is the second question. What sort of authority is delegated to the state legislatures. The authority is a lawmaking authority. That means that the state legislature has to engage in lawmaking subject to sotomayor this makes no sense to me. I think it is either or. If the legislature has the power, how can the governor veto it . How can a popular referendum veto it . Either they have the power or they dont. The constitution says the people hold the power and they can choose a commission or however else they want to do it. Isnt that the legislative process . Clement no, its not a i disagree with you, justice sotomayor, but that is not particularly important. What they say is that the delegee remains the same. They say the function differs. So when a state legislature it tells you it is going to ratify something, there is no pressure or agency of anybody else in a process. But the courts is that is a delegation of lawmaking authority. Of course the legislature does its lawmaking pursuant to the ordinary rules. And if they provide for a gubernatorial veto, if they say it has to spend 30 days in committee, then those rules apply to the elections clause just as they do to other lawmaking. But its a completely different matter to say we are going to cut the state legislature entirely and revisit the framers decision to delegate this important responsibility to the state legislatures and we will redelegated to a completely different body, a body that has the one feature that a representative body does have. Ginsberg can congress substitute its commission for the state legislature . Clement i dont think that congress would say that, at the state level, we are going to re delegate this to the state commissions or two independent commissions. If, as was to do it at the federal level and set up a federal commission, i think that would be a very different issue. Obviously, congress has power under a separate subclause. Ginsberg if congress does the same thing that arizona has done in saying that that is the way federal elections will be held. Clement i dont think they consider play bless what arizona has done. I think that would undermine the decisions the framers had made in the first clause. We are actually going to take those Commission Districts and make them our own and impose them. Kennedy if it is the latter, it can only be a commission. Clement what we object to is the permanent resting of authority from the state Legislature Kennedy there is a law that says a portion of the Commission Must submit its proposal to the legislature and the legislature has 30 days and only can overturn it by a two thirds vote. Clement i think that would be a harder case. The question i think you would ask is does that residual authority from the state legislature amount to the authority prescribed districts . I think you can decided either way. You can say they are not cut outcome lately. They had completely they cannot cut it out completely. They have residual authority. What you can do under smiley and hildebrandt is apply ordinary rules for legislation to the state legislatures. But what you can to do is come up with separate roles that apply to only Congressional Redistricting to make it harder for the state legislature to act. Kennedy your statement partly answers questions about you say those are ok because the legislature is not completely cut out . Clement i think it might depend on the details a little bit. Kagan i thought the legislature was cut out in most of these things. 2007 i guess voting by mail. 1962, arkansas, voting by voting machines. These things were done by the legislative process completely cut out. There are zillions of these laws. Clement if you look at the various laws that are put in the appellees appendix, not one of those constitutional provisions purports to on its face three delegate authority away from on its face redelegate authority away from state legislature. If you want to look at the North Carolina provision on page 27 kagan all they are is laws passed not through the legislative process. Claimant exactly. We dont think that is the defect here. Kagan i would think that if your primary argument is legislature means legislature, there has to be legislative control, in none of these laws there is no legislative control. There is no legislative participation at all. Claimant we do stingers to situations. We could say the problem with proposition 106 was that it was done by initiative and not by legislature. We would have the same objections here if this were imposed by gubernatorial it it. We know gubernatorial edict. This court has already said that its ok for a judicial body, like a state court, to do redistricting on a oneoff basis. Kagan how do you make that consistent with the textual argument that you are making . The argument you are making is that legislature is legislature. There is no way around that. But now there are these many, many laws throughout the United States in which the rules are not being made by a legislature and that is perfectly ok because the legislature isnt involved at all. Clement its not the problem that someone got into the legislatures lane. The problem is that, once they got into that lane they decided to rest the legislature from the process on a permanent basis. I would invoke this courts case that dealt with an analogous clause that gives the state legislatures the authority to prescribe rules for president ial electors. This court took a practical view of the matter. If the state legislature lets other parts of the state do something, we are not going to jump in. We can think of those us delegation of authority. But it protects the legislature from other parts of the state coming in and permanently resting that authority. Kagan i thought that our separation of powers judas prudence abdication is as consequential as aggrandizement. If there is a problem, the problem continues to exist irrespective of whether the largest teacher the legislature protests are not. Claimant clement nothing would prevent a state legislature from delegating its authority to one of these commissions. That is not the problem. The problem is that the law either by initiative or gubernatorial edict would be the same, from without to say that the framers thought it would be great. Kennedy suppose the legislature propose the referendum. Clement i dont think that would make a difference in my own view. Kennedy that is a case where the legislature would make the decision. Clement that is not the clement that is not the situation we are dealing with here. Kennedy it is not completely remote because the legislature in our zone a test in arizona can seek to overturn what the commission does by putting its own referendum before the voters saying, please voters, change this proposal change this redistricting plan. I suppose the legislature can do that. It has the power to submit a referendum or initiative i guess a referendum to the arizona clement i think they have the power to do an initiative. I dont think they have the power to do a referendum. One of the ironies is the other side i should talk about the power of the people. I think all the legislature could do is what any citizen could do, which is to propose an alternative map by initiative process. But whatever that is, that is not the primary power to prescribe congressional districts or to make election regulations. That is what the state legislature that puts the state legislature on the same plane as the people. Kennedy if the legislature itself establish this commission, would it not be the same . Clement i would say that is ok because that is a delegation of authority. You may disagree with me, but i think it is consistent with what this court said in the mcpherson case about the authority of the state legislature to prescribe rules for electors. They can delegate that to some commission. But if they want to take the authority of back, as they did in mcpherson, you bet they can do that. And if the state tries to stop to stop them from doing that, that is a constitutional problem. Kagan the independent commission has veto power on the states redistricting. In other words, the state can do redistricting and then submit it to the independent commission. The independent commission will say, no, go back and do it again. Clement i guess it depends a little bit on the details of how that works and whos got the ultimate last say in the matter. Kagan they have the veto, the independent commission. Clement can it be overridden . Kagan does it matter . Clement i think it does. It would give the legislature a lot more authority than arizona is allowed here. The principle that would allow you to decide that case is to ask yourself the russian of whether or not it allows the state legislature to prescribe congressional districts. Which is why it is a hard case. Kagan there is a veto at the end of this. Clement if you think it doesnt, then you should decide that case in the favor of the state legislature. Kagan this is what we are going to have to do for every time they set up some process further for where there is some independent commission involvement. What we have to ask is what exactly . Clement whether or not it is consistent with the constitution kagan tell me exactly how we are going to decide all these cases in which an Advisory Commission plays some role but not just some role, but a very serious role and a little piece left of the legislature . Clement i dont think it will be that hard. Lets look at commissions that exist in the world. We have some that are purely advisory. Theres nothing that suggests they are constitutionally problematic global problematic. A backup commission comes in when two sides can i get it done. Kagan what if they Commission Says we will give you two maps in the legislature has to pick one and only one . Clement i would say thats probably unconstitutional. Obviously kagan why is that constitutional and an impasse of the legislature and leaving it to a third party who is not the legislation will not the legislature, why is that constitutional . Clement if the legislature has the primary authority and they cant get it done, we know as a matter of fact that some meals will provide that rule. If the legislature as a stalemate, what happens in the real world, you cannot use the existing map because they violate the one person one vote is also the state court comes in. Sotomayor so they will bypass 2ac altogether. Clement yes. Sotomayor i know you will say it is a constitutional requirement, but if i read gillibrand and smiley differently to say that what the election clause means is the legislative process isnt that just simple . We dont have to worry about how the states experiment, what they do in their own selfgovernance . Why is that if federal interest . Clement it is of federal interest because the framers thought and the hard and long about this issue. Sotomayor no, they didnt. If you look at the federalist papers, there is not a whole lot on this particular clause. Clement part of the reason there is less discussion of the first sub clause is that it seemed so remarkably obvious to the framers that, if this was to be done at the state level by anyone, it would be done by the representative body of the people. Its not like they didnt know about popular law make an. Lawmaking. They simply said we like Representative Government ginsburg [indiscernible] at the time of the founding, the initiative by the legislatures. Clement the referendum is as we came to know them in the late 19th century, not the time of the framing. But direct democracy was. The framers, when they formulated article 5 and had alternative mechanisms at the federal congress could choose to provide for ratification, they gave the choice, state legislatures are the people in convention. The framers understood the difference between direct democracy and Representative Democracy and they made a conscious choice. It is hard to make to argue that they are creating a house elected by the people and a Senate Appointed by the state legislatures. When they get to the voter qualification clause, they say the people will vote for the congress. They are the same people that get to vote with the most numerous body in the state house. At various points, the framers obviously mistreated kagan that suggest popular rule. You have made many exceptions to that over the course of the last 20 minutes. You said as to anything that is not redistricting it can be done by referendum or initiative without any legislative process whatsoever. You said all these kinds of different schemes about the interaction between a legislature and Advisory Commission are all owing to be have to be reviewed on a case by case to be determined whether the legislature has primary control. And when you get through all of that, the sort of. He of the originalist argument that a legislature means a legislature, we are miles away from that, arent we . Clement i dont believe that Justice Kagan. Smiley said that of course the deleggee is the state legislature. There may be some hard questions that there is no hard question here. This is in any of your hypotheticals. If the election clause means anything, it means you cant completely cut out of the process the state legislature entirely on a permanent basis. Kennedy suppose they challenge the one voter one vote rule and it goes to a federal court and it goes a year before the election. Does the state court have an obligation under the constitution to simply pass on the validity or invalidity of the plan . And if it doesnt, can it has a back to the legislature . Clement the first of all there should be a preference over the state preference for the state court over the federal courts. If there is time for the legislature to go back and draw a new map kennedy you think that is constitutionally required . Clement i think it is constitutionally required. If it is not, it is surely prudent. Kennedy we are talking about what is required. If we rule in your favor, we will have to tell every court involved in a redistricting litigation that they will have to submit it to legislature. Even if the court made its own plan for one election, it would have to submit it back to the legislature for the next eight years. Clement for the most part, that is what this court has already said. Weiser said that, in the initial challenge phase, if there is time, you let the legislature do it. Kennedy you mean a redistricting plan approved by a court has to have a deadline . It has a conforming plan but the plan stays in place until it does. Clement it is a displacement in there are two different circumstances. One is when the redistricting plan is challenged very early and theres time for the legislature to take a second crack at a constitutionally compliant plan. Then you allow the state legislature to do it the as is their primary task. The second question is when there is not time and there is a judicial plan. Thats say the first cycle of elections lets say the first cycle of elections takes place under the first plan. There is nothing that prevents the state legislature from going in and redistricting. This court rejected the idea that you get one shot at this and you are done for the whole census. Colorado basically said, if you get into that situation, then you have to live with the judicial plan until the next census. But then the Legislature Still kicks in and has the primary role. What i like to think is that colorado has done this inconsistent with the elections clause. I am very happy to address the hypotheticals but its worth remembering that this is about the most extreme case that you are going to have. If the election clause means anything at all in terms of its delegation of responsibility to the state legislature, we may talk about taking part of it away but not the entire thing away on a permanent racist and give it to a commission whose defining feature is that it is not representative. If i may reserve the balance of my time. Thank you counsel. Feigin on standing, this is an unusual lawsuit in which the state legislature is asking the federal accord federal court for assurance for a law that has that it has not even said it will pass. We dont normally conceive of legislatures as having an interest in the enforcement of laws they might pass and theres nothing in the arizona constitution or the arizona courts sotomayor isnt this about the diminishment of the power to legislature . This is a removal of power from the legislature. Feigin i dont think there is anything that is as a practical matter that prevents the legislature from passing a bill that would redistrict the state which they believe in good faith they can do under the view of the elections clause. There are numerous cases in which the Arizona Legislature has passed laws that conflicted a Popular Initiative or with the arizona constitution and arizona courts do treat them as laws in the consequence of their passage , their own constitutionality or conflict is that they are unenforceable. Roberts so you want the legislature to pass a law that is not enforceable . Feigin i think the plaintiff had to allege and lujan against the defenders of wildlife the plaintiff had to allege that they were going to buy a plane ticket to see the not crocodile the nile crocodile. Let me put to one side roberts did they not just have to allege that they plan to exercise what is in their normal authority, to engage in the redistricting . Despite the fact that you are litigating it, it implies that they have some interest in doing that. Feigin it may be difficult for them to call us on some particular redistricting plan. But that is no reason to excuse them the space from the normal standing requirements. Lets assume they pass their own redistricting plan and the secretary said we are going what the commission because that is what state law requires us to do. Legislatures dont have an interest in the enforcement of the laws that they pass. Sotomayor they have an interest in the constitutional powers that they pass. Feigin lets say Congress Passed a law and there were a constitutional challenge to that law. I dont think anybody would believe that the state legislature acting in its own name would be the proper party to bring that constitutional challenge on the theory that its Police Powers have been infringed on the preemptive federal statute. Although this case arises under the elections clause, the elections clause doesnt give the state anymore lawmaking power than it would ordinarily have. Ginsberg are you saying, if anyone has standing as an institution feigin if someone were to bring a Voting Rights act challenge to bring that claim kennedy is it part of our jurisprudence that, if it is likely that another person is affected, that that goes into the balance and we say legislature do not have standing because other people out there are more directly affected . Feigin quite the opposite. Even if it means that no one would have standing, that does not in that is reason to find standing. I want to make a couple of points on the statutory section 2ac. I think the statutory issue is easy because the court decided all the relevant issues in ohio against gillibrand and constructed word for word the language of the 1911 act. Roberts its meant to apply when the state has not redistricted under its law. Here, the question is whether the law is valid. Feigin just to take your question on, i think the question of the preparatory clause is best understood in context. A neighbor you a neighboring statute states that states will be divided into districts. That makes it a question of federal statutory law how that redistricting is met and how it is met. Section 2ac says one of these will be applied until redistricting. Once the state is redistricted by the law thereof, those are the districts that will be used. It is hard to believe that congress would expect anything different. Hildebrand, in construing nearly the identical language as the 2011 at destiny 1911 act, it had the express purpose to provide democracy procedures alito it would be one thing if Congress Passed a law that said a state may apportion congressional districts in any manner conditioned with the laws of the state. But that is not what this statute says. This statute may have been enacted on the assumption the that would be constitutional. But it is not the exercise of Congressional Authority implementing that. It is just an assumption in which the statute is otherwise completely irrelevant to this case may have been enacted. Feigin hildebrandt is interpreting the same statutory language in the 1911 act, that it has the express purses to provide the democracy procedures. Then it went on to say that congress did have the power to do it. Sotomayor i guess they bottom line question is, lets assume 2ac said something totally different, we remove redistricting from the legislature and we require every state to pass redistricting by referendum. Is your position that congress has the power to override the constitution . Feigin i dont think that would exactly be overwriting the constitution. If that was the law, we might defend it. But we wont go that far this case for two reasons. Here, congress is not try to enforce upon the state a process that the state doesnt want. Congress is trying to recognize that these legislature requirement of redistricting is done under its own procedures. I would think that the power of congress should be at its apex when both commerce and the state want to do the same thing. The second thing i would say is, in this room stance scalia no, no, no, not if the same thing violates the state constitution. The objection here is a house additional objection. Feigin i do believe this was in the authority of congress. My friend just said that, if the state legislature wanted to, the state legislature could have given this power to the commission. Under the second sub clause of the elections clause, congress can do anything that a state legislature can do, which Means Congress can also give this power to the commission. The only difference between my friends son now and mine is that in my friends scenario the state legislature would retain the authority to override what the commission has done but that is only in consequence of state legislation over federal legislation. Its not something that a state legislature can override and it is a consequence of Congress Super seeding authority and congress authority under the elections clause. Scalia the second clause is being used to revise the second clause. The second clause can congress can do something on its own. But can congress use the second clause to revise with the first clause says . Feigin one thing i want to emphasize is i think the court settle this issue in hildebrandt when it said it was simply doing something that the constitution expressly gave the right to do. I dont think the right way to think about this is commerce using the second sub clause to rewrite this first. Thank you. Mr. Waxman. Why ask men mr. Cheap waxman we have before us a suit that the people both raises a claim that the framers would have been astonished to consider that Federal District courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate and is misconceived. Arizona defines its legislature in its constitution to include both the people and two representative bodies. The premise that in drafting the elections clause, the framers intended to ignore a state definition of its own legislature. It is deeply inconsistent scalia whatever the state calls a legislature suffices under a federal constitution, is that right . Waxman by using the word legislature in connection with the accepted definition of that term in the founding generation. We cited both noah webster and simon johnsons dictionaries and it was understood that legislature meant the body that makes the law. Scalia give me one provision of the constitution that uses the term legislature that clearly was not meant to apply to the body of representatives of the people that makes the laws. One provision of the constitution that clearly has your meaning. I looked through them all. I cant find acing the one. Waxman the one that most clearly has our meaning which accords with understanding is the one that this court has said in hildebrandt and in smiley best scalia just name only one. Waxman this may not be the only one. Kennedy since 1913, many states wanted to have direct election of the senators. Not one state displaced the legislature. It took the 17th amendment to do that. Waxman thats correct. Kennedy that history works very much against you. The word legislature is not in the constitution. The senators shall be chosen by the legislature. There was no suggestion that this could be displaced. Waxman there is no question that this court has explained repeatedly, first in smith versus hawk which distinguished hildebrand and the legislative power addressed in article section 1 from the election of senators in article 1 section 3 and again in smiley that made clear that, just as this court reiterated last week and yet its, that it may depend on the function that the term is serving. Kennedy you are saying that the legislature in the now repealed section, choosing senators, means Something Different than what it means in the following section. Waxman as this court explained in smith versus hawk which was decided, which was in article 5 meaning, in smith versus hawk, this court said, in article 1 section 3, election of senators by the legislature, and in article 5, the ratification power. What was at issue was the power to elect and the power to ratify that specifically comported with the elected representative body. And it used those as examples where often, Justice Kennedy often the term legislature in the constitution has that meaning. But smith goes on and distinguishes hildebrand on precisely the grounds we are urging, that what was at issue in hildebrand under the elections clause is not a particular body, a brickandmortar legislature necessarily. It is the legislative power of the state. Alito is there any other provision where legislature means anything other than the conventional meaning . How about applying for a Constitutional Convention . Calling on the president to send in troops to suppress the mystic violence . Creating a new state out of part of the state of arizona, for example . All of those provisions will use the term legislature. Does it mean anything other than the conventional meaning of legislature . Feigin i dont know the answer to that question. Alito do you think it might . Feigin this court has never said that it doesnt. It never said that it does. It has focused a lot of attention on three particular uses of the word legislature in the constitution. The article 5 ratification power, the former article 1 section 3 power to relax senator two elect senators in the legislative body and the article 1 section 4 power to make the laws in the provision that is at issue here. I think it is particularly important. I want to get to the language of smiley which my friend embraces. Breyer i would like you to because as i read it, they dont help you very much. A particular statute passed in 1911 helps the government with its statutory argument because a different statute uses similar words. We dont know if it was with the same intent. Smiley talks about a sitting legislature and asks whether its exercise of mapdrawing power is a legislative exercise or say more like an impeachment exercise. It does not talk about what is at issue here where you have people outside that building making the dude making the legislative decisions. So i can see so i cant see those two cases as helping you that much. Please argue to the contrary. But the open question here is when legislative power over time expands from a group of people sitting in the state capital to those people plus a referendum. And there i dont find much help in the case is one way or the other. Feigin justice breyer, i think that hildebrand, smiley, hawk, and also this courts case decided a few months after smiley and that was quoted last week in yates the atlantic cleaners and dyer case all support the meaning of the word legislature that we advocate and was in fact the consensus definition of legislature. I agree with you scalia a consensus definition that you can i give us where it is clearly used. I dont think it was a consensus definition at all. You plucked that out of a couple of dictionaries. Breyer the dictionary can be used as to determine how they word is used. But the power of the legislates the power that legislates in arizona is the people in the capital plus the referendum. Feigin one thing is for sure, waxman one things for sure if there was any other definition, but the framers on recent term, if i may, charles tiffany, in pages 39 in our brief, who wanted to do away with the second part of the clause that Gave Congress any power because he thought it was an impairment on the states rights said, america is a republic where the people at large either collectively or by representation form the legislature. Madison made clear in discussing the constitution that, when he referred to the legislatures of the state, he meant the existing authorities in the state that comprise the legislative branch of government. James wilson repeatedly interspersed legislature, state, and the people acting scalia lets say the legislature means the body we normally can think of as the legislature. However, at the time there was no such thing as the referendum or the initiative. So when the dictionaries refer to the power that makes laws, it was always a legislature. It was never the people at large because there was no such thing as the referendum. Now that there is a such thing what about saying, ok, legislature means what Everybody Knows a legislature is plus the full citizenry which is a level higher of democracy. But what we have here is not a level higher of democracy. It is giving this power to an unelected body of five people. As it is constituted here, two of them are elected or selected by the Majority Party and to w o selected by the minority party. What if they decided that all four would be elected by the Majority Party . Waxman any delegation question the issue in this case is what does legislature mean. My friend concedes that whatever the legislature is, it can delegate its authority. So the delegation questions well i will endorse whatever i believe my friend would say because the Arizona Legislature has negative has delegated all time and place and manner of regulations to a Single Person of the secretary of state, an executive officer and the individual counties that set the precinct places, the places where you can vote and register etc. So the question is what is the legislature. If your question is, well, now we know there is something called an initiative of course, we knew this 120 years ago when the first states started reserving in their constitution legislative power to the people by initiative. But to echo something that Justice Kagan reverted to in the original argument, we are talking about a construction of the word legislature as to all time, place or manner regulation. Roberts why didnt they just say that the rules would be prescribed each state . Waxman as the court explained in smiley, what the framers wanted was it to be done by a legislation. It wanted a complete code of Holding Congressional elections to be acted. roberts if you had a governor doing it it reasonably would be pursuant to a delegation either from the people or from the legislature. Either way nothing happens until there is an exercise of lawmaking power by the state. It should have been sufficient for the drafters of the constitution to sibley say that it would be drafted by each state, whether i referendum or referendum or legislature or by committee. To say by the legislature is totally superfluous. Waxman it is in the power of each state that makes the laws. There might be other constitutional problems arising either from the First Amendment or the 14th amendment, but i believe that, after if mr. Clement would agree, if the legislature decided, look, we are going to relegate this responsibility to the governor, that would be a constitutional delegation because it would have been a decision made by the lawmaking body of the state. If i could just make one point and then address Justice Breyers question. It would be deeply inconsistent with the enterprise in philadelphia to harbor and to effectuate the notion that our framers intended to set aside both a cornerstone principle of federalism and their aim to bind the people as closely as possible to the National House of representatives. Yes, it is true that that related to the second part giving congress authority. That is because no one questioned the fundamental principles that the sovereign states could choose to allocate their legislative power as they wanted. If there is any suggestion, the antifederalists would be screaming bloody murder that the states could not do so. Smiley specifically said that i am quoting from page 367 as the authority is confirmed for the purpose of making laws for the state, it follows in the absence of an indication of a contrary intent that the exercise of the authority must be in accordance with the method the state has chosen as prescribed for legislated enactments. Ginsberg what he has addicted to his taking the legislature out of the picture entirely. Waxman yes, justice ginsburg. We can see in neither case was legislative power at issue. Smiley says we find no suggestion in a federal constitutional provision of an attempt to endow the legislature of the state with power to enact laws in any manner other than in which the constitution breyer i am quibbling in a sense about the case. But the case is not about the body. Everybody agreed it was a legislature. But when the legislature acts in this instance, is it acting as an electoral body . Is it acting as a ratifying body . Is it acting as a dissenting body . Or is it acting as a legislating body . And that is the answer they get in the form of legislation. Here the question is about the body. Waxman thats right. The question is are the people by Initiative Part of the legislature that they hums they themselves have chosen . Again, dressing held a brand this is what the court said. And it was because it was the authority of the state to determine what should constitute its legislative process that the validity of the requirement of the state constitution in its application to Congressional Elections was sustained. Breyer legislated scalia legislative process there means what it takes the legislature to enact a law. Once you assumeyour whole argument disappears. Waxman the state of arizona like the states the constitutions of the states of the near majority have defined the legislative power to include the people of the legislative initiative. Like this Court Ordered last week in your eighth, it said that it is not unusual for the same word to be used with different meanings. For example, the meaning of the word legislature used several times in the constitution differs in the way it is employed, depending on the character of the function that body in each interest it instance is calling upon citing smiley. Roberts just waxman the decision in your dates does not. Roberts my point is the Supreme Court in the months following smiley i am not quoting from yeats. I am quoting from atlantic cleaners and dyers. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chief justice. If it may please the court, let me start with the definition of legislature. The critical thing is not what the framers meant by the legislature when they were talking proudly about political theory. What matters is what they meant when they were assigning particular authorities in the state constitution to particular governments in the state government. As a number of you have pointed out, there is no doubt when they assigned an authority to the state legislature, they were signing authority to the representative body of the people. That takes us to the smiley case. The definition of these smiley if the definition of legislature is all that the smiley case turns upon, then with all due respect to my opponent, we win. I am quoting from smiley not yates or anything else. I am quoting from smiling. What it meant when adopted, it still means for purposes of interpretation. The legislature was then the representative body which made the laws that is true. Smiley does not help him, i dont think, but it helps you less. But that is the question in the case. Everybody assumes. Nobody denies, it is those people making this law. The question is, are they legislating when they are doing it . Nobody denies they were the legislative power. Here we have a different question. Is this the legislative power received by referendum . The reason i say that smiley may not help, it says be flexible about that. Clement it says be flexible with the power of the state legislature. I do find this very helpful because not only does it answer the body question, but the other side in smiley said, oh, we win this case because legislature means the lawmaking authority and the other section meant, it means the body and the court said you are right, it means the body, but it is a lawmaking function subject to the gubernatorial veto. I think they wouldve been flabbergasted to find out that the legislature, which is defined as a representative body of the people, would be cut out completely. Kagan when it comes to this particular provision and this provision as compared to the 17th amendment, which is the comparison and the contrast that hawks sets up when it comes to this provision, you need to show a lot of respect to the states own decisions about how legislative power ought to be exercised, and that seems to be the overriding principle of the three cases. Clement i think you have to show respect for the way the state legislature goes about lawmaking, but is completely different to cut the state legislature out of the process entirely. Let me aver briefly to the 191011 act. The irony of my friends on the other side, the legislative history of the 1911 act at what point in legislative history of 1911, if people in 1911 good read, the statute on the book said it will take in until the state legislature redistrict and they realized in 1911 the state legislature meant the state legislature, so they Better Change that law if they wanted to allow the referendum process. So, the 1911 legislative history not that i think you should particular spend a lot of time with that that it shows that there is a fundamental difference the between the legislature and the people, and as the chief justice pointed out , if there werent, the framers could have stopped the election clause at each state. Of course, kagan you can turn that around and say what that provision shows is exactly what i just said. Congress was on board to read you look at that clause, the elections clause, a lot of respect, difference had to be given to the statesown decision. Clement i am happy giving deference to what the state legislature does. If that is constrained by the gubernatorial veto, overrode by referendum, then the restrictions on the state legislature are fine, but it has to be the state legislature. Roberts thank you, counsel. Cases submitted. This weekend marks the 50th anniversary of the march in selma, alabama. Speakers include john lewis and president obama. We will bring you their remarks starting at 5 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. And we will start with your calls on Race Relations 50 years after selma. Later we will talk to Trevor Burress and elizabeth why drop on the challenge to the Health Care Law before the Supreme Court. That is followed by a guest discussing the ways the Republican Congress is challenging the white house on Foreign Policy and military issues. Washington journal is live every morning at 7 00 a. M. Eastern here on cspan. You would see what we used to call when i was a kid a much and jeff combination. A mutt and jeff, nation. Washington was a large man. Sixfoot, very robust, terrific natural athlete. And madison was a skinny little guy. This sunday on q a David Stewart on james madison. His ability dependent on his ability to make great relationships with the people of his era, but it also alludes to his gift to the the country, his talents, and what he was able to do to a first selfsustaining constitutional republic. Sunday night at 8 p. M. Eastern and pacific on cspansq a. In the president s weekly address, president obama discusses his let girls learn initiative. Senator Chuck Grassley has the republican response. President obama hi, everybody. Sunday is International Womens day, a day to celebrate remarkable women and girls worldwide, and to rededicate ourselves to defending the fundamental rights and dignity of all people. Thats why, this week, michelle and i launched a new initiative on a topic thats close to both our hearts girls education. Its called let girls learn. and its goal is to help more girls around the world go to school and stay in school. Right now, 62 Million Girls who should be in school, are not. And thats not an accident. Its the direct result of barriers, large and small, that stand in the way of girls who want to learn. Maybe their families cant afford the school fees. Maybe the risk of being hurt or kidnapped or even killed by men who will do anything to stop girls from learning is just too great. Or maybe they arent in school because theyre expected to get married and become mothers while theyre still teenagers or even earlier. In too many parts of the world girls are still valued more for their bodies than for their minds. Thats just plain wrong. And we all have to do more to stop it. Thats the idea behind let girls learn. Were making it clear to any country thats our partner or that wants to be our partner that they need to get serious about increasing the number of girls in school. Our diplomats and Development Experts are already hard at work. Our peace corps volunteers will play a big role, too. And were putting our partnerships with ngos, businesses and foundations to work on behalf of girls everywhere. I come to this issue as the leader of the Worlds Largest economy and commanderinchief of the worlds most powerful military, and im convinced that a world in which girls are educated is a safer, more stable, more prosperous place. When girls are educated, their future children are healthier and better nourished. Their future wages increase, which in turn strengthens their families security. National growth gets a boost too. And places where women and girls are treated as full and equal citizens tend to be more stable and more democratic. But i also come to this issue as the father of two wonderful young women. And i know that there are lots of girls just like malia and sasha out there girls who are funny and caring and inquisitive and strong and have so much to offer the world. Its a privilege to be the parent of girls. And we want to make sure that no girl out there is denied her chance to learn that no girl is prevented from making her unique contributions to the world. Because every girl every girl deserves our respect. And every girl deserves an education. Thanks, and have a great weekend. Senator grassley i am senator Chuck Grassley of iowa. This year thousands of minor will be trafficked through the United States. Human traffickers will force children and teenagers into servitude as cheap labor and sex workers. Too long we hear that this sort of thing does not happen where i live. The truth is trafficking is found in all 50 states. Whether your home state is big like new york or small like my home state of iowa, it could be a zone for trafficking. Turning our heads the other way because we are embarrassed or in denial will not help these underaged women. Shoving this horrific activity into the shadows only denies an opportunity for a young girl or boy who deserves much better. In washington i am the senator of the i the chair of the two cherry committee. We are looking at strong legislation that will impact predators. We are looking at how we can better protect victims of human trafficking. We listen to horrific and that wrenching stories directly from the victims and the advocates. We listen to stories of children being sold into population. We listen to stories of girls being branded by their trafficker. We listen to stories of boys and girls who thought the only way to survive was to sell themselves for sex. And then we heard that when they could not get any more from these victims americas criminal Justice System failed them by treating them like criminals. No one should be forced into prostitution are made to work in unlivable conditions. We much do better. Through tragedy and heart ache, good ideas are emerging. We are learning through victims and victimsadvocates how to craft policies to help those who have suffered such unimaginable pain. Now it is time for reaction. We approved the antitrafficking bill by a unanimous vote, and next week the full senate will begin additional debate on this legislation to ensure that resources are available to the survivors of sex and labor trafficking. We have to help others from becoming the victims of such a terrible crime. In addition, it would ensure that any person who is trafficking an adult or purchasing a child for sex will be punished under the full force of the law. We have put forth Meaningful Solutions that are supported by a large, Bipartisan Group of senators and more than 200 outside organizations. It is evidence that congress can set aside partisan differences and Work Together to get things done for the american people. The United States senate has a real opportunity to provide these survivors of trafficking with the kind of support that is essential to their recovery and future success. Working together we can stop criminal depravity and restore dignity to survivors. With the passage of bipartisan legislation, we can bring justice to immoral injustice and mistreatment of fellow human beings. The road to their recovery needs to start now. This weekend marks the 50th anniversary of the march in selma, alabama. Speakers include john lewis of georgia, the foreman chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and president obama we will bring you remarks starting at 5 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan. And tomorrow morning on washington journal we start with your calls on Race Relations 50 years after selma. And then Trevor Burrus and Elizabeth Wydra on the challenge to the Health Care Law before the Supreme Court. That is followed by molly otoole. Washington journal is live every morning at 7 00 a. M. Eastern here on cspan. Earlier this week, the Justice Department released its report into the investigation of the ferguson, Missouri Police department, finding a pattern of racial bias. Next, a former attorney general of civil rights gives an analysis. This is 40 minutes. Our next guest is from a University Law and spent 26 years at the department of justice where he litigated civil rights cases including cases that involved hate crimes. Thank you for being with us this morning. Guest thank you for having me here. Host can you tell us about the reports from ferguson . Guest there were two reports. The federal government concluded that there was insufficient evidence to seek federal charges against officer Darren Wilson in the shooting. There was sufficient evidence to satisfy what is a very high federal standard for prosecution. It requires a showing that officer wilson acted with the specific intent to use more force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances. What that means is that the federal government had to be able to get into what officer wilson was thinking at the time and it found that there wasnt sufficient admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction. It doesnt actually clear people. It just determines they cant go forward with a prosecution. Host we have a statement from the actual report itself that says federal statutes require the government to prove that officer used Unreasonable Force and that he did so willfully. Guest thats right. And so what they found was, obviously there was a lot of conflicting evidence. We heard that through the investigation. But based on their credibility, determinations and analysis of the physical evidence, the forensics, they concluded that it was not hah prosecuteable case. And thats what they do. They dont actually provide an allclear to the victims or to the officer who is being investigated. What they say simply is there is not enough evidence to go forward. Host thats one of just two reports. Guest right. The other report which i think in the end will be far more consequential was a civil investigation under a statute thats called 14141 which allows the department to sue if it finds that a Police Department has engaged in a pattern or practice of violating federal rights. And what the Department Found with regard to the ferguson Police Department is simply astonishing. Its stunning. It found numerous constitutional violations and what it found was a Police Department that really had lost its sense of mission for a Police Department and had become a kind of revenue raising institution. That existed primarily to extract as much money as possible from the local citizenry. And it worked in conjumpings with the local Municipal Courts. And so the Department Found that the Police Department was violating the constitution in numerous ways including stopping people without reasonable suspicion arresting people without probable cause, using unnecessary force, and then as and in charging people, giving people citations that in many cases were not warrented. But then adding citation upon citation upon citation. So somebody might be stopped for a traffic stop and end up with five separate citations. And this was all in an effort to enhance revenue. And we have the Justice Department found emails from the leadership of fergsop saying we have a revenue gap. So the police need to step up their enforcement of citations. So there was great pressure on the police to meet their quotas to bring in enough revenue to keep the city going. Because this is the main source of the citys revenue. But what was truly stunning was the finding of racial discrimination. Throughout the Police Department. So all of the constitutional violations that i just mentioned, the stops and all of that, were tingged by racial discrimination. There was Racial Disparities and intentional discrimination. For instance, African American drivers were twice as likely to be stopped as white drivers. But they were 6 less likely to be found with contra band when searched. African americans who make up Something Like 67 of the population were made up 93 of the arrested. So there was a huge disparity in the way the law was being enforced. Host the Washington Post this week put together these charts of some of the stats stecks you mentioned such as the number of African Americans who were arrested 93 were black. The amount of Unreasonable Force that was used according to the report, 100 of all those involved in k9 biting were African American. Petty offenses 90 were African Americans and several times it goes on Court Practices 95 of people held at the ferguson jail longer than 2 days were African American. We want to hear what you think about these issues as well. You can call us and join the conversation. We have a special line open for Law Enforcement to call in with their thoughts and experiences. Were also on social media. Twitter. Facebook. Sepped us an email. Were talking with william who is a professor at american university. You mentioned the Justice Department is suing the ferguson Police Department. What is sort of the scope of d. O. J. s ability to enforce its recommendations on the Police Department . Guest so the situation that the department in ferguson are in now is that the department has issued this lengthy and detailed report. And it has come up with roughly 26 things that need to change in the ferguson Police Department. Large things. And so ferguson and the do justice are now in negotiation to see if they can work out an agreement that will bring about the kind of thorough systemic change that is necessary to fix the ferguson Police Department. If they cannot reach an agreement, the Justice Department will file a law suit. If they can reach an agreement, then that agreement will be entered into court as a Consent Decree and then it will the implementation of the reforms will be overseen by the court who will most likely appoint a monitor who will keep a detailed eye on whats going on and make sure that the city follows through with the necessary changes. Its not at all clear that this process will be easy. It certainly wont be easy, it will take a while. And one of the problems is that reaching an agreement and then depending on the people who presided over this very mess to change it is problematic. And so its quite likely that there will have to be major personnel changes as well as major structural changes to bring about the necessary change. And i noticed that the attorney general yesterday said that if necessary the department would even consider dismantling the ferguson Police Department. It would have to do that through the court but unless ferguson really gets on board and shows a commitment to bringing about the kinds of changes that the Justice Department wants, that could well happen. Host here is a story now from reuters about the comments you just mentioned. What kind of time lipe are we looking at here . Guest i think the department of justice will want to move fairly quickly. These kinds of changes will not happen overnight. The three employees who have left were significant employees. One was the clerk of the court of the Municipal Court and two were supervisors in the Police Department. And i guess the suspicion is that all three were involved in sending around these terribly racist emails that the department discovered. But its going to take much more than changing three people to change a culture that is as corrupt as ferguson Police Department. Host well turn now to our caller. The first one is chad. Caller good morning. I wanted to comment on a few of my experiences in america as an African American. I live in georgia from an area where theres a lot of low income people. Ive been stopped quite a few times without probable cause looking for things like drugs on me for doing something as simple as checking the mail box. I notice when i turn on the tv a lot of people dont believe the things that African Americans are experiences. I want to know your thoughts on some of the things that we can do to better the relationship between the community and the Police Department and help people who have had experiences like mine really change our situation. Guest i think its extremely important for there to be Strong Community involvement in dealing with the mis. And certainly weve seen that kind of pressure can bring about change as it has in ferguson. One of the things that i think is key in the kinds of reforms that the Justice Department is talking about is to reorient the Police Department toward Community Policing. Which means that the Police Become much more engaged in the community. And this is true many Police Departments do this and do it extremely well. Its effective in not only improving relationships but it makes a huge difference in fighting crime and building a relationship of trust within the community and the Police Department that makes the whole process much more effective. So i think that Community Pressure along with an acceptance of the principles of Community Policing can make a huge difference. And they have to be combined. A part of Community Policing is to make the policing process much more transparent to the communities and to get the Community Engaged in the policing process. And where that happens you find much healthier Police Departments, much more effective Police Departments, and much happier communities. So i think thats the goal that people need to strive toward. Host linda from michigan. Caller good morning. I would like to say that i thought i heard you say that one of your statistics show that 100 show that the people who were bit by the dogs were African American. Dogs arent racist. They will react to the actions of others. So if the others have shown aggression, those dogs are going to react. If they have to bite them, they bite white people, too. Guest well, i think i dont know the facts of each incident. It does seem striking that all 14 uses of force by dogs were against African Americans. And i think it has enormous symbolic resonance obthis the 50th anniversary of the march from selma to montgomery. As we know dogs were unfortunately very involved in combating civil rights demonstrators. And i think it brings back a very sour memory. Host president obama, who is in selma this weekend, did speak about the Justice Department reports earlier this week while he was in South Carolina. What we saw was that the ferguson Police Department in conjunction with the municipality saw traffic stops arrests, tickets, as a revenue generator, as opposed to serving the community. And that it systemically was biased against African Americans in that city who were stopped, harassed, mistreated, abused called names, fined, and then it was structured so that they would get caught up in paying more and more fines, that they couldnt afford to pay or were made difficult for them to pay which raised the amount of additional money that they had to pay. And it was an oppressive and abusive situation. Host that was president obama speaking in South Carolina about the department of justices reports and findings out of the ferguson Police Department. How common do these practices seem to be not just in ferguson but across the country . Are there other Police Departments where situations like this have occurred . Guest sure, there are. And i think its important to say that it used to be a heavily majority white jurisdiction which has now become 6 African American. And i think that we see a numb of cities like that surrounding large metropolitan areas. Where theres been an outmigration from the inner city and African Americans have moved into the first ring of the suburbs. And in many of those jurisdictions the traditional white establishment has stayed in power. And those transitions have created the kinds of tension that i think you see in ferguson. So i think its particularly important for all of us and particularly for the Justice Department to Pay Attention to those that particular model of jurisdiction. Host larry from new york. Caller you kind of addressed the issue that i want to bring up. Is that if a community is 67 African American im assuming that 67 of the votesers were African American also. And if thats the case then how come there wasnt more representation on the city council and in the Police Department . It seems to me im sure the report is accurate but it seems to me that the black community has some responsibility or the civil rights leaders has some responsibility in getting the black Community Involved in their own city government. Guest i agree. Political participation is key. I think there are lots of reasons that people have not participated in the political process in ferg son i suspect you will see an uptick in political participation. But remember that in some instances because people are in jail because people have criminal records, whatever it becomes extremely difficult to vote. So i agree that the local citizenry bears a burden to participate in the political process. But thats not the full answer, the full explanation here. Host patricia on the democratic line. Caller good morning. Im 58 and i just want to share my story. Camden is not a place that traps formed from white to black recently. Its been black and now its mostly black and hispanic. On top of that our city is like a police state. One night i was coming home from work and my back light was out. The officer was nice. But i did wonder he was a young white guy why would you want to work as a Police Officer in camden . What difference did you think you were going to bring to our community . In camden they have these devices that you cant see the officer. I dont see Police Badges or numbers on the uniforms as i used to do when i was younger. Why would they have blinding lights where i cant see the officer i didnt even know if it was one two or three people. And is that an amendment violation . Guest i cant say whether its actually a violation. I can say that when people are stopped its usually the Fourth Amendment thats implicated. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. And a stop by a Police Officer is generally a seizure. And then searches, the search part of the Fourth Amendment kicks in. So that would be a Fourth Amendment situation. I think you raise an important point about diversity in Police Departments. And i think there is general wisdom out there that Police Departments that generally reflect the composition of their communities are more effective because they can relate to the community better. So diversity is important. And ferguson did not have diversity. Ferguson has 54 Police Officers, only four of whom were African American. But diversity is not by itself is not an answer. The culture of a Police Department has to be right as well in order for officers no matter what race they are to function properly and effectively. Host republican line now. Go ahead. Caller good morning. I have a problem with this gentlemans analogy of what was going on in ferguson. First, the town is 67 black. So if the ratio of ar rest stops is made on that basis, who would be arrested . More white people or more black people . Secondly, why didnt you and holder in the very beginning of this mess come out and say that the Police Officer had a legitimate claim to what he said instead of allowing the riots to take place to allow a liar like al sharpton to come and say hands up sit down and all his other nonsense cause racial tension in this country that was unbelievable . And you folks let him get away with it. And he constantly gets away with it. So youre expecting us to, the general public, to believe you and obama and holder . He came out and said that the police up in massachusetts acted stupidly with skip gates . Host all right. We heard your point. I do want to point out this article from august 24, 2014. Written by William Yeoman our guest here. Titled why officer wilson probably wont go to jail. Guest i think it was apparent to many of us who are experienced prosecutors in this area that it would be a it was unlikely that there would be federal charges here. Which i think doesnt mean that the rest of what this department of justice discovered in ferguson is in any way tainted. I think that the fact that officer wilson will not be charged criminally is certainly not an exoneration of the Ferguson Police. And unfortunately the Ferguson Police were operating in a way that depended almost exclusively on force. They were almost an Occupying Force within the ferguson community. It depended on that kind of policing which inevitably, particularly when its tin ged by racial bias is going to lead to incidents like the killing of Michael Brown which should not have happened. That was the result of a bad Police Department doing bad policing. And they really spoiled a really spoiled relationship with the ferguson community. Host next up is jack calling on the independent line. Caller good morning. I found it ironic that chief ramsey from philadelphia the head of the commission, he works under mayier nutter. Im far lar with familiar with their statistics. If you compare it to ferguson as far as the vehicle stops and arrests, it would not be that dissimilar from ferguson. How can you explain that . Host i want to just piggy back from one comment from twitter. Guest i dont have the statistics in front of me from philadelphia. But i hope and i think its hugely important that Police Departments across the country look at their practices. And they do it on a continuing basis. There are Something Like 18,000 Police Departments in the United States. It certainly is not possible for the Justice Department to go around and do an investigation of each one nor is it warrented because many are functioning well. But what that means is there has to be ways to leverage what are increasingly recognized as good police practices. So the practices that have come out of the Justice Departments program of investigating Police Departments are applicable to almost all Police Departments nationwide. And the department does have some ways of leveraging what theyve learned. Obviously they give out an enormous amount of money to local Police Departments. That money can come with strings attached. Always subject to title 6 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination by anyone who receives federal funds. Ultimately so much of this will depend on local people getting engaged with their Police Departments. Police departments getting engaged with their communities and ensuring that they are undertaking these best practices and being the most effective Police Departments that they can be. Host are there cities or Police Department that is have gone through this settlement process or restructuring already with the d. O. J. That can serve as models . Guest there are a number of city that is have gone through this. What weve seen is a real increase in enforcement under the obama administration. So since obama came in there have been over 20 investgations of Police Departments many of which have ended in Consent Decrees. Some high visibility decrees like new orleans, albuquerque, seattle, even haven connecticut. And those are still in process. These remedies take time. And so in those cases theyre still being implemented and of course there are problems along the way. But it is essential. Thats why it is essential to get them in court so that a court has jurisdiction to continue the oversight of the implementation. And its also essential that the department of justice maintain the political will to keep pushing forward and make sure that the remedies are fully implemented. Host our next caller from chicago, illinois. Caller good morning. Very interesting topic. I just like to share an experience. I was from im African American highly educated over 50. Ok . High salary earner. I was beat up by a cop in my neighborhood two years ago. Went through a whole year investigation for abuse. And got a form letter saying ungrounded. I think its time for African Americans to stop trying to convince everyone on their rights and most of our friends on the left are caucasian. When i was beat up by a cop, i did not tell them. It was humiliating and no one believes me. We cannot spend time trying to convince fellow citizens that systemic racism is alive in well and well in america. Everything you are saying this morning illustrates that. When it gets ignored, you get blowups like you did in ferguson. I want to ask one question is there, or is there not systemic racism in american Law Enforcement . William yeomans certainly. Ferguson is an example of precisely that. Racism exists in many of institutions in our society. Police are not exempt. There is a long history of tension between the police and africanamericans. This extends back throughout our history. What we have now is a moment where we can think about Going Forward, and the awareness of racism that you speak about i think it is very important, and i think this is a moment where we can all talk about this and come to grips with it and understand that it does exist. It is a powerful force and we can address it. It is imperative that we address it. Both over racism and implicit racism, which affects so many of the actions of all of us on a daily basis. I hope that that is something positive that will come out of what appears to be a mess. Ylan whether concrete offers on how to fix is Going Forward . William yeomans yes, there were extensive recommendations made, a lot of them started with apply the constitution to law. There are lots of steps to be taken, which focus on a lot of training to get Police Officers to understand how to engage in Community Policing how to use force only when it is necessary, when it is a last roof resort. How did abuse how to achieve diffuse situations like the Michael Brown incident. Recommendations about getting Community Engagements at every level of policing. Recommendations about stopping the over citation of people. Recommendations about separating the revenue raising function of the city from the policing function. It will be an extensive process. It will require in order to training, enormous training. Disciplining officers. It will require a lot of will on the part of the court, the Justice Department come and Leadership Department of ferguson. Ylan republican line. Caller this is all about people perpetuating racism. Obama, holder comment sharpton. As for inciting riots and defamation of character. Also, i notice the gentleman has point of contact in the department of justice, where they looking at prosecuting sharpton, he owns millions in back taxes . William yeomans it is interesting that when people accuse the president and the attorney general of inciting racism, what that suggest is that you cannot be serious about trying to do anything about racism in our Society Without being called racist or being accused of being divisive. That is unacceptable. We have to be able to talk about this. We have to be able to take it seriously and address solutions. We have to think about it in a forwardlooking context. We need to understand our history, but we need to set our Vision Forward and figure out where we are going and how we get there, how we decrease the influence of race in all of our institutions in society. And how we get beyond this. Ylan comments about the department of justice findings in ferguson. A disturbing history of using force against people with mental illness. Our findings indicate that the overwhelming majority, almost 90 , is directed against africanamericans. This deeply alarming statistics points to one of the most pernicious aspects of the contact that our investigation uncovered. These policing practices disproportionately harm africanamerican residents. In fact, our view of the evidence found no alternative explanation for the disproportionate impact on africanamerican residents other than implicit and and was it racial bias explicit racial bias. Despite making up only 67 of the population africanamericans accounted for 85 of all traffic stops by the ferguson Police Department. After americans who work twice as likely as white residents to research during a routine traffic stop, even know they were 26 less likely to carry contraband. Between october 2012 and july 2014, 35 black individuals and zero white individuals received five or more citations at the same time. During the same time africanamericans accounted for 85 of the total charges brought by the ferguson Police Department. African americans made up over 90 of those charged with a highly discretionary offense described as manner of walking along roadways. \ use of dogs by Ferguson Police appears to have been exclusively reserved for africanamericans. In every case in which Ferguson Police records recorded the race of a person bit by a police dog that person was africanamerican. Ylan that was attorney general eric holder. We are speaking with the professor at american universitys Washington College of law and if for a form of a former civil rights attorney. You wrote an article earlier this year. Why is congress the one to blame . William yeomans Congress Deserves its share of the blame. That is the headline writer. The point i am thinking in that article was, we prosecute these federal cases under a statute that is almost 150 years old. It says nothing about Police Officers. For most of its history it was not enforced. Many reconstruction statutes were not. Because of a lack of political will to enforce them. It wasnt until 1945 that it was first applied to lawenforcement officers. At that point, the Supreme Court narrowed the statute further with construction that requires there be intent on the part of the officer to deprive someone of a federal right. The officer does not have to know what the constitutional right is, but the officer has to know he is doing something wrong and has to intend to do something wrong, but the constitutional right has to be clearly established. If that is clear to you, you are way ahead of 99 of the jurors that had to enforce that standard. What we dont have is a clear federal standard that properly balances the interests of individuals and the need to of the police. In a Perfect World it would be highly appropriate for congress to take up this issue and draft a new statute that specifically applies in Police Officers. If we want a federal law to be a truly meaningful acts out in these cases backstop. Ylan next up is frank from new york on the independent line. Good morning. Caller two years ago in new york state, a Police Officer came out and said his boss instructed him to go after blacks and minorities. What i am saying is that i am going to pose it to you right now racism in america is equal to what it was in the 1950s or worse. They are just smarter about it. They hide their racial bias. As white power, fox news, look how they treat the black president. He was humiliated in the congress. Ylan that was frank from new york. William yeomans as i said, there is still a great deal of racism in our society. I do think it is wrong that it is not better than it was. That we are not a better country than we were. It is important to remember on this 50th anniversary of the march from selma to montgomery that we have made progress. We have a black president. That was unthinkable in my youth. I think it is a wonderful thing that we are able to do that. We do have problems. Even though on this important anniversary we have a problem in that part of that act has been invalidated by the Supreme Court. States again are taking on the issue of how to restrict the vote. We need to be continually cottages of the need to keep moving forward. I do not doubt that we have moved forward in the last 50 years. Ylan we have an email response to a previous caller. The email says, the dogs are not racist, the dogs are handled by the Police Officers, they do not go out in force the law on their own ylan i would next caller is from the independent line. A Law Enforcement. Good morning. Caller retired out of southern california. 23 years. I taught selfdefense most of my career, i was in selfdefense from a very young age. I worked with the departments up and down california. One of the difficulties i had and i cringe when i see these incidents that happened throughout the country. I always look at the tactics and look what got them to that place. I see policeman and i worked with many and 99 of them were great people they did not know how to speak to people. Not one person likes to be talked to like dirt. I never had difficulty, very few incidents where i had trouble with people, if you talk to them with decency, the problems i had the most were suburban types they would be angry that they got stopped in the first place they would defend their children. Stop and frisk should have been a signal to people that we do not have the right to go up to somebody and start putting our hands on them. William yeomans i think those are very apt comments. One of the things that comes through in the ferguson report is that the Police Department simply lost sight of the principles you discussed. They lost sight of the fact that in many instances, the people of ferguson or people. That is a basic thing. It is the foundation of good policing that the police have to have respect for the people for whom they work. They are there to serve these communities and they need to treat people with respect. Ylan we have time for one more color and that will be walled from pittsburgh, pennsylvania on our republican line. Caller my grandmother was mexican and with George Zimmerman i started looking at this. 94 of blacks are killed by a lax, 72 of whites are killed by blacks. I am part mexican, the first thing the black caucus did was convict zimmerman before they knew any facts. I submit to you, you are part of this problem, the police have a right to protect themselves, black people nowadays think they do not have to give into the police. Put your hands behind your back, this guy in ferguson, this black kid who was 64, 300 pounds, they have them intimidating the clerk. Ylan we will have to leave it there, i will give the final word to our guest. William yeomans the ferguson report demonstrates that we have a lot of work to do. I think that we come as a country, are up to the job, but we need to be able to address these issues. It is a mistake for people to attack people who want to talk about these issues and who want to try to do something about it. I hope that we can have a dialogue in the country that will be constructive and will allow us to move forward on a variety of remedies to these very serious issues. Ylan you are professor at american university, Washington College of law and a former short time ago president obama in selma alabama, getting ready to cross the Edmund Pettus bridge in some on the 50 in selma on the 50th anniversary of bloody sunday