Judge on considering the idea in constitutional law from the founding to the present rate this event was hosted by the American Enterprise institute. Hi everybody thank you for being here and for helping us. Rembert walter burns and celebrate the constitution from director of social studies. It is my great pleasure to welcome what is the 12th annual constitutional day lecture held in honor of the great walter burns. We honor walter just the way he would like to be remembered become together to think about the constitution. And we do it each year with the help of someone particularly wellplaced and gifted for helping us do that. That is very much the case. We could hardly ask for a better guide and thinking together about the constitution that are speaker tonight. On the u. S. Court of appeals for the district of columbia. As for one thing a Public Service of the highest caliber. She served in all three branches of government. She was a Senate JudiciaryCommittee Staff artworks on the council office. She was the administrator of the office of information and Regulatory Affairs at omb. And she has been a judges 2019. She is also a real scholar jurist sheet not only sheet taught and studied and has written about an extraordinary range of constitutional issues in particular as a law professor at george mason university. She is really a model of the kind of judge that requires the needs. We are grateful to have it with us tonight. And the american constitution. And after her remarks she and adam white of ai will have a conversation about the subject that will open things up to questions from all of you. Those of you watching online you can find right next to the video you are watching the email address or twitter hashtag where you can send questions. And with that help me too welcome judge neomi rao. The floor is yours. Thank you so much you all for that very kind introduction. Its a pleasure spit ai to give a lecture so many remarkable jurists and individuals have given before me. And i ask them to help me find a joke to start off my speech. They came up with nothing. But one of them did try check gpt im not sure quite what they put in but maybe something constitutional law joke in the style of judge neomi rao and nothing was funny. So i think ill just start off tonight lecture about pluralism in the constitution. Without a joke. So today often focuses on the division in americas political and social life. We hear a lot about polarization the decline of trust and the ine breakdown of the institution. Most vibrant countries in the world with a long tradition of religious and economic. There are signs everywhere we are less able to appreciate and respect difference. And importantly it less thoughtful about what such diversity requires from our government and our reports. And so on this occasion on Constitution Day i want to recover the relationship between pluralism and our constitutional tradition. By pluralism the inherent differences between individuals religious belief in their chosen work. The framers of our constitution recognize the inevitability of human differences in the pursuit of happyness. Was deeply connected to individual liberty served as an important principle find the specific form of government established by the constitution. Tonight out to elaborate on the theme. First those who shape our constitution have firm and passionate belief about what was true in religion and politics. They were certainly not relative to this. They recognize others would invariably hold different passionate beliefs. For instance meta sent medicine recognizeas long as thn continues fallible different opinions will form. Because it is inevitable at the American People hold different opinions, interests and beliefs the constitution was designed to protect individual liberties and establish processing for representing and negotiating the very interest across society. Second ill discuss the vitality of pluralism in our constitutional tradition and any Supreme Court jurisprudence. Just as pastor and the court struck down harvards affirmative Action Program holding such Racial Discrimination runs a foul of the equal protection clause. Justice thomas exclaimed a Pluralistic Society equal treatment by the government. Not divisive and arbitrary racial preferences. And finally i will consider healthy have undermined the constitutional protection for pluralism. The original expertise is fundamentally at odds. Moreover moving lawmaking out of congress into executive agency has unraveled one of the primary institutions for negotiating our pluralism. Agencies cannot replicate the legitimacy them processes. Private ordering is replaced with public ordering, local control replaced by National Control and replaced by administrative edicts. Those ideals are not reflected in the regulatory policy of the day and feel marginalized. The penchant breach of regulation to all manner of social, religious and Economic Activity often occurs for little regard to pluralism. This process may intensify polarization and the strength enterprise of our constitutional democracy. Restoring the legislative power to congress would help to realign the Administrative State with the original constitution. I would further the rule of law might also reinvigorate the political process necessary to peacefully accommodate pluralism and our diverse and vibrant nation. So let me begin with the founders understanding of pluralism. The founders acknowledged except the inevitability of human difference and created constitution that accounted for pluralism by structuring and limiting government in order to protect individual liberty, Property Rights and minority interest. Political influence her on the framers recognized the inevitability of human difference across matters of conscious and economic interests. For instance jon claude described in recognize the deep pluralism within and across human society. It was a fact he said was necessarily assumed. He maintains although there are objective to law human consensus on moral and legal matters was unlikely. Its precisely for this reason individuals must come together and establish a government that cant mediate the differences in a peaceful way. Through a legislative process aimed at the general welfare. An inevitable human diversity also requires protection for private property and individual rights. Similar ideas about the social contrasts the necessity of law to name just a few. To be short whether the finders are they relied upon are relative to this they did not always agree about the benefits of pluralism. Yet they recognize diversity inherent in human nature and reflected in our varied interests and beliefs and pursuits. The diversity was particulate manifested and matters of conscious requires a free exercise of original. Its medicine emphasize the religion of every man spieth left to the conviction and conscience of every man because its the right of every man to exercise it is god may dictate. George washington similarly stressed the conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness and extensively accommodated. Pluralism is apparent in individual talents and interests. As medicine recognize and federalist tethers diversity in the faculties of men for which the rights to property originate. The protection of the faculties is a first object of government from the protection of different unequal faculties acquiring properties the division of society into different interests. I was sewn in the nature of man. The primary combination was ultimately structure and political. The constitution begins with article one which alt alllegislative power and a collective congress. A Representative Legislature in which different viewpoints could be expressed, debated ideally harmonized into a legislative solution competent to the public good. As i have also asked by the constitution legislative power and a collective congress in order to group to create a government that brings together all the desperate interests of society create laws that further the general good, avoid corruption, protect the rights of individuals. Medical theorists in history have long debated where the founders and division the legislative process would identify an objective comment good. Or simply negotiate different interests. But either way there is widespread recognition that congress was the Central Institution for mediating diverse interests across society. While the legislative power was essential for negotiating pluralism the constitution established other structural protections for personal liberties. These include federalism and the separation of power. A unitarian executive, an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The structural safeguards are supplemented by the enumeration of specific individual rights such as a freedom of speech and religious exercise as well as protection for private property. Pluralism is a fact of the human condition. The framers did not seek to level out pluralism rather liberty and prudence they establish a Constitutional Government designed to secure the welfare and prosperity of a group blowing and diverse nation. Next i would like to explore the essential connection between individual liberty Constitutional Rights and pluralism that runs for many of the Supreme Court decisions. Individual liberty and pluralism are in a sense two sides of the same coin. Each person is unique and all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. I pulled in the structure of the constitution and enforcing individual rights against the government the judiciary can help maintain a peaceful Pluralist Society that protects each individual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. A few examples dems are at the vitality of pluralism in our constitutional tradition in the Supreme Court jurisprudence. The theme of first about frequently runs to the decision upon the First Amendment protection for freedom of speech and religion. At the Supreme Court has said no official can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics nationalism religion or other matters. This passive term created the courthouse at colorado could not require website designers to create expressive designs for samesex couples. Justice proclaimed the First Amendment envisions the United States is it rich and complex place all persons are free to think and speak as they wish that as the government demands. The constitution required government evenhandedness and intolerance of different viewpoints. The government may speak as it chooses but it cannot dictate the speech and expression of individuals or interfere with the free marketplace of ideas. Freedom of speech is important for unpopular ideas and is Justice Holmes said to protect the speech we hates it. Maintaining free and open debate further promotes robust democratic deliberation. Pluralism animates many of the Supreme Court religious liberty cases. Free exercise frequently involves the importance of protecting minority religion. While establishment clause for many years promoted secularism rather than religious pluralism. In recent years it has emphasized the government cannot force religion underground or promote policy hostile. For example the chest 19 American Legion case the court upheld the peace cross that was part of it world war i memorial. This just exclaimed that because of the constitution into Foster Society in which people of all beliefs can live together harmoniously. From a somewhat different perspective justice kagans concurrence the pluralism and the values of futrell the neutralityinclusion the first at demands. The 14th amendment extends the constitutional commitment to pluralism that was promised but not fully realized in the original constitution. The protection clause protects pluralism by prohibiting government discrimination and prohibiting between citizens. Supreme Court Decisions in this area have historically been somewhat mixed. But last term students admissions versus harvard as chief Justice Roberts explains equal protection call prohibitss discrimination on the basis. And eliminating Racial Discrimination means eliminating all of it. In his concurrence Justice Thomas explicitly linked equal protection of the law to pluralism. He noted our constitution protects individuals not racial groups or classes. The declaration of independence set forth our National Creed that all men are created equal and therefore it must be treated equally by the government. Affirmative action he said was simply naked racism that promoted a factionalism based on ever shifting sand of skin color and racial category. Justice thomas continues rather than forming a more Pluralistic Society that strips us of our individuality and undermines the very diversity of thought that universities purport to seek. By posting the equal protection of the laws the Court Protects the rights of individuals. And it prevents a factionalism that results in the government divides its citizens distribute to benefits and burdens on the basis of growth. The constitution structural protection federalism the separation of powers are also inextricably linked to individual rights and accommodated what madison calls a Great Variety of interested parties across our republic. As said the federal structure allows policies more sensitive to the diverse needs of a heterogeneous society. Permits innovation and experimentation, enables greater citizen involvement with more responsive mason sitters rate the freedom of the individual. In a Pluralist Society federalism provides more society federalism provides more opportunities for representative politics and for important issues in the local communities. And dobbs versus Jackson Health organization americans held a wide range of viewpoints about the morality of abortion the appropriate scope of abortion regulation. In overturning roe versus wade the constitution was silent on matters of abortion. He emphasized time to heed the constitution return issue of abortion to the peoples elected representative. The permissibility of abortion the limitations upon it are should be resolved like most important questions in our democracy by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting. That is with the constitution and the rule of law demands. To the proper exercise of judicial review article three courts help preserve a vibrant pluralism by upholding Constitutional Rights and maintaining the structural limits on federal government. The Supreme Court however has failed to uphold the structure of the constitution with respect to haps the most essential protection for pluralism. Namely the vesting about of alllegislative power in cong. Congress provides a mechanism for imparting our inevitable disputes resolved like that the lawmaking process of bicameralism improvement in us. Representation of different interest to the house and senate promote deliberation and ultimately the identification of policy that will serve the general welfare. The legislative process and congress is not perfect. But it is fundamentally legitimate, representative and accountable executive lawmaking can never be. And so this brings me to the modern Administrative State. My final points about the particular ways in which the Administrative State threatens the peaceful pluralism protected by the constitution. To begin with the progressive ideology behind the expansive Administrative State is at odds with pluralism. The original progressives with the Administrative State woodrow wilson, frank and others they began with experts could find the right answer to social and economic problems and having found the right answers experts could and should impose them on the American People. The progressives did not concern themselves with individuals and the inherent differences between individuals that are part of the condition. Instead they emphasize social problems and reaching the best social policy and organization. The original progressives can advocated for sidelining the messy and unscientific legislative process and weakening judicial review. For administration to succeed americans would have to move beyond the constitution archaic perceptions for individual liberty and private property. In short fundamentally at odds with the puller looks of the protection of individual liberty. It cannot accommodate diverse interests and opinions religious beliefs and economic pursuits. The founders emphasize emphasizedlegislation cell abilt individual liberty. The progressive by contrast press for science, certainty and government control. The threats are more than theoretical. The Administrative State constitutional problems will be familiar to this audience. So my focus today is on how the constitutional problems exacerbate polarization and factionalism. Reaching into every facet of social and economic did endeavor the modern ministry of state hasnt traveled the constitution structural protection for peaceful pluralism. At the most fundamental level the Administrative State has shifted policymaking from congress to the executive branch. The constitution legislative power and congress when you practice what looks very much like legislative power is primarily exercised by administrative agency. Why is this a problem . There arent many reasons. One of them is congress was designed to represent and mediate the many different interests and concerns across over diverse society. Disputes will be channeled into legislative politics that would be widely representative of many intersecting and competing interests. Because securing such agreement will be difficult federal intrusion would be minimal and most decisions will be left to private ordering to state and local regulation. Lawmaking is hard it was designed to be so. His justice explaining his concurrence in west virginia, bomb making was in the people representatives for those who make our laws would better reflect the diversity of the people they represent have an immediate dependence on sympathy with the people. Executive Branch Agencies lack the representation. Agencies are staffed subject Matter Experts and bureaucrats are drawn from a narrated narrow knowledge. Silent and their areas of Expertise Agency staff often act as policy partisans for they simply do not represent the diversity of interests across American Society. They are institutionally not wellsuited to recognize the broader economic and social tradeoffs of regulatory policy. To be clear it is not necessary to vilify the bureaucracy in order to recognize their experience and action is narrow, specialized and aimed at particular bureaucratic ends. Rather than a holistic consideration modern proponents of the Administrative State often argue it can promote socalled constitutional values. Even when running a foul of the actual constitution. But the reality is the records are a process could not come close to approximating the representative politics of congress. Sure, allows the public to weigh in. But the process usually involves only those with deep pockets the most intense interest. Because the raley torrey is prevalent. In any event proposed rules change little before coming final rule irrespective of the hundreds or hundreds of thousands that are filed. Im deeply contested matters. Without the political deliberation, negotiation and legitimacy of congressional action. Those who disagree with administrative policy have little opportunity for representation topping policies that trample on their beliefs or interfere with the economic livelihood. Agencies are structured to allow the intergenic pursuit of administrative policies of congressional lawmaking. Seclusion as part of a constitutional design energetic lawmaking not. And so our government intrudes two more areas of private life and less political legitimacy. Having a bit of strength state that imposes onesizefitsall to contest the questions, raises the stakes of this agreement and the Pluralist Society. Consider few examples which Supreme Court has found agencies individual rights exceed authority. Regulatory policy often fail to accommodate religious exercise. For instance a contraception mandate imposed by the health and Human Services under the Affordable Care act, require all employers to provide for contraception. Provided no exemption for those with religious or moral objectives. Supreme court tells it violate the restoration act because it imposed a mandate against private employers sincerely held religious objection to such contraception. As the court said a binding level to this religious and philosophical question. At an effect tells the plaintiffs the beliefs are flawed for good reason. We have repeatedly reviewed to take such a step. Agencies also exceed their statutory power. For instance route center for Disease Control imposed an Eviction Moratorium with the Supreme Court invalidated. The court explained the moratorium was well beyond what congress authorized and intruded on the relationship claim unprecedented federal power. As the court said our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully. Even in pursuit of desirable end. The court stressed that congress that the cdc had to decide where the Public Interest merits further action. The Supreme Court also invalidated the recent break into a plan to suffer give student loan because the policy exceeded the authority granted by congress. The chief justice explained under the governments interpretation of the secretary of education virtually Unlimited Power to rewrite education act unilaterally defined every aspect of federal student finance financial aid. Furthermore the court noted the case of one branch of government are going to itself along too another. It is executives season the power of the legislature. The secretarys assertion of Administrative Authority is conveniently enabled him to neck the Program Congress has chosen not to enact itself. These issues that affect the cases dealt issues of great importance involving contentious moral questions and matters of social and economic significance. The court recognize such major questions must be addressed in the first instance by congress. Nonetheless so far at least the court has shied away from a more robust of non delegation principal. Are there practical considerations for avoiding non delegation. None of these reasons legislative not some of that but all of it. As i explained widespread delegation of undermined the collective congress is incentives for checking executive branch agency. The political process bolsters the need for judicial review to restore the constitutional limits on administration. Justice thomas and Justice Gorsuch are called the court to instruct the delegation of legislative power of the executive. The vesting of all legislative power in congress. Would uphold the separation of chow or individual liberty. All the better to serve the need of the society. Let me conclude with a few more thoughts. It is at bottom inevitable americans will disagree about social Political Economic and religious matters. The founders recognize such disagreement in stone and the nature of man. Madison said it would excite astonishment and admiration f americans could peacefully, freely satisfactorily establish one general government when there such a diversity of opinion and interest. So on constitution date the founders recognize the inevitability of human diversity. They accepted pluralism as a social and political fact. They were spotted to its challenges by establishing a government structure to promote individual liberty and the general welfare. At the center of the structure of Congress Legislature carefully designed to represent the diverse opinions and interests with collective lawmaking. The ubiquity of administrative action and that lack and congress have strained the political mechanisms for mediating difference for the erosion of the original constitution, the preaching of its limit on government. The blurring of the separation of powers the reversal of the structure make it harder for diversify to function identified shared goals. Restoring the constitutional limits on the Administrative State would be good in itself. And it just might go a long way to restoring a more peaceful pluralism in the country. [applause] [applause] think a judge. He first post but the topic of what your current lecture be my ai colleagues and i were very happy to hear it. The themes you have been discussing are central to a lot of our work. Colic has a new book out why congress, jay costa has a new book out called the democracy other public. And others are working along similar names. Thinking about your remarks to walter burns their deep things and what you were discussing so much from lincolns first and second inaugural address. The union among these different. Also walter burns. Grateful for your remarks. Previous speaker is in the series. Announce this lecture series Justice Alito spoke at that event. It was the root tired judge Michael Mcconnell more recently Brett Kavanaugh who also remarks from chief justice rehnquist. Two burns lecturers which im very much in favor of. [inaudible] progress like the trendline almost by the way. Mark the conversation to cut over the years these things have talked about over the years but now you have but a judge serving for a few years how is your service as a judge further shaped your sense of pluralism in American Government . Well, there is a deep connection between respect for perla prolificpluralism and the rule. If obviously thought a lot over the past were five years and pretty intimate way is to uphold the law. They are pulled in the constitution, upholding statutory limits on administrative agencies which is a big part of my job. I think that leave space for pluralism. That leaves an opening for individual liberty vacates the government within its limits. I think there is an important connection between pluralism of the rule of law. Therefore the power of judicial review. Progress and criticism ofjudgesk is not rule of law enough treat their job is more of a value judgment. On behalf of the American People and even now in recent years as a Supreme Court has touched on a number of the issues. This criticism the court itself is imposing value judgments, it may be disagreeing or imposing itself and what should be a more pluralistic process for decide the nation of Constitutional Rights. What you make of those criticisms . The harvard case for example more pluralistic approach would have been to let colleges choose what they are going to do a let every choose differently puts a case the Supreme Court saw the rule of law today. Flex are some choices that list to the political process. That includes protections for individual rights. At might be more pluralistic to let universe discriminate on the basis of race. The equal protection of the law means no discrimination on the basis of race it. Where the constitution to the political process of for instance on the matter of abortion the court leaves space for political pluralism for it on the other had the constitution for tax individual rights incumbent upon the court to enforce those rights again. Was struck by your criticism on the Administrative State. Not because i havent heard you right on those before prequickstart about the Administrative State. This is why we get along so well. You were in the Administrative State so to speak. I was. I am very familiar with the Administrative State. Sometimes it breeds contempt. There have been efforts to still greater plurality. There are pluralism into the administrative process Trump Administration executive orders and other efforts to bring more voices into the process. In that process particular voices will dominate. With its the technocrats themselves insert of the things the administration to could do to be more pluralistic . Work so they could question. We did put in place a lot to perform that would improve the administrative process. An eight function of the courts is to provide a broader perspective. But one of the things that became pretty apparent to me and running that process is a lot of these are secondbest options. We can make regulation we can make it more accountable for the public. We can bring and different voices. We can try to make it approximate Something Like the process. But ultimately its not structured for that. The way the regulation is formulated and pursued this fundamentally very different legislative process. Negotiating compromising over what the Public Policy should be. Whats the very beginning of your remarks to talk about polarization. We should build this on polarization. I wonder how pluralism can actually work and the polarized society . What feels like now its out of two. Or maybe among two one rehab to at least the political matters to ideological political parties. Enter federalism is not as though we have 50 Different Solutions so much as one set of states that follow one set of solutions. How does polarization work into this . We have genuinely pluralistic institution especially congress. I think congress or the institution that had to make major policy decisions then perhaps we might see more compromise. We might see more negotiating on important issues. But instead so many of these important questions are shipped off where they can be made on a singular focus. It is at least a possible there would be more compromise and negotiation. At the end of the day our system was designed for the federal government to simply do less. The federal government is less that would maybe mitigate polarization and dissension because the government would not be interfering with private ordering. In so many ways for. In terms of how congress is gone about its work and delegated power to the agencies, think about some of those laws. Ironically the pouch most agencies and by your argument the most underlined pluralism practice. Spread statutesthemselves were y pluralistic. They passed by such a large majority. Clean water act, broad generalities to compromise, deliberate and get into the details. It undermines a congresses work. There is a failure of congress digs down beyond latitude. But enough about congress maybe. One group have not spoken about its the people themselves. What does a genuine pluralism and Constitutional Government required citizens . The framers assumed a constitutional democracy is a certain amount of good character who in good faith participated in the political process with their fellow americans. That level of accommodation and people who have different views is really essential for our democracy. And i think were covering some of that might go a long way basis of the problems we see. And errors when the Supreme Court was stepping outside of its lane and imposing value judgments now the Administrative State overstepping its bounds to impose judgments. How much of that is our willfulness on the part of the institution and how much are they filling the vacuum left by congress are left by the people themselves . Think agencies are often times doing what congress designed them to do. They often gave them a mandate a very open ended mandate and staffed them with the tens of thousands of people. In some ways its unsurprising we get what we get. In some ways its a natural outgrowth of the Trump Administration we tried very much to stop Regulatory Overreach but in some ways that is perhaps contrary to the natural tendencies. Maybe one last question before we open up the floor. Do you have an ideal statement . Theres the judge, someones work in the executive branch someone who has worked in congress that exemplifies American History values you are calling for return to that . Looks well, Justice Thomas probably one of the greatest living americans that we have. He came up from such dire and impoverished circumstances to be where he is. He has served in the highest reaches of the executive branch before going on the bench. I think he understands the importance of pluralism and the connection between pluralism and individual liberty and a very deep wait for. Who is your least favorite just kidding. Again we can take questions not just people in the room but we have people watching online, live, they can submit their questions via email or in the great bastion of pluralism twitter their instructions on the event page. If you raise your head to questions will find shipper or the microphone will find you will start with robert and the next question will be right there. Thank you very much for this great remarks. You made it sound so easy, pluralism. Did you not want to acknowledge that sometimes politics is a frustrating, reaches the wrong conclusion, as it fits and starts and stops . There is a lacking of efficiency sometime could you at least acknowledge it could be that way . Of course it can be that way. In fact it was designed to be that way at times. Politics in congress is certainly not perfect but it is a system that we have. Perhaps it is one of the best ways for negotiating compromise across a Pluralist Society. Its not a panacea. Fix the next question will be right here. Remarks today. You talked about pluralism in a lot of different realms. One of the realms you did not really touch on so much was the legal realm it is increasingly clear not just in academia but on the court itself there are a number of approaches but within original listen towards reaching results. I was kind of curious how do these different approaches to factor into your role as a judge of the d. C. Circuit court . What would your advice to be to judges, attorneys or younger people interested in law when approaching the different ways of understanding text of the constitution . Well, i admit originalists in a textual list. Thats part of the judicial goal is to interpret the law for what it says not for what i wish it said or what i hope that it might say. And yet there are tendencies from all different corners of American Society theyre askingg courts to impose Singular Solutions from one direction or a nether. Were the same thing from the Administrative State. But especially with respect to the courts. It seems like such an obvious thing a few years ago to simply say the job of the courts is to say what the job is. I am a little surprised how under attack that simple premise has become. I guess i will reiterate it here thats certainly my view of what the court should be doing. More questions please lets circle back to roberts question for just a moment. Not just that legislating is hard its also messy and partisan. But there are big big things at stake. Fundamental judgment of principle. Fundamental moral values. It is easy to say members of congress should compromise. But we all get upset when they compromise their principles. How should they approach that . How much of what congress is first principle should never compromise and how much of it is details where you can split the difference . I am not a lawmaker. [laughter] it is a balance of course. Like anything. I do think legislating is a bit of an arch. Probably more art than science. And i do think the way our constitution was structured when they could not negotiate or find some agreement and the government simply did not act and thats also an option. Maybe we no longer think thats an option but seems like that was the default. That things would just be left as they were pretty. I sought more hands up the next question will be here and then right here. Judge thank you for your remarks. My question was about federal state relations and how they impact what the constitution has to say about it. Thank you. I do think federalism is an organ aspect of pluralism. The idea is most issues would be left to state and local control. That would promote pluralism because people within their communities could participate in more local political processes to govern themselves. And so i do think the erosion of federalism has been detrimental. The next question right here. Coming to you right here. Hi, think if you remarks. I wanted to ask a question about standing in particular. Quick standing . Guess the Biden Student loan case for example there are a lel entity to check all the right boxes and be standing in that case. But it seems like on the horizon there is a big question of the Administrative State really they are like these big seizures of power theres not anything that are clearly standing there complicated doctrines about when you can see with the administrative gate and the government. What do you see being the way were going to solve those challenges . As the president or the administration overreaches more and more how do you resolve those issues that are outstanding . It is a great question print probably when i should not speak about given how many cases i hear that involved that precise issue but that is a great question. Ask other questions . Here i think a son of the hand over here. Jp hogan. Running into Climate Change use a Global Citizen i think thats trying to neutralize pluralism. Are you running into pluralism first or a global wheat and we in thatspart of the problem . Well, im not sure if im entirely filing her question. Globalization can be a way of the limited inc. Pluralism, right . Of global pollution even more leveling of a pluralism than having a National Solution as opposed to a state or local solution. I think thats a possibility for. It is interesting gender when pluralistic political process requires acknowledging both what we disagree about but also what we share in common. What actually drives us to want to negotiate, compromise, come together. And the more the people are in government or out quite outside advocate for government see themselves having more in common with its regulators abroad, judges abroad, political actors abroad. Seeing that as more of that we and the americans right there in their own neighborhood, their own state, their own country that they disagree with. Probably makes it more difficult to have pluralism they find themselves more tightly bound to these people outside the Political Community than the neighbors across the street they are actually of a community with. Quick rate here in the front. Its making its weight. Thanks for your remarks. As somebody who generally agrees with the criticism i am also struck by the degree by which one of the deep the most important policy is the Federal Reserve. It obviously makes major decisions that congress has no role in whatsoever. How do you see that in your constitutional vision . Adam and i have a bit of disagreement by independent agencies. Im not sure they really exist but he believes they exist for. I have seen them. [laughter] its a different problem from when i talk about here. I do think the article to problem of the Administrative State are very real. Article tool thats all the executive power. And that we have all these agencies that operate outside of the control the present like the Federal Reserve although often on the Federal Reserve is considered a special case for some other independent agencies. But i do think the lack of a president ial control is another serious problem with the Administrative State. Last question from the audience. Could you elaborate away the fact the president is elected every four years, is not sufficient protection of democratic legitimacy and pluralism . I do think president ial control provides a certain accountability for execution of the laws. And for setting the direction of the Administrative State. Not all that is incredibly important and vital to making sure the Administrative State operates in somewhat of a constitutional way. But i do think that type of president ial control cannot fix open ended delegations to agencies because the executive is not a lawmaker. The fact clinton was democratically elected doesnt make up for the fact there is none of the representative of politics in the making of the law. I do think and i have written about this elsewhere with the ty deep reasons might lovemaking has to be done by legislature. The founders the political theorists talk about this a great deal. The protections you get from representative at lawmaking are simply not present in the executive. Click the feeling question to ask some the most enduring work was a study of the electoral college. The way in which that institution was created to help advance a kind of pluralism. One last question for me, judge. In your service on the court you are not just deciding often divisive or controversial issues but youre doing it as kind of a group project. We were deciding cases in a panel of three judges so a group of 11 judges. And just in the last few weeks you have written it high profile majority opinions unanimous opinions in cases that would often divide americans. What have you learned about pluralism for serving alongside judges . I grateful have such wonderful colleagues in the d. C. Circuit. I think we all can agree more often than it is per trade. I did have several quite controversial cases. That word decided over the past year end that were published. The panels were very diverse. Ideologically in the way they talk about that but also unanimous. That should hopefully give people some faith that what we are doing. The sense two. A guess. But not as many as most years. Please join me in thanking judge neomi rao. [applause] there will be a reception right outside. Thank you. [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] a discussion on africanamerican Life Experiences as seen through decades of Gallup Research and public polling for this event was hosted by the gallup organization. A republic thrives. Get informed straight from the source on cspan, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nations capitol to wherever you are the opinion that matters the most is your own. This is what democracy looks like. Cspan, powered by cable. Cspans washington journal and live a form involving you to discuss related issues in government, politics and Public Policy. From washington d. C. And across the country break coming up Tuesday Morning wall street journal congressional reporter discusses the latest on Congress Efforts to pass government funding bills before september 30 deadline. Texas republican congressman