, the National ConstitutionCenter Hosted a discussion on how the bill of rights applies to todays debates on freedom of speech, the right to privacy and other issues. Speakers include the constitution center, also, the American Enterprise institute, and also the Aspen Institute. Welcome to the greatest assembly of the defenders of freedom ever. We have peter goettler, arthur brooks, Walter Isaacson, neera tanden, and Anthony Romero of the aclu. A big round of applause. [applause] jeffrey the National Constitution center is indeed a convening space of the greatest thinkers on freedom and called its usual liberties. It is impossible to imagine more distinguished, engaged of a group than the one you have today. I will plunge in. We have on the side of the stage a beautiful document. There are many documents here at the National Constitution center. I hope you are able to see the gallery as he came in the copy of the bill of rights and the declaration of independence. This is a very special document related to Thomas Jefferson. It is a broadside, which means it was displayed after he spoke. It was displayed in boston, printed on silk. You can see the now ail marks where it was hung on a wall. I think i can read about it from my notes than from this beautiful script. He said, every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called different brother eatheren by different names. We are all federalists. Pause for the changing of the page. A great suspense about what will happen next. To wish to dissolve this union let them stand undisturbed where reason is left free. Walter isaacson, was he describing an era of good feeling or with things just as bad then as they are now . Walter they were just as bad. You have to member the john adams had just put Benjamin Franklins grandson j in jail. We had suddenly become partisan. There was no difference between the federalist and the republicans, or whatever. That is not necessarily a bad thing. The key to what jefferson said is that we may have differences of opinion, we do not have differences of principle. That is something that i think was true back then. The founding of the nation was so new and cool, people felt they should be reward for coming together and finding Common Ground, instead of the incentives of being divisive. I was walking in and could not help myself looking at franklins grave. When he was across the street i benjamin tal when they were doing the constitution, and they were pulling themselves apart he finally got up. There was a big difference on the big statelittle state issue and he said, when we were young tradesmen here in philadelphia, and putting together a table, and the joint did not quite go together, you would shave from one side and put it together, and so to hear we have to part from our demand. His point was that compromises do not make great heroes, but they make great democracies. That was the difference between that period and now. Jeffrey we will explore how civility and empathy has been lost. We do not all have to agree. I want to tease out agreements and disagreements in the Mission Statements of each of your organizations. As we talk about liberty lets focus on constitutional liberty. Obviously, we would disagree a lot on policy. Here the Constitutional Center we would like to introduce this new edition with a brilliant introduction written by yours truly. I want to start with peter goettler. I think it is fair to say that cato is the most jeffersonian of those onstage. Your Mission Statement says that you are founded because of catos letters, published in the eight teat century 18th century that influence the architects of the revolution. At cato, what is most important in defending liberty. Is it the rights enumerated in the bill of rights or the structural limitations set out in the constitution itself . Peter it is both. We have a relatively unique perspective from many people in the world. You mention that there are copies of the bill of rights here today. We really like the bill of rights. There are many people who would like to treat the night than them as an inkblot, and attempt amendment the 10th amendment as an inkblot. When you mentioned differences it was a very partisan time, possibly more rancorous than today. I think there was a more consistent view on the proper role of government and what was being established by the constitution. You remember in the ratification debates, one point of contention was whether there should be a bill of rights or not. Many people believe that they do not have to be a bill of rights because the powers of the federal government were strict Legal Limited and enumerated and that we ran the risk of having a bill of rights in suggesting that these were the only rights that were protected. At cato we have a very strong natural rights eastview of liberty. It is inherent in the attention that you mention in the constitution. Jeffrey Anthony Romero, cato and the aclu have agreed on a number of cases and have filed briefs from nsa surveillance to Marriage Equality. There was something in peter goettlers statement that suggested that they care about all of the bill of rights the economic stuff as well as personal liberty. Is he suggesting that you care more about economic liberty than personal liberty . Anthony no. The aclu and cato have a history of working together. For us, our Mission Statement, you have to take that and come alive. These are not selfexecuting truths over 95 year history, we have done that. Everything from the scopes trial to our defense of japaneseamerican internees to the questions around miranda the right to remain silent loving, the right for interracial couples to marry, griswold, the right to cut contraception. We took this pencil and make them real those principles and made them real. The idea that you need an organization like ours to take the fullness of our aspirations and apply them to everyday lives , in ways that we cannot fully apprehend at this moment what it means 30 years from now. I think we stand on the couu of a major rights revolution. Sours is a country that has moved forward in the granting of rights. This year will be the year that the Supreme Court grants full Marriage Equality to lgbt couples. It is a prediction i feel very confident doing, even on cspan, because i think there is no wait for us to lose jeffrey. We have to remember i hope im not wrong that has taken us decades to get here. The first samesex marriage case that we filed was in 1971. Now we are in 2015, on the cu sp of granting samesex marriage to all couples in america. I think that is a remarkable testament to my organization and to the work of many on this panel. The economic issue is important. We have the very first lawsuit that goes from homeowner to investment bank. We have detroit homeowners who are targeted by subprime loading targets. It has been certified as a class. It looks of there were clearly racial dynamics behind the recession and the affected for people and lowincome people of color, especially with the impact on the country. I think it is a place where we coincide. Where we decide to spend our energy and nuance might be a place a difference. Jeffrey there are a areas areas of catos policy the would disagree with. Anthony i think there is room for evolution on all ends. As soon as we have cato join us on my detroit subprime lending debacle case, i would be more than happy to look at the issues affecting upperclass white folks in america. We focus on where we think the need is greatest. No offense, there is room for many of us in the sandbox. Peter there are clearly limits to comedy, even on a panel like this. Jeffrey arthur brooks, you just wrote this new book. You say that preenterprise advocates have not been willing to make moral argument, and that is a mistake. You think more arguments should be at the core of the Mission Statement which is devoted to increasing opportunity and free enterprise. Tell to what degree are constitutional arguments are part of your mission . Arthur thank you, jeff. What an honor to be here where we all caps about these arguments and how freedom can be manifest. At aei, we have been around since 1938. It is actually not an economic mission. It is to give more people a better life. We have to back it up. Here we are at the National Constitution center. If you look to the language of the decoration, the second paragraph language of the declaration, the second paragraph it is moral english. Life, liberty, and not property, pursue of happiness. This is a really new idea and the history of the world. It is a new age idea in the history of the world, as a matter of fact. If you read this the way it was intended by the way, Thomas Jefferson was asked a few years later why they used that language he dropped the word property, why . He said it was dictation of the american mind, but really it was dictation of the american heart. That is what was really important of the time. The whole concept, the notion of building your life, this whole country including today, the daughters of the american revolution, the descendents of the mayflower. There was only one direction to go, and that was up. That is a profoundly moral saying. That is the mission of my organization. In a commercial republican stanch asie, that requires what system . It is the system that brought me into the movement for Economic Freedom. It is the system that has taken 2 billion people out of poverty since i was a kid. That system is one of globalization, Property Rights rule of law, free trade, and most importantly, the American Free enterprise system. What im saying is that what looks like an economic phenomenon is nothing more than stanchtitation of a moral paragraph that we can live today and share with people around the world, which is a profound moral thing. If we do not see it as a more thing, we are missing the boat. Jeffrey there is no doubt that the framers were inspired. We have this interactive that you can see in the bill of rights gallery, and cspan people, online, where you can click on any provision of the bill of rights and the state constitutions, and trace the spread of that liberty across the globe. Neera, i want to ask you, when arthur talks out natural rights, it is very based on the declaration of independence, on individual liberty. There is not a lot of equality in their. Despite the declaration will miss that all men are created equal, it took the civil war taxa codify in the 14th amendment equality for all americans. The center o four americ Progress Center for American Progress talks about as progressives, people should climb the ladder of economic opportunity, shared global prosperity, harness the strength of diversity, are you more focused on the quality . Does the linkage of liberty resonate less with you . Neera i think all of us share a profound commitment to liberty and freedom. The conflicts of our time are ones in which we are constantly debating the meeting ofaning of liberty and brought quality. Obviously today, we are focused on the opportunity of real freedom around samesex marriage , an issue that no one was talking about 100 years ago. I think some of the conflicts around liberty and economic liberty, and its conflict with ideas of opportunity and mobility, where they exist freely go back not to hundred years, but 100 years ago. Some of the debates we had 100 years ago, we had courts that were considering economic liberty as a paramount value in striking down protections that the state offered to protect individuals themselves from a marketplace that was running amok against their own interest. I do not think of these economic liberty issues as economic liberty as opposed to the state itself. Often times these issues of economic liberty are ones in which it is one persons economic liberty against anothers. Anthony romero mentioned earlier , around the subprime mortgage interest, that is the rights of africanamericans not to be redlined against the market interest. These are issues where economic and interests are in conflict. I think we should have a robust discussion as to what that means. I may disagree with others on this panel about which value makes sense in that moment. I would argue my view of liberty is as strong as theres. Theirs. Jeffrey peter arthur, neera reference the progressive era. Many decisions were denounced fro liberal and conservative justices. Now, peter, there are distinguished cato scholars who argue that the court was right to strike down those laws, and we need a new judicial engagement to protect economic liberty against threats to it. Do you agree . Peter that is absolutely right. You have gone through an era in which particularly conservatives were out crying activism. We think there is a role of preserving the constitution a framework that we discussed earlier. The court needs to be an important line of defense when the legislature overstepped its bounds. In response to some of the things that neera said, our concern is that when coercion is used in the economic arena, when the government coerces Economic Agents in order to generate a specific outcome is obviously something that is at odds with our idea of liberty. Jeffrey arthur, aei is a white tent wide tent. What is your sense of how the conservative movement is negotiating how vigorously the court should intervene to protect liberty today . Arthur i think to understand the differences of opinion here is the concept of liberty from 200 years ago or 100 years ago different and a great way. What we are faced with is to competing understandings of what liberty means, or freedom means. There is a n absence of coercion. Later, as there was progress in american philosophy, there was this notion that freedom not from coercion but to certain rights. What were trying to ed defined today is from and to. I think a lot of us believe the balance is not quite right yet. The interesting thing is figuring out if we need to go further in the realm of entitlements and personal rights more freedom to, instead of less. This occurs at aei, by the way and on this panel, which is kind of like aei. Jeffrey or the National Constitution center. Walter, you are the leader of the Aspen Institute which so well brings together people of different policy. To what degree does the founders vision seeks to people on issues of liberty, society, and Technology Today . Walter phenomenally well. Surprisingly well when you go by to the constitution and read things and see how they apply. Also balance we have to realize there is a balance between conflicting moral principles at times. The most obvious being between a quality and individual liberty the notion of community and the common good, or general welfare or economic pure freedom. One thing that the Aspen Institute was founded on was this principle of a compass, in which you found the balances of values Community Versus individualism, equality versus economic growth, whatever may be. What you try to do is understand it even though you are on a certain tilt one way or the other, understand what the other side is about. In theory, find some Common Ground where that moral principle can hold. Arthur talked about the need to put it in moral terms. There is a reason that we are here. It is partly because we want to lead a moral life and understand how to create a moral society. One of your precursors, if i may call him that, is michael novak. He wrote a book that gets on this balance well, this notion that capitalism exist but not just in and of itself as a natural right, but is there to benefit the common good as well as to benefit the individual. What can we do right now . Lets take nereeras concept of more economic equality. One place where we could find Common Ground is on opportunity. If you work hard, everybody should at least at with some semblance of a Good Opportunity. We have lost that in society even in the time that i have been around, certainly sense ben franklin. When i went to school, there were a bunch of schools in new orleans. This was after desegregation. Now, we have created a more separate society, where depending on your to the zip code r circumstances apbob putnman said we have lost the sense of equal opportunity. At the Aspen Institute, we can get to 70 or 80 of people who agree on these particular moral principles, and will leave the 30 aside. I think sometimes, when you were talking in the last panel about weaponize he disputes, weaponizeing disputes, im not sure that we face a crises of pizza parlor owners catering gay weddings. Somehow or another, we try to make these into disputes instead of finding Common Ground. Jeffrey one thing that elevates disputes is legalizing them. Anthony romero, the aclu under your leadership has struggled impressively with clashes between liberty equality, and hate speech, which weibel talk about on a leader panel we will talk about on a later panel. There are some today who would strike a different balance. How have you tried to reconcile those values . Anthony it is ultimately when rights clash that we have this greatest challenge. We at the aclu, and we, as society. You need to find a way to balance them out. Ultimately, the court has been the body to decide who is right. I think those are tough issues. Where it is not tough, is in the context of religious refusal. I find it, and i was watching in the green room the earlier conversation, this question of the pizza parlor owner having to serve a gay wedding. The only reason you find this great resurgence of people to many the religious freedom and demanding that religious freedom is under attack is because