Will be doing a call in program with cspan said he cannot sign books until 4 00 then he will have a very short window before he passed to catch his flight t consign books from 4 00 through 4 20 p. M. I hope you can catch him then. [laughter] that is at the bookstore attend on the ball at the university of arizona bookstore they are purchased at that location if you are enjoying the festival we encourage you to become a friend of the festival your taxdeductible donation allows to offer programming free of charge learn more about friends of the festival benefits that the information with our at tucson book festival website at of respect for the author and fellow audience members please turn off yourself comes at this time if he thinks you have please double check to make sure it is actually off. With that i am very pleased to introduce the founding dean of the university of California School of law which the six short years as one of the finest law schools in the country. A prolific scholar a legendary teacher of constitutional law and related subjects he himself argued many cases before the United States federal courts including the Supreme Court. A frequent public commentator on issues and perhaps the most gifted translator legalese into plain english. [laughter] which the public oppose him a huge debt of gratitude. Caller. Thank you. Let me start by thanking the tucson festival of books for having me and for all of you for coming it is enormously gratifying for me as an author but to see so many people on a beautiful afternoon coming to hear about the Supreme Court and the constitution is wonderful. [applause] thankyou. I will tell a story that the book begins with. I was teaching with acacia were very familiar with that involves a woman born 1906 and Charlottesville Virginia with a normal childhood show to local Public Schools through junior high and always received passing grades. Her father left her mother her mother was destitute and had no choice but to place the girls in foster homes. When she was 17 she was raped by her foster fathers nephew became pregnant as a result. The foster parents were embarrassed by her pregnancy her foster parents had institutionalized called of homes for epileptics and the feeble minded. She gave birth to a daughter in soon after virginia began to in voluntarily have her sterilized. Virginia adopted a eugenics what a short hearing was held. She was given the i. Q. Test which was the earliest form testified she had a low iq. Many years later that harvard professor found carry and gave further career version and it was in the normal range. Another witness testified at her hearing that the social worker had agreement carries baby then six months alone and said something didnt see a normal about the baby. Just as the state of virginia ordered a tubal ligation be performed to be surgically sterilized. The lawyer took the case to the Supreme Court it should have been an easy case. After all the constitution and prohibits cruel and unusual punishment she had done nothing wrong. Even by that point in history with the word liberty in the constitution and translated fundamental rights surely one of the rights is a right to procreate but the Supreme Court eight one decision written by Justice OliverWendell Holmes ruled against carey. With the most revered jurist one of the most extensive language anywhere the Justice Holmes said three generations of imbeciles are enoughs. 1 4 her the sterilization. 60,000 people in the United States or in voluntarily surgically sterilized as the results of the of movement and the Supreme Court decision. I was teaching this and my knees students understandably were outraged by the case. The night after the class are realized i had been making excuses what the Supreme Court had done but all too often in my teaching or by writing a was making excuses. But if i thought about it critically to realize the Supreme Court has often failed at the most important times and wanted to write a book that said that. [laughter] host what d. C. Is the purpose to have a constitution in the first place . Guest i think the constitution is an effort with a document that is difficult to change. What makes it different from all other laws is in a statute passed by congress can be changed by congress any ordinance by the city council can be changed by the city council but the constitution it takes threequarters or twothirds of the states chancery quarters and houses of congress so why as a nation and sees itself as a democracy want to be governed by a doctor mitt the documents so difficult to change . Those who wrote the constitution do that there would be tremendous temptation is to compromise the precious values they do from World History that a crisis is the time to centralize power so they wanted to put a separation of powers into the document that in times of crisis there would be a of prescience a one hour most precious values in the document so in this sense it is the elaborate edifice to make sure the shortterm passions dont lose sight of longterm values. What is the purpose of the Supreme Court and the constitutional system part. To enforce the constitution also to ensure uniformity of federal law but i think the preeminent purpose is to enforce the constitution. The question i asked in the book all of you is how has the Supreme Court done over the course of American History to enforce the constitution . Host the most important constitutional issue writeup until the civil war was slavery. How would you grade that handling of that . America is it possible to give the f dash f. [laughter] until the 13th amendment that was ratified to abolish slavery not a single Supreme Court case expanded the rights of slaves every Supreme Court decision progressively and forced the institution of slavery and protected the rights of slaveholders. I dont believe on its own it could have eliminated slavery but it could help to chip away and it did not have to with dread scott purses sanford to say that slaves our property and that is born in the United States are not citizens. Dread scott was a slave who was taken from the state of missouri he brought a lawsuit in federal court been taken to a slave state to a free state was made a free person. The Supreme Court have ruled against them but instead said the matter where they are born our property but not citizens so they cannot sue the allows citizens of one state for the citizens of another but then they went further to say the missouri compromise was unconstitutional this was the key compromise that dealt with with the Louisiana Purchase specifying which states could be slave states or free states and the Supreme Court said the missouri compromise had the effect to take the slaves away from slave owners and violated the constitution and helped to precipitate the civil war. After birds congress adopted in the states ratified 13, 14 and 15th amendments. Guest those amendments radically changed the nature of society, government. The 13th amendment prohibited involuntary servitude also with laws to enforce it. The 14th amendment begins by overturning dread scott verses samper that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are United States citizens and. Also says the state deprives life liberty or property without due process and it can deny any person a coproduction and this is the first time the constitution would ever directly implied state and local governments than the 15th amendment adopted 1870s says the right to vote cannot be denied on race or previous condition of servitude. Host how would you grade the Supreme Court early interpretations without a mandatory curve . [laughter] guest i would give f or f. Why . Unless you are lawyers she probably never heard of there first Supreme Court case ever interpret the amendments 1870s three called the slaughterhouse cases. Louisiana adopted a law to give a monopoly to a slaughterhouse to the louisiana legislature. Some butchers who did not want to workfare brought the challenge in the Supreme Court rejected the challenge and in doing so narrowly interpreted every provision of the amendment and for example, the Supreme Court said the equal protection clause could be used only to protect African Americans from discrimination. But that is not what it says this is no person but because of that case not and tell 1971 the Supreme Court found anything other than racist to violate the constitution . Then for the first time when sex discrimination was unconstitutional with disabled opinion of the slaughterhouse cases the Supreme Court effectively had a provision wrote that out of the constitution when provisional mention no state can deprive any citizen of the privileges or immunities of United States citizenship to make sure states could not deprive people of their most fundamental rights. But the Supreme Court said federal courts cannot use the privilege immunities clause for state and local laws deemed unconstitutional it was five years old plan and the constitution the Supreme Court said no. Since the slaughterhouse cases there is a new one Supreme Court decision that has not been ever ruled that uses that privileges and immunities clause so what they did was projected a few years later that is rarely get to 1896 with plessey verses ferguson the Supreme Court held a separate but equal as constitutional that the law requires racial separation is permissible because of that jimcrow covered every aspect of southern life to imposing apartheid to so much of the United States. Host another charge is one that has failed with a crisis. Where some of the of worst decisions that took place . Why have a constitution . To make sure in a time of crisis of shortterm passionist to not lose sight of longterm values. One example the worst Supreme Court cases in American History of 1944. During world war ii 110,000 japanese americans aliens and citizens and 70 thousands were routed from their homes and placed what roosevelt called concentration camps. Race alone was used to determine who would be free and who would be incarcerated. Of japanese families were housed literally in horse stalls they should have been an easy case for the Supreme Court. Grace alone should never be used to determine who is free or incarcerated it never can be used to determine who is a danger. Nonetheless the Supreme Court in the six three decision upheld that decision of japanese americans justice black wrote the opinion for the court and he said war is about our chip this is just a hardship that japanese americans have to bear. Given the book you said dissent of the case as a rough paraphrase of editing is fundamental to our system is the idea that gilts is personal rather than inherited. The later jackson rates mcadoo not suggesting should interference the army to carry out the task is the people ever let command fall into unscrupulous hands the courts wielded no power equal to its restraint. Was there anything the Supreme Court could have realistically done to stop the internment of japaneseamericans . Guest it is decided 1844. At this point the tide had turned no longer fear of a Japanese Invasion on the west coast for glenn not saying that is justified but i think it would have been so easy for the Supreme Court to say that this was unconstitutional. Remember Robert Jackson was attorneygeneral of the United States under Franklin Roosevelt and even he said it was unconstitutional and what particular a troubles him is the decision for the space like of loaded gun to be used for the government and the future to take away liberties in wartime and i think that is what we have seen since september 11. Host another dark chapter in the Supreme Court history as you tell if it was the first 35 years of the 20th century period that professor is often called the of what in our era. How did the court golan . From the late 19th century the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional over 200 federal, state, and local laws that were designed to protect workers and consumers. Congress passed a law that prohibited the shipment of goods made by child labor. It wasnt even that protected it prohibited children under 14 from being used and for children over 14 they could not work more than 10 hours a day or 60 a Week Congress did not prohibit child labor but just said if they are used the goods cannot be shipped with interstate commerce clearly timed its authority to article one among the states. Nevertheless it was declared is unconstitutional and said that congress could not regulate commerce in this way. How many children were maimed or injured or even died as a result . This is an example when states tries to get minimumwage or the maximum our laws were declared unconstitutional. And congress tried to protect consumers it was declared unconstitutional when congress tried to regulate Agricultural Farm subsidies it was declared unconstitutional. It is like president franklin proposed to the Court Packing up for a long period of time 1895 through 1936 the Supreme Court designed all of these as unconstitutional. So i the failures seemed to consist of failing to protect minorities against oppression by popular majorities but it seems to be the opposite the Supreme Court for its though will of the democratic majorities that in each of these laws were supported protecting consumers or children subjected to horrible working conditions. When should the court stand up to popular majorities or when shouldnt step back and differ . Guest that is the basic question of did a constitutional law thinking about the constitution. When do we want the court to defer to the political process or stop the process . That is the key difference between liberals and conservatives. To examples. Their recent. Tuesday june 25th, 2013 the Supreme Court to five four declared unconstitutional a key provision of the Voting Rights act of 1965. The five conservative justices wrote the majority the liberals resented it is a provision that in 2006 congress extended 25 years almost unanimously 98 o was only 303 no votes in the house. It is hard to imagine this congress being so close to unanimous but yet the five justices declared unconstitutional the critical provision to usurp the states rights of congresss power. The liberal justices said deferred to congress his judgment it is unnecessary for Voting Rights. The next day june 26, 2013 the Supreme Court five four declared unconstitutional Section Three of the defense of marriage act federal law marriage had to be between a man and woman. The liberal justices plus Justice Kennedy the four conservative justices dissented say we need to defer to congress. [laughter] it cuts both ways isnt it interesting on tuesday it is the conservatives and we will not differ to congress on wednesday the liberals want to defer to congress only kennedy was the majority in both cases. Both liberals and conservatives want to differ and sometimes dont so of the agreement should be when. I think the constitution exists to protect fundamental rights in times of crisis you cannot leave the protection of the minority to a the majority. I think it has a very special role to enforce the constitution for minorities that cannot use the process to protect fundamental rights. In other areas we should give a great deal of deference to the political process to democracy. Host you talk about the Roberts Court. What is his background and his contribution in his role as chief justice . Guest he grew of request indiana his father was an executive in the Steel Company and he grew up in a privileged family. He went to Harvard College and Harvard Law School and was a clerk for a judge all United States court of appeals said can circuit than a clerk for chief justice rehnquist. Then he went to work for the Reagan Administration the office of Legal Counsel in white House Counsel then went to work at a law firm in washington specializing in representing business interests before the