tv John Mc Cain Newt Gingrich and Nikki Haley Speak at Kemp Leadership Award... CSPAN December 22, 2016 4:32pm-5:08pm EST
and i think that that -- the centers weren't able to the figure that out. that is not i think what we should have been doing. we should have been standing with the house to try to reign in the president i think is how it was originally designed. >> i would add that i think -- i'm a manasonian scholar. the state of the union that desantis was talking about i was in disbelief as the president stood up and said because you have not carried out my reforms, i decided to circumvent you and make you a nonentity. and he got applause from half the chamber. i think madison truly believed that constitutional interests are overcome political alliances in that accepts. i had be honored in the house of represents in the lawsuit.
and i have to say i was surprised to see the level of democratic opposition. fighting over the power of the purse. the defining power of congress. and so there is a strange thing going on i think madison did not anticipate with regard to who the members are and how they changed. i think that is different. i was a 14-year-old page. there were people there, giants who fought for the constitution. not just byrd, moynahan. they put away their alliances and fought for the institutional integrity of the chambers. that's what's missing often today. >> i guarantee you democrats will be much more receptive. it is important how republicans are going to respond, if similar actions are taken. the politically easy thing is
just to fall behind. i think that it will be interesting to see how it shakes out. >> i'm so encouraged to hear the comments about reclaiming the lost power of the legislative branch in this country. i talk about the dozens of lawsuits we filed. it was the cause we were forced to follow those lawsuits baits was very clear that the executive branch had overstepped his authority. he said i literally have a pen and a phone and i'm going to do what i want to do and he's being applauded by congress, it's really disturbing. if you don't get anything accomplished the negatives two years, we are looking for a candidate in florida for ag. you'll enjoy that job. >> i think part of it was political. some people were shocked.
who ends up president? donald trump. many of them are concerned about. never invest power into a person you would not be comfortable if your greatest enemy exercised that power. >> professor turley warned liberals before a house compete that if you don't stop this president you're going to get a republican in here one day who is going to do the same thing. [ applause ]. >> thank you, your honor i want to reassure professor baker that idaho loves the electoral college. we don't want to give it up. with a million and a half citizens we have a problem with overregulation. we have 722 sets of regulations in idaho. that's pretty much strangling us. so without the senate oral check
and given chaha, which the case got rid of the legislative veto for a unicameral action idaho just passed to have a bicameral veto. is the legislative veto viable at the federal level on a bicameral basis? is and i'm wondering what professor baker and ropblg roger have to say about that. >> you want two houses? >> i would love to have it myself. get rid of the executive prafbr. >> here's the problem. they see a particular problem. and they look only at that problem. they come up with a solution without thinking of the consequences of the new problems they create you have to look at
the whole body together and figure out what you're doing. remember the 17th amendment was passed with virtually no opposition by populists on the right and the left except the populists on the left knew what they were doing. they were out to destroy separation of powers. nobody made the arguments, structural arguments. they made the same arguments that are today the being made for term limiting members of congress. okay. they thought it would bring senators closer to the people. nothing could be further from the truth. so you have to know something about the constitution before you keep changing things in it. it's a matter of looking at what worked and why it will work. or to borrow a phrase, what really did make us a great country. >> (inaudible). -- passed in 1913 at the height
of the progressive era were the key to understanding -- however, neither of those amendments expanded the power of congress. congress did have a bit more power afterward when it had before except as a practical matter, a political matter that is to say now you've got political forces calling for the demise. but it fell to the court in 1937 to expunge, to eviscerate that doctrine. >> right. but they never would have done it if senators were still protecting states because they wouldn't have put up with it. >> (inaudible). >> no. but it changes the dynamic of power. what the federalist explain is is human nature and what motivates people. today we think policy. wait a minute. policies are executed by human
beings. what are their motives? >> take another question. >> i used to be the chief of federal litigation for miami-dade county. i'm now city attorney. ? >> what's your name? >> craig lean. one issue i see related to federalism and what justice scalia thought about it, hunter v. city of pittsburgh in the 1900s. what's occurred to me in many of my students when i teach them about state and local deposit laws, the federal government exercises a lot of authority over counties and cities. both through 42 u is s c-section 1983ing through a number of other acts and statutes and through the administrative agencies. which i'm not making aoe normative judgment on that but i find it interesting. if the federal government really is the one regulating city
police departments or county police departments, not the state, do you really have federalism? >> federalism cuts both ways. the states have the balance of power. it's rather that the civil war amendments change that arrangement finished mentally. now you've got federal power essentially to negate state actions that are in violation of their own citizens. that's altogether different from federal power to obama care and whatnot. it is federal power to gate states that are running amok. that's the aside that so many conservatives find uncomfortable
because they think of it as empowering the court to find unenumerated rights. i argued, no, it empowers the court to tell the state what right is this police power protecting? and when you look at everything from locker in, nebraska, griswold, lawrence, you find thatñr these are essentially morals argument not defense of rights of individuals. >> justin pierson. >> could you speak a little closer to the microphone so we can hear you better. >> i'm an attorney at the institute for justice. i want to preface this by saying i really appreciate the duty of elected officials to not support
unconstitutional legislation. my question to you is whether you think that is mutually exclusive to use the constitution to serve as an addition additionalen roachments when they failed to fulfill that duty. >> i think justice scalia would say this. this idea of judicial review is -- this is a lawyer's job. you have a constitutional text. you have a statutory text. if they're harmonious, then fine. this is something these cases are brought to them. they can't do it. they can't go beyond that the case is.
if you believe it is not constitutional, that the court got it wrong, to me i still think you have a duty to vote against the statute. you won't be criticized on that. but courts don't always get it right. we have to render our own judgment. it doesn't mean you don't follow court decisions. but at the same time we're not under any obligation to vote for statutes we honestly don't believe are constitutional. >> i would just add a lot of times people don't realize you can have two separate viewpoints between the congress and the court. that is when the court rules on something as to whether it is necessary and proper, they are ruling as to whether the congress could find this necessary and proper. it doesn't mean as a member of congress that you have to say it's necessary and proper. and that is a constitutional issue. >> next question. >> sure.
>> ramon buehler. 25 years we thought congress could fix everything. i would be interested in the opinion of the panel about an effort that's now going on coming up from the states. there are 900 state legislatures. there's lenk wapbanguage in the republican platform. it would require that congress approve major new federal regulations. and the idea is that in the same way that states were able to force congress to propose the bill of rights without a convention and more recently the 17th amendment and the presidential term limits, pressure from the states could persuade congress to do what is in its own interests. the article 1 power that has been stolen. your thoughts on the strategy?
>> yeah. i'm generally against amending issues like the reigns act. i think that it's important to use the constitution for stuff we cannot achieve legislatively. i asked congress to bring up the rains act. it is is a useful tool to get congress back in the business of governing. congress is actually governing when most 99% of the agency decisions are not being reviewed. they're being increasingly done independently. that is a serious danger for a democratic system. more and more of our decisions are being decided by this insulated group of agency officials. the public has no interaction with him is and doesn't even know who they are. even trivial things like some unknown office that the redskins can't use the red skips's name.
this is no raging debate. i'm a bears fan. but the fact is you have this unknown office say, all right, we're going to settle the question. you don't have trademark protection, you can't use that name. it is example of the 4th branch. largely that's insulated from congress. congress doesn't have the ability, the staff to seriously look at agencies. it would change if we had the rains app. you just pass the app rather than amend the constitution. >> i would suggest we use four words, and we mean it. >> next question. >> warren belmar, i'm a recovering attorney. one question. is there any vitality left to check the poultry and why not. >> according to justice scalia, there wasn't. it was -- >> is there any vitality to
check the poultry. >> he used to say that was the only case in which they ever applied that and that wouldn't be applied again. then he started rethinking chevron. >> the only limit we had o'dell gas stations have brought general authority to the executive branch. something that might still have some vitality. >> okay. let me read this first. so buses to the gaylord or for the annual dinner can be boarded on the desale streetside of the hotel you can access desale street by exiting at the door to the outside near the gift shop. please ask a staff member. they can direct you. buses will leave from now until 6:00 p.m. for the return trip, bus will depart at the conclusion of the dinner. and then every half hour with the last bus loading at 11:30 p.m.
tonight on american history tv, art and american history, including paintings of 19th century washington, d.c. artists depictions of the revolutionary war and george washington. also a tour of the andy warhol museum and the lives and works of russell and ga pa o'keefe. american history tv 8:00 eastern on c-span3. . this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday afternoon just before 5:00 eastern, architectural historian barry lewis talks about construction of the brooklyn bridge, why manhattan needed the bridge, and how transportation in the city changed at the turn of the 20th century. >> when the brooklyn bridge was open, it did not put the ferries out of business. the ferries were still running at capacity. by the mid 1890s, the city of
brooklyn had reached 1 million people. >> then at 8:00 on lectures in history. >> and that's the real sort of interesting thing about country music is that it's the music of poor, privileged to be white and i'll talk about that in a second, but also, people who are under privileged in terms of their class identity and economic opportunities. >> dickenson, colonial american, origins of country music. then sunday afternoon at 4:00, real american. >> budget cutbacks and tangle of state and local administrative problems on a new year's hori n horizon, crusade against the greatest enemies may be slowed, or worst, may level off and fade. this was the climate, the land and the unfinished task that faced lyndon johnson on the
first of december, 1966. >> the film the president december 1966, documents the final month of the year of president lyndon b. johnson, his meeting with mexico's president at a cooperative dam project, awarding the medal of honor, and celebrating the holidays. on the presidency, william, madam president, edith wilson was president woodrow wilson's second wife and she buffered access to the president, as he recovered from a massive stroke in 1991. for our complete american history tv schedule, go to c-sp c-span.org. next week, washington journal will devote the entire program to the key issues facing the new trump administration and congress, beginning monday, december 26th, we'll look at national security and defense issues, including challenges facing president-elect trump's
security team in the year ahead and a closure look at the career of secretary of defense nominee, james mattis. then on december 27th, trade and jobs issue, how congress and the trump administration could change current trade laws to create or save jobs. on wednesday, december 28th, issue topic is energy and environmental policy, discuss how energy and climate issues might be impacted by the new congregation and incoming trump administration. december 29th, we'll talk about immigration and president-elect trump and new congress might change immigration policy. on friday, december 30th, we'll look at the future of the affordable care act and how the republican congress and trump administration will repeal and replace the aca, and the key players to watch in the months ahead. be sure to wash washington journal, 7:00 eastern. senator john mccain and former house speaker, newt
gingrich on defense issues and u.s. foreign policy. they were part of a dinner honoring south carolina governor and incoming u.s. ambassador, so recognizing this 75th anniversary, and please, you can eat your salads and get started. but we thought it would be appropriate on this 75th anniversary to take some time to reflect on america leadership in the world. as a new congress and new president, prepared to take office. so we've invited two very special guests, one of whom i've mentioned already. who have been at the forefront of ideas, ideas that focus on what it means for america to lead, what it means for america to be exceptional.
and they themselves have been extraordinarily leaders, and continue to be, and we would like them to share their thoughts on the challenges that lie ahead. while you eat your salads, i would like to welcome to the stage, three wonderful friends of the kemp family. and i would like to start with senator john mccain, who as you know, graduate frommed the united states naval academy, republican nominee for president in 2008, and as of three weeks ago, the proud new grandfather of john mccain, v. please welcome, senator john mccain. [ applause ] >> and then next, when i was, let's see, i think was 22 years old. that was 1994, yeah.
it was 1994. and those of you who remember political history remember what happened that year. how long had it been since the republicans had the house? 40 years. it was 40 years, and the republicans came to the majority in the house, and speaker newt gingrich let me, a little punk 22-year-old come follow him around for a day, and that made an incredible impression on me, because he -- the first thing he did was take care of himself. he swam, and then met me at the office at 7:30. newt is -- we really appreciate you being here and interested in what you have to say. especially this time, please welcome newt gingrich. [ applause ] >> and then to moderate this
conversation, it gives me a really great enjoyment to have michelle van cleave, who has been with me since i started the kemp foundation in 2009, shortly after dad passed away, michelle is a national security expert. she is the head of counter intelligence for president w. bush. she was my dad's foreign policy advisor, and national security advisor. michelle is incredibly talented, and i really can't think of anybody better than michelle to guide us in this discussion, and i'm thrilled that you all get the opportunity to hear her. so please welcome, michelle van cleave. [ applause ] >> are these microphones work
sin -- working? i have to tell you that ahead of time, i spoke to senator mccain. i said i'm looking forward to this conversation. he said it will be lively. and i spoke to the speaker, and he said, well, it will be amusing. we'll see if they live up to this billing. you know, coming out of world war ii, starting there, america understood its role to be that of leader of the free world and we had a purposeful national security strategy to that end embodied in nsc 68 and it charted a central role for advancing freedom throughout the world and ever since the call for american leadership has been echoed on both sides of the aisle, from our leaders. however, what constitutes american leadership has often been a matter of dispute. so in particular where to draw
the line between advancing our values and principles and advancing what is seen as national interest has been a long-standing debate in foreign policy circles. certainly presidents clinton and bush both argued that spreading american values itself was essential to our interests. and i think one would search in vain by any statements by president barack obama to the contrary. so there was a growing belief in many quarters that trying to promote and advance our values may not be worth the cost in all cases, to advance democracy. it may not be worth the cost in all cases. so where do you come down on that issue? senator, please. >> first of all, i would like to say thank you. i would like to thank the kemp foundation and kemp family and
congratulations to nikki haley for the singular honor and her new position and a very nice suite in the waldorf-astoria in manhattan. by the way, for some reason i was reminded of the story of the two inmates in the chow line in the state prison, one turned to the other and said "the food was a lot better in here when you were governor." [ laughter ] you can't tell that joke in illinois to anybody. [ laughter ] yesterday i saw the president of the united states give one of the most delusional statements i've ever heard in my many years associated with national security. basically not only denying the failures of the last eight years, but extolling the
failures. my friends, look at a map of the world in 2009, look at a map of the world today. you will see al qaeda, you will see bloodshed, you will see millions of refugees, you will see tensions, you will see a total lack of belief and confidence in the united states of america. i would argue this president probably has the greatest challenge since the beginning, since december 8, 1941 when by the way at the wonderful service today down at the memorial they quoted franklin roosevelt and his statement on the eighth. but, look, what the last eight years have proven is that without american leadership things go bad. when you lead from behind, somebody else tries to lead from the front.
now we're looking at -- there was a person back in the roman times, who was an opponent of the romans, who said "they made a desert and called it peace." in aleppo as we speak, my dear friends, they're making a desert and sooner or later the russians and bashar al assad and the iranians and the iranian revolutionary guard, hezbollah, will stop after they've slaughtered five, 10, 20,000 more people and that's the tragedy of all this. finally there was a time when mussolini invaded ethiopia and nobody cared. there was a time when the spanish civil war thanks to hitler and mussolini they
installed a fascist government and nobody cared and then there czechoslovakia, where they uttered the words, we won't send our young men to a place they speak a language we don't know. this president will have the biggest challenges in the last 70 years and so far i think you would agree -- and i'll pass off to him -- i'm very pleased with the national security team he seems to be assembling. [ applause ] >> mr. speaker? >> well, let me say first i can't come to the kemp foundation without not only recognizing joanne and the family but also i think that the appointment of the nomination of dr. ben carson may give us the greatest opportunity since jack kemp to really make a breakthrough in trying to help
inner city americans and i think he will do so by standing on jack's shoulders. [ applause ] i can't imagine a better -- thinking about its opportunities to provide unique help to millions of americans who really need to break out of the cultural and bureaucratic prisons that they're trapped in. i think the question is important, and i'm probably to some extent a hertic on this topic. first of all, even during world war ii, when we were far and away the most powerful country in the world by the end of the war, we were about 50% of the world's gdp in 1946, because everybody bombed each other. we were the only play had not found and bombed. and even then we recognized very severe limitations on power. so we didn't try to take out
franco in spain. we didn't try to deal with a wide range -- we were very cautious about the soviets. not that they represented american values but that we were advocating a way of life, we were prepared to defend it, frankly, with far more sophistication than anything you could get away with today. if you tried to influence the french and italian elections the way we did in the late 1940s it would be utterly hopeless. it would be in the "washington post" and the "new york times" and wikileaks and there would be congressional hearings and 600 lawyers would point out it was illegal, unconstitutional, whatever. but we back then did a lot of things in a lot of ways but we had a very real sense of our own limitations. there are parts of the worlds that are hard. i would suggest if you have
4,000 people killed in the south side of chicago in the last year, that is a hard problem. so before we get too certain about the things we're going to project, i think come out of a very old-fashioned conservative view, that you out to be cautious about what you do. the thing that is infuriating about obama is that they were quite cheerful about disrupting everything without putting anything in its place. and i think it's very important to understand that. if you're going to undertake a project you need to make sure you're capable of getting it done. their whole notion in the middle east for example has led to a level of chaos, whether it is syria, libya, yemen, syria, iraq. it is as ston nished the united states that the united states
could have been as feclessly led as it has been by barack obama, and that he and his team could be as out of the touch with reality as they are. so my first advice to the new president is be cautious about what you think you know and, frankly, one of the reasons the senator has been very generous in allowing me to work on some things and jim mattis was part of that project, i can't imagine a more cautious, sophisticated person than jen rgeneral mattis. he understands the region and the limitations of american power and he understands that so to go back to reagan for just one second, reagan had a clear sense of hierarchy. one of the reasons he didn't get deeply involved in taking on the iranians even though they were behind the bombing of american marines in lebanon was that wasn't his goal.
he had one major foreign policy goal. the defeat of the soviet union. he stayed focused and of course in 1991, the soviet union disappeared. we have to -- we desperately need to really re-think our strategies in the world. and we under estimate how hard it is. just run the list. north korea, china, russia, pakistan, iran, and islamic supremacis supremacists. those six problems, any one of them is hard. and the new president is going to face all six simultaneously, and that's a very daunting challenge for us as a country. >> mr. speaker, if i may pick up on something you said a moment ago, soviet union dissolved 25 years ago this month, and it is inspiring to me we are sitting here in this hall, because this hall, in 1949, is where