To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

2012 United States House of Representatives election in Wyoming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2012 United States House of Representatives election in Wyoming's at-large district

← 2010 November 6, 2012 2014 →
 
Nominee Cynthia Lummis Chris Henrichsen
Party Republican Democratic
Popular vote 166,452 57,573
Percentage 68.9% 23.8%

County results

Lummis:      50-60%      60-70%      70-80%      80-90%

Henrichsen:      40–50%

U.S. Representative before election

Cynthia Lummis
Republican

Elected U.S. Representative

Cynthia Lummis
Republican

The 2012 United States House of Representatives election in Wyoming was held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, and re-elected Cynthia Lummis as the U.S. representative from the state's at-large congressional district. The election coincided with the elections of other federal and state offices, including a quadrennial presidential election and an election to the U.S. Senate. A primary election was held on August 21, 2012.[1]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/4
    Views:
    776
    1 266 206
    1 816 254
    770 575
  • Constitution Panel 2012
  • Congressional Elections: Crash Course Government and Politics #6
  • Why North Dakota Wasn't Technically a State Until 2012
  • Political Campaigns: Crash Course Government and Politics #39

Transcription

>> WELL, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME YOU ALL FOR COMING TO CELEBRATE THE CONSTITUTION DAY THAT GRCC, UM... IS DOING THEIR ANNUAL PANEL, WHERE WE DISCUSS THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS RELEVANCE TO TOPICS THAT ARE GOING ON NOW, AND NONE BETTER THAN DURING A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR, I'M SURE. MY NAME IS KEITH ST. CLAIR-- I'M A PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GRCC, AS ARE MY COLLEAGUES HERE. HEATHER FORREST, IMMEDIATELY TO MY RIGHT... UH, YAN BAI, AND THEN GORDAN VURUSIC. AND, UM... AS THE FULL-TIME POLITICAL SCIENCE STAFF, WE'RE-- UM, FACULTY, WE'RE CERTAINLY PLEASED TO BE HERE AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE MANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE FOR THE PANEL. WE'D LIKE TO START OFF WITH MAYBE A FEW OPENING COMMENTS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, AND THEN, GET RIGHT TO THE Q&A, IF POSSIBLE. AND I, WITH THE MICROPHONE, WILL COME AROUND TO YOU, IF YOU HOLD UP YOUR HAND, SO THAT YOU CAN BE HEARD ON THE RECORDING THAT WE'RE DOING TODAY, WHICH SHOULD AIR, ALSO, ON-- NOT ONLY ON GRCC CABLE ACCESS CHANNEL, BUT ALSO PERHAPS ON YOUTUBE, AS SO MUCH OF PROGRAM DOES-- PROGRAMMING. UH, YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED COPIES OF THE CONSTITUTION. THESE WERE PASSED OUT. IF YOU HAVEN'T RECEIVED ONE YET, PERHAPS HOLD UP YOUR HAND AND ERIC MULLEN, THERE IN THE AUDIENCE, CAN GET ONE TO YOU, IF HE HAS 'EM. AND, UM... AND WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO-- WE'LL START WITH HEATHER, WHO'S CLOSEST TO ME-- UM, YOUR COMMENTS ON THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE WE GET STARTED WITH THE Q&A. >> WELL, THIS IS A VERY BROAD THING TO ASK-- ABOUT THE RELEVANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION. I AM, UM... SOMEBODY WHO STUDIES THE JUDICIARY VERY CLOSELY, SO IT KINDA PAINS ME TO TAKE THE POSITION THAT I DON'T THINK THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS ALL THAT RELEVANT TODAY. UM... I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT REALLY BINDS US IN THE WAY THAT THE FRAMERS HAD INTENDED. I BELIEVE THAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED A MUCH MORE LIMITED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WITH A LOT MORE POWER TO THE STATES, QUITE HONESTLY BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY COULD GET THE CONSTITUTION RATIFIED BY THE INDIVIDUAL COLONIES. BUT, UM... EVEN WHEN IT COMES TO RESTRICTIONS OF RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS, UM, POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT, POWERS OF THE COURT, THE RELATIVELY, UH-- RELATIVE LACK OF POWER THAT CONGRESS ACTUALLY HAS, I DON'T THINK THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS ALL THAT... UH, RESTRICTIVE ON WHAT WE DO TODAY. I MEAN, CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO DECLARE WAR. WE'VE ONLY DECLARED WAR FIVE TIMES IN HISTORY, AND THE LAST TIME, DURING WORLD WAR II-- AND LOOK AT HOW MANY TIMES THE PRESIDENT HAS DEPLOYED TROOPS OVERSEAS. UM... WHEN IT COMES TO FOREIGN POLICY, PRESIDENT IS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF-- HE ENDS UP MAKING A LOT OF DEALS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS THAT, UM... MOST AMERICANS WILL OBVIOUSLY NEVER HEAR ABOUT, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY WHAT THE FRAMERS HAD INTENDED. ALTHOUGH, THE FLIP-ARGUMENT COULD BE, "DO WE REALLY WANT WHAT THE FRAMERS HAD INTENDED, "GIVEN THAT THEY WERE 55 RICH, WHITE MALES WHO OWNED A LOT OF LAND?" WERE RELATIVELY, UM, HYPOCRITICAL, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY. AND, UH... OH, YEAH, I WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE IF THEY WERE STILL... IF THEIR OPINIONS WERE STILL BINDING. I COULDN'T VOTE, I COULDN'T ENTER INTO A CONTRACT. UM, SO I'M KINDA-- >> YOU MEAN, AS A WOMAN? >> YEAH, PRETTY MUCH. >> JUST TO CLARIFY FOR THEM. >> YEAH, SO YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'M JUST NOT AS DISAPPOINTED TO NOT SEE THEIR IDEA OF WHAT OUR COUNTRY SHOULD BE LIKE REALLY COME TO FRUITION, 220, 230 YEARS LATER. SO, IS THE CONSTITUTION STILL RELEVANT TODAY? MEH. LITTLE BIT-- BUT NOT NEARLY AS MUCH AS THEY WOULD HAVE HOPED. SO... >> YAN, DO YOU HAVE A FEW COMMENTS BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP? >> (with accent) I THINK, IN GENERAL, THE CONSTITUTION IS STILL RELEVANT. UM, BUT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS KIND OF LOSING ITS APPEAL IN THE WORLD. JUST A FEW YEARS AGO-- MAYBE TEN YEARS AGO, I SHOULD SAY-- THERE WERE, LIKE, 170 COUNTRIES WHO TRIED TO EMULATE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, BUT TODAY, THE NUMBER IS IN DECLINE. MORE AND MORE COUNTRIES HAVE TRIED TO COPY OTHER COUNTRIES' CONSTITUTIONS, LIKE (indistinct), CHARTERS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, EVEN OUR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE GINSBURG WHO VISITED SOUTH AFRICA A FEW YEARS AGO-- SHE EVEN SAID THAT "IF I WAS A NEW COUNTRY, "I WOULD COPY THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH AFRICA." AND THAT'S A REMARK MADE BY OUR JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT. SO, THE QUESTION IS, IS OUR CONSTITUTION REALLY LOSING ITS APPEAL? I THINK, IN A SENSE, IT IS. OUR CONSTITUTION IS KINDA OLD... YOU KNOW, 250 YEARS OLD. YOU KNOW, 255, ACTUALLY. UM, AND ALSO, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO AMEND. IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO CHANGE. SO, IT IS OLD. ALSO, IT IS DIFFICULT TO AMEND. YOU KNOW, THE FRAMERS INTENDED THAT THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE CHANGED ACCORDING TO THE TIMES. BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY WANTED THE CONSTITUTION NOT TO BE SO EASILY AMENDED. WE MUST HAVE THE SUPERMAJORITY, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, TWO-THIRDS TO PROPOSE AND THREE-FOURTHS TO RATIFY. THAT IS VERY DIFFICULT... AND THAT'S WHY WE ONLY HAVE 27 AMENDMENTS... AS COMPARED TO, YOU KNOW, STATE CONSTITUTIONS-- USUALLY THEY HAVE, LIKE, MAYBE HUNDREDS. LIKE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION. IT HAS BEEN AMENDED FOR JUST SO MANY (indistinct). SO, AMERICAN CONSTITUTION IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO CHANGE. SO, THE QUESTION IS HOW CAN WE KEEP UP WITH THE TIMES? AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SO MANY PROBLEMS WE... WE FACE TODAY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE-- SHOULD THAT BE ABOLISHED? >> (whispering) NO! >> YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING. AND ALSO, SHOULD THERE BE, LIKE, TERM LIMITS FOR THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES? >> (whispering) NO! >> SO, YOU KNOW-- AND ALSO, SHOULD WE ENLARGE AS A CONGRESS TO CATER FOR MORE REPRESENTATION? I MEAN, ORIGINALLY, THE CONSTITUTION SAYS, YOU KNOW, "THE HOUSE OF CONGRESS SHOULD BE ONE FOR 30,000." IF WE GO BY THIS RATIO, WE SHOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, 1,000 MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE OF CONGRESS, BUT WE HAVE ONLY 435. SO, IT'S LIKE ONE TO 650,000. HOW CAN ONE PERSON REPRESENT SO MANY COUNTRY IN HIS OR HER DISTRICT? YOU KNOW, THE RESOURCE IS TOO LARGE. SO, SHOULD THAT BE CHANGED? AND ALSO, HOW DO WE CHANGE? SHOULD WE GO ABOUT WITH HOLDING A NATIONAL CONVENTION... RATHER THAN JUST PROPOSING, YOU KNOW, AMENDMENTS IN THE CONGRESS? AND WE HAVE TO GO TO THE NATIONAL CONVENTION. HOW DO WE DO THAT? WE'VE NEVER DONE THAT BEFORE. SO, IF WE HAVE THE NATIONAL CONVENTION TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, WHAT IF THINGS GO OUT OF HAND? CAN WE CONTROL? IF EVERYBODY WANTS TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, THEN THE CONSTITUTION WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EXIST. SO, THERE ARE MANY, MANY QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE TO ANSWER. YES, I DO AGREE OUR CONSTITUTION IS RELEVANT, BUT IT HAS TO BE CHANGED, AND THE PROCESS OF CHANGING THAT SHOULD BE... SHOULD BE SIMPLIFIED. >> OKAY, THANK YOU, YAN. GORDAN, WOULD YOU HAVE ANY OPENING COMMENTS BEFORE WE THROW IT OUT TO Q&A? >> (with accent) SURE-- AS A POLITICAL SCIENTIST, I'M REALLY INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN... THE FEDERAL COURT-- ESPECIALLY THE SUPREME COURT-- POLITICS, AND THE CONSTITUTION. UM, I THINK I'LL EXHAUST MY STUDENTS WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT IS INFLUENCING POLITICS OR NOT-- I ASKED THEM WRITE A PAPER ABOUT IT AND TO THINK ABOUT IT. BUT I THINK IN ORDER TO BASICALLY GIVE THEM AN ANSWER IN ADVANCE, I WOULD SAY, "YES, THE SUPREME COURT AND OTHER FEDERAL COURTS "ARE CLEARLY INFLUENCED BY POLITICS." NOW THE QUESTION IS WHETHER FEDERAL COURTS-- ESPECIALLY SUPREME COURT-- SHOULD BE INFLUENCED BY POLITICS OR NOT. AND MY ANSWER IS, "YES, IT SHOULD." AND MY ANSWER IS NOT, "WELL, SUPREME COURT AND OTHER FEDERAL COURTS "JUST LOOKING AT THE SO-CALLED 'LEGAL' SIDE OF ISSUES, "BUT SHOULD BE INTERESTED IN POLITICS." UM, LET ME EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER, I THINK. THEY HAVE A NUMBER OF RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES THAT DEALT WITH POLITICAL ISSUES, AND... AND FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE CASES IS SO-CALLED "CITIZENS UNITED" CASES. ACCORDING TO THE DECISION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT, THE CORPORATIONS, UNIONS, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS DO HAVE THE POWER, RIGHT, AND ABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE ALMOST UNLIMITED AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO ELECTORAL CAMPAIGNS, RIGHT? ACCORDING TO THAT DECISION, MONEY HAS BECOME A SORT OF SPEECH, RIGHT? SO, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION BASICALLY GIVES THE RIGHTS TO ORGANIZATIONS TO CONTRIBUTE MONEY TO ELECTORAL CAMPAIGNS AND THUS INFLUENCE THESE CAMPAIGNS. WE HAD SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR-- WE HAD A SUPREME COURT DECISION ON "OBAMACARE," RIGHT? THE QUESTION ABOUT "OBAMACARE," WHETHER, UH... THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR CONGRESS IS BASICALLY ALLOWED TO OBLIGE PEOPLE TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE STARTING IN 2014. AND THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IS, "YES," BUT NOT ACCORDING TO SO-CALLED "COMMERCE CLAUSE"-- "COMMERCE CLAUSE" BEING THE SAID POWER IN THE SECTION 8 OF ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH SAYS THAT COMMERCE BETWEEN STATES AND FEDERAL GOVER-- BETWEEN STATES AND FOREIGN NATIONS AND BETWEEN STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES IS REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. BUT THE SUPREME COURT SAYS, "WELL, NOT ACCORDING TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE "'OBAMACARE' CAN STAND, "BUT ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT POWER TO TAX." UH, THEN, WE HAD A DECISION ABOUT-- A RECENT DECISION ABOUT IMMIGRATION LAW IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA, WHERE THE SUPREME COURT BASICALLY KICKED OUT PART OF THE LAW, BUT BASICALLY KEPT PART OF THE LAW INTACT, IN THE SENSE THAT THIS SO-CALLED "SHOW ME YOUR PAPER" PROVISION, IN WHICH THE STATE POLICE IS BASICALLY ALLOWED TO ASK THE PEOPLE WHOM THEY SUSPECT TO BE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, TO ASK THEM FOR PAPERS, RIGHT? SO, THESE PARTICULAR DECISIONS WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE, I THINK, IF THE SUPREME COURT WERE JUST LOOKING AT THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF AND THE RULE OF LAW. I THINK THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE SOME KIND OF POLITICAL CONSCIENCE IN MIND WHEN THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT THEIR DECISION. FOR EXAMPLE, IN "ROE VERSUS WADE"-- IN "ROE VERSUS WADE," THEY DECIDED THAT WOMEN DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE ABORTION IN THE FIRST TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY, BASED ON SO-CALLED "THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY," BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE SUPREME COURT ALLOWED THE STATES THEMSELVES TO WRITE RULES THAT COULD RESTRICT THIS RIGHT TO ABORTION. SO, HOW COME THAT-- SO, HOW COME THAT WOMEN DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN FEDERAL LAWS BUT DO NOT HAVE COMPLETE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE CONTEXT OF STATE? SO, I THINK THERE IS SOME KIND-- UH, WHEN I SAY THAT SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE A POLITICAL VIEW OF THINGS, I MEAN A POLITICAL VIEW IN THE SENSE OF UNDERSTANDING POLITICS AS ANCIENT GREEKS UNDERSTOOD POLITICS, AND ANCIENT GREEKS UNDERSTOOD POLITICS AS WHAT THEY CALLED THE "SUMMUM BONUM," AS THEY CALLED IT-- "THE HIGHER GOOD." EVERY PERSON OR EVERY MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY SHOULD BASICALLY BE CONCERNED ABOUT CONTRIBUTING TO THE WELL-BEING OF THE COMMUNITY. LEADERS, ACCORDING TO PLATO, SHOULD BE INTERESTED MORE IN THE WELL-BEING OF THE COMMUNITY, RATHER THAN IN THE WELL-BEING OF THEMSELVES AS LEADERS, RIGHT? SO, I DON'T THINK THAT SUPREME COURT SHOULD BE CRITICIZED FOR THE INFLUENCE OF POLITICS, BUT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED THAT POLITICS IS NECESSARY IF ONE UNDERSTANDS IT IN THE SENSE OF CREATING, PERHAPS, SOME "HIGHER GOOD" IN THE SOCIETY. OF COURSE, THE PROBLEM IS ALWAYS HOW TO DEFINE "HIGHER GOOD" AND WHOSE "HIGHER GOOD" IT IS AND... AND WHETHER PEOPLE CAN REALLY BE INTERESTED-- OR MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT COULD BE INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING POLITICS AS A CONTRIBUTION OF THE "HIGHER GOOD." BUT PERHAPS THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT DURING THE DISCUSSION. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, OUR PANELISTS POINTED OUT SEVERAL GOOD IDEAS. I MEAN, HEATHER TALKED ABOUT PERHAPS THE CONSTITUTION ISN'T AS RELEVANT AS IT USED TO BE. I CERTAINLY CAN APPRECIATE, IN SOME RESPECTS, THAT THAT'S TRUE. CERTAINLY CIVIL LIBERTIES COMES TO MIND. THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES CONTINUES TO DETENTION-- INDEFINITE DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL, UH, IN THE FACILITY KNOWN AS GUANTANAMO BAY, UM... DEPRIVING PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, FRUSTRATING THEIR APPEALS FOR HABEAS CORPUS. UM... THE TARGETED ASSASSINATION OF AMERICAN CITIZENS BY U.S. DRONE ATTACKS, BY PEOPLE WHO ARE ALLEGED TO BE PART OF AL-QAEDA. YET NO TRIAL TO DETERMINE THAT, JUST THE PRESIDENT'S BELIEF THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE PLOTTING AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, ALLOWING THEM TO BE ASSASSINATED... EVEN AN INDIVIDUAL AS RECENTLY AS 16 YEARS OLD, I BELIEVE, IN YEMEN. AND THESE ARE ALARMING THINGS, AND CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO-- AND YET, THEY PERSIST, THEY CONTINUE. SO, I THINK... YEAH, PERHAPS THE CONSTITUTION ISN'T AS RELEVANT AS IT USED TO BE. PROFESSOR YAN BAI TALKED ABOUT HOW THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT EASILY AMENDED, AND YET, PERHAPS IT SHOULD BE AMENDED. HE MENTIONED TERM LIMITS, FOR EXAMPLE. AND I'M OFTEN HEARING FROM MY STUDENTS AND PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC OF HOW SOMEHOW OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS BROKEN. IT'S ALMOST AS IF PEOPLE ARE LOSING FAITH IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO FUNCTION, AS THEY SEE PERSISTENT GRIDLOCK BETWEEN THE POLITICAL PARTIES, BETWEEN THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT. UM... IS IT THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF THAT'S BROKEN? IS THAT WHAT NEEDS TO BE REFORMED? OR IS IT JUST THE WAY WE IMPLEMENT IT? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> YES? >> WELL... YOU, UM-- I'M SORRY, ARE YOU IN SUPPORT OF TERM LIMITS OR DO YOU THINK THAT THEY'RE A GOOD IDEA? >> I'M OPPOSED TO TERM LIMITS MYSELF. >> YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. SO, I THOUGHT YOU WERE MAKING A DEFENSE FOR THEM-- >> NO, YAN COMMENTED ON TERM LIMITS. I WAS JUST REVISITING THAT, AS AN IDEA FOR REFORMING THE CONSTITUTION. HE TALKED ABOUT HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO AMEND. >> RIGHT. >> AND RAISED THE QUESTION OF POSSIBLY MAYBE IT SHOULD BE. UM... GORDAN TALKED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND MENTIONED SEVERAL SUPREME COURT RULINGS AND HOW PERHAPS MANY PEOPLE MIGHT PERCEIVE THAT TO BE THE PROBLEM. I'M INTERESTED, ANYWAY, WHAT YOU THINK. I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO THE AUDIENCE. BEFORE I DO, I JUST WANT TO MENTION, AS I'VE BEEN HANDED THIS NOTE, THAT AT THE CONCLUSION OF OUR EVENT TODAY, A MEMBER OF STUDENT CONGRESS WILL BE IN THE LOBBY TO REGISTER ATTENDEES TO VOTE. AND CERTAINLY, THIS BEING AN ELECTION YEAR, UM, IF YOU'RE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE, YOU NEED TO BE 30 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION, SO, UM-- IN ORDER TO VOTE. SO, YOU MIGHT WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY. YOU KNOW, PERHAPS IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT WE'RE DOING THIS PANEL IN AN ELECTION YEAR LIKE WE ARE. UM, A LOT OF PEOPLE SEEM VERY DISILLUSIONED WITH BOTH MAJOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES THIS YEAR. UM, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE EXCITEMENT THAT THERE USED TO BE. PERHAPS THAT MALAISE IS RELATED TO... THE OBSERVATION I MADE BEFORE, THAT MANY PEOPLE SEE OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AS SOMEHOW DYSFUNCTIONAL OR BROKEN. ANYWAY, WE'RE CERTAINLY INTERESTED IN WHAT QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, PERHAPS RELATED TO SOME OF THE TOPICS THAT I'VE JUST REFERRED TO AND OUR PANEL HAS, OR PERHAPS SOMETHING THAT HASN'T YET BEEN MENTIONED. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, FROM THE AUDIENCE? I'LL COME AROUND WITH THE MICROPHONE. >> BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO THE FLOOR, I WANNA JUST MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT THE "GENERAL MALAISE" OF-- UM, AND INTEREST IN THE ELECTIONS TODAY. >> SURE, BY ALL MEANS. >> I GUESS I KINDA DISAGREE. I THINK THAT THERE, UM... IS QUITE A BIT OF MEDIA COVERAGE OF THIS ELECTION. I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S GOOD MEDIA COVERAGE. I THINK IT'S SENSATIONALIZED. UM, I THINK THAT, UH... THE WAY THAT ELECTIONS ARE COVERED ARE IN AN EFFORT TO KEEP PEOPLE PAYING ATTENTION. THE PROBLEM IS-- THEY DON'T INFORM THE PEOPLE ON THE TRUE ISSUES. UM... I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE ARE IN THIS SITUATION IN THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE OF US. WE CAN BLAME CONGRESS, WE CAN BLAME THE PRESIDENT, WE CAN BLAME THE COURT FOR THE DECISIONS THAT THEY MAKE, BUT WE ARE IN THIS SITUATION BECAUSE WE'VE ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN. UM, WE STILL HAVE-- GORDAN WAS JUST MENTIONING BEFORE THE PANEL STARTED THAT SOME INDIVIDUALS NOT KNOWING WHAT ROMAN NUMERALS WERE, OR THE ORDER OF THOSE IN THE CLASS WHEN YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE CONSTITUTION, AND HOW HE THOUGHT MAYBE THAT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED IN SOME OF OUR GENERAL EDUCATION... AND I COMMENTED THAT I THINK WE HAVE BIGGER CONCERNS. I THINK THE FACT THAT WE HAVE NEARLY A 60 PERCENT TURN-OUT RATE DURING A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION-- AND I STILL WANT PEOPLE TO VOTE AFTER THIS, SO DON'T CONFUSE MY MESSAGE HERE-- THAT THE HIGH TURN-OUT RATE IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, YOU'RE ACTUALLY CHOOSING A LEADER THAT YOU DON'T ACTUALLY CHOOSE. THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES. AND DURING A MIDTERM ELECTION, WHERE YOU ELECT 435... EGOTISTICAL MANIACS IN THE HOUSE AND A THIRD OF THE SENATE EVERY TWO YEARS, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE DIRECT CONTROL OVER THOSE INDIVIDUALS. AND ON A GOOD YEAR, WE GET MAYBE A 25 PERCENT TURN-OUT RATE. THAT, TO ME, IS NAUSEATING... BECAUSE PEOPLE COME IN AND THEY TALK ABOUT NOT UNDERSTANDING THE SYSTEM, AND YET, THEY STILL BELIEVE THAT WE ELECT THE PRESIDENT AND THAT THEY HAVE SOME KIND OF CONTROL OVER THE PRESIDENT, AND THEREFORE, THEY'RE GONNA GO OUT AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THAT WAY. AND MY BIGGEST CONCERN AND MY BIGGEST FRUSTRATION IS THAT YOU REALIZE WE DO HAVE CONTROL, BUT IT'S THROUGH CONGRESS. WE BLAME OBAMA FOR "OBAMACARE," BUT WHO WRITES THE LAWS? (chuckling) CONGRESS DOES. SO, WHO GAVE THAT LAW TO OBAMA? CONGRESS DID. UM, YOU CAN BLAME THE PRESIDENT FOR THE ECONOMY, YOU CAN BLAME HIM FOR THE HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, YOU CAN BLAME HIM FOR THE ATTACK ON THE EMBASSY IN LIBYA, YOU CAN BLAME HIM FOR THE DECLINING ECONOMY AND THE PROBLEM WITH THE EURO, BUT THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH CONTROL THAT ONE MAN HAS. AND THE MORE CONTROL THAT WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY IS OVER OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, AND THAT IS CONGRESS-- NOT THE COURT, NOT THE PRESIDENT-- AND YOUR STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS. WE ELECT OUR GOVERNOR IN EACH STATE. WE ELECT OUR-- AT LEAST IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, WE ELECT ALL OF OUR JUDGES. AND WE ELECT ALL OF OUR LEGISLATORS. AND YET, PEOPLE AREN'T AS INFORMED ABOUT WHAT GOES ON AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL, WHERE YOU HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF CONTROL OF WHAT GOES ON AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL BECAUSE PARTIES AREN'T AS IMPORTANT AND AREN'T AS INFLUENTIAL IN THESE STATE AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BECAUSE MANY OF THEM ARE NONPARTISAN. THERE'S NO PARTY THAT APPEARS ON THE BALLOT. SO, I DON'T KNOW. I GUESS THAT'S WHY... I FIND THE CONSTITUTION A LITTLE LESS RELEVANT TODAY. IT'S SO EASILY MANIPULATED AND CHANGED THROUGH-- WELL, BOTH CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT, AND YOU CAN EVEN THROW IN THE COURT, AS WELL. UM... IT'S VERY EASILY SKIRTED. IT'S A VERY VAGUE DOCUMENT. WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT-- IT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE SHORTEST CONSTITUTIONS IN THE WORLD. UM, AND GORDAN MENTIONED IT WAS RELATIVELY-- ER, YAN MENTIONED IT WAS RELATIVELY OLD. BUT I LOOKED AT THIS AND I THINK, "BOY, IT'S REALLY YOUNG." I MEAN, WE'RE STILL PUPPIES IN THE ENTIRE-- AND IF YOU LOOK AT-- THERE ARE HOTELS OLDER THAN THIS CONSTITUTION IN SCOTLAND, YOU KNOW? SO, TO SAY THAT WE... TO SAY THAT WE ARE ALL VICTIMS HERE, I THINK IS A HUGE-- I DON'T KNOW. I THINK IT'S PLAYING "THE VICTIM." >> IF I MAY-- >> IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S NO-- YOU DISAGREE WITH THE-- YOU WOULDN'T SAY THAT OUR SYSTEM IS DYSFUNCTIONAL OR OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS BROKEN? >> I WOULDN'T SAY-- I'M NOT DISAGREEING THAT IT'S BROKEN, BUT I WANNA LAY THE BLAME AT THE FEET OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT, AND THAT'S US. >> OKAY-- GORDAN. >> SO, THAT'S MY POINT, IS JUST THAT WE ARE IN THIS MESS BECAUSE WE GOT US HERE, BECAUSE-- AND IT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THE VERY BASICS OF OUR OWN SYSTEM. I MEAN, I GET STUDENTS WHO COME FROM-- I HAVE, YOU KNOW-- WHEN I-- I HAVE STUDENTS WHO COME FROM OTHER COUNTRIES AND THEY KNOW MORE ABOUT OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM AND OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR GOVERNMENT THAN MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO JUST GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL. >> BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID OF U.S. (all laughing) >> THAT WORKS FOR ME, AS LONG AS YOU'RE INFORMED! (laughing) YOU KNOW? YOU KNOW, I OFTEN WONDER IF BEING THE PRIVILEGED SOCIETY THAT WE ARE, ACTUALLY DOES US IN. UM, MAYBE IGNORANCE IS BLISS. AND IT'S NOT. IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT IT'S JUST NOT. THERE WAS A QUESTION OVER THERE. >> WELL, GORDAN WANTED TO RESPOND-- >> OH, SORRY! >> (laughing) I WOULD-- WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS LESS RELEVANT TODAY THAN IT USED TO BE, I THINK WE ARE GETTING OURSELVES INTO TRAP OF "GOOD OLD DAYS" MYTHOLOGY. "OH, EVERYTHING WAS FINE BEFORE, "BUT NOW WE ARE IN SOME KIND OF DECLINE OR DECAY." AND I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A MYTHOLOGY, BECAUSE IF YOU-- I MEAN, HEATHER HERSELF SAID, "WELL, UNITED STATES NEVER OFFICIALLY DECLARED WAR "AFTER WORLD WAR II," RIGHT? >> MMM-HMM. >> CONGRESS NEVER SAID-- BUT NO-- >> THEY WERE "PEACE-KEEPING OPERATIONS." >> THERE WERE CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS, RIGHT? GULF OF TONKIN RESOLUTION. THERE WAS RESOLUTION OF THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ WAR IN 2003, BUT NEVER IN THIS PARTICULAR CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTIONS DID CONGRESS SAY, "WELL, WE DECLARE WAR" ON A PARTICULAR COUNTRY. SO, AT LEAST SINCE 1945, IT WASN'T RELEVANT, RIGHT? (laughing) YOU CAN LOOK AT "PLESSY VERSUS FERGUSON," RIGHT? THE IDEA THAT AFRICAN-AMERICANS-- THAT SEGREGATION BETWEEN WHITES AND AFRICAN-AMERICANS IS FINE AS LONG AS FACILITIES ARE OF SO-CALLED "EQUAL QUALITY," DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE ALREADY HAD A POST-CIVIL WAR AMENDMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS THAT SORT OF, ONCE INTERPRETED, COULD BE INTERPRETED AS FORBIDDING SEGREGATION. WE ALSO HAD THE "JIM CROW" LAWS. "JIM CROW" LAWS THAT WERE AFTER THE-- AFTER 13, 14, AND 15 AMENDMENT HAD BASICALLY GAVE THE RIGHTS OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS TO VOTE. SO, I'M NOT SURE-- I MEAN, I THINK THE CONSTITUTION IS AS RELEVANT AS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. I THINK WE PEOPLE, AS ARISTOTLE FAMOUSLY SAID, "WE ARE POLITICAL ANIMALS," RIGHT? (laughing) UH, WE DO STRUGGLE FOR POWER. I MEAN, LINCOLN... LINCOLN SUSPENDED HABEAS CORPUS DURING THE CIVIL WAR AND SUPREME COURT TOLD HIM THAT IT WAS WRONG, AND HE SAID, "WELL, WHO CARES?" RIGHT? (laughing) I MEAN-- SO, I THINK WE HUMANS ARE POLITICAL ANIMALS. AS HOBBES FEARLESSLY SAID, "WE SEEK FOR GLORY, POWER, "AND DIFFIDENCE FROM OTHERS," RIGHT? AND... THAT'S WHY WE DEAL WITH THESE THINGS AS WE DO. I MEAN, WOULDN'T IT BE LOGICAL FOR ALL OF US TO GET TOGETHER AND TRY TO SOLVE THE COMMON PROBLEMS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH, I MEAN, THERE ARE PLENTY OF THEM, RIGHT? RATHER THAN FIGHTING FOR POWER AND TRYING TO DESTROY-- TWO DIFFERENT PARTIES TRYING TO DESTROY EACH OTHER. WHY-- SO, WHY IS IT, IF IT'S RATIONAL FOR US TO ALL GET TOGETHER AND SING "KUMBAYA," RIGHT, AND SOLVE THE COMMON PROBLEMS, WHY IS IT THAT WE STRUGGLE SO BITTERLY AGAINST EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF POLITICAL FIGHTS? I THINK THE SORTA AXIOMATIC SIMPLE ANSWER IS THAT THAT IS HUMAN NATURE. I MEAN, IF IT WASN'T, WE WOULDN'T HAVE JOBS, WE POLITICAL SCIENTISTS, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T HAVE POLITICS IF WE DIDN'T STRUGGLE FOR SCARCE RESOURCES, OR-- POWER BEING THE SCARCEST OF ALL, RIGHT, AND THE MOST NECESSARY OF ALL, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE POWER, YOU HAVE EVERYTHING ELSE, RIGHT? IF WE WERE NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTALLY COLLABORATIVE CREATURES, I WOULD BE UNHAPPY BECAUSE I WOULD BE A PET STORE MANAGER INSTEAD. (all chuckling) >> NOT TO SAY THAT PET STORE MANAGERS ARE UNHAPPY. >> THAT'S RIGHT, BUT... SO, WE ARE NOT-- SO, THIS REL-- THIS STORY, THIS MYTH ABOUT "THINGS ARE WORSE THAN THEY USED TO BE," I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO CLAIM THAT. THINGS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME BECAUSE, FUNDAMENTALLY AS HUMANS, WE CREATED CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS TO PREVENT OURSELVES FROM KILLING EACH OTHER WHEN WE HAVE A POLITICAL DISAGREEMENT, BUT... WE STILL DO HAVE POLITICAL DISAGREEMENT, WHICH IS FUNDAMENTALLY IRRATIONAL BECAUSE WE ARE WASTING SO MUCH TIME AND ENERGY WITH THESE DISAGREEMENTS, INSTEAD OF GETTING TOGETHER AND JUST SOLVE THE PROBLEMS. BUT WE STILL DO HAVE DISAGREEMENTS, AND SQUANDER OUR DAYS AND SQUANDER OUR POLITICAL LIVES, STRUGGLING WITH THESE DISAGREEMENTS INSTEAD OF REALLY-- AS ANY FUNDAMENTAL POLITICIAN WOULD SAY-- "ROLLING UP OUR SLEEVES AND GETTING TO WORK." SO, THE CONSTITUTION, I THINK, IS AS RELEVANT AS IT WAS, BECAUSE OUR PASSION TO STRUGGLE WITH EACH OTHER IN POLITICAL FIGHTS IS THE SAME AS IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN. JUST, PERHAPS, SOME OF THE TOOLS CHANGED, IN TERMS OF WEAPONS THAT USE, RIGHT? (laughing) TODAY, WE USE YOUTUBE AND... (all laughing) AND HULU, FACEBOOK, AND THE MEDIA, RIGHT? BUT, I DON'T KNOW, HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO, WE USED GUNS AND KNIVES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO, WE EVOLVED IN TERMS OF THE TOOLS, BUT WE DIDN'T EVOLVE IN TERMS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENTS, RIGHT? >> CAN I ADD A FEW THINGS HERE? THE CONSTITUTION, IF YOU COUNT THE AMENDMENTS-- THERE ARE 27 AMENDMENTS. UH, THERE ARE 7,000 WORDS. SO, THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION IS SHORT, TERSE, AND CONCISE. UH, THAT MEANS WHAT? THAT MEANS IF YOU GOT A SHORT CONSTITUTION, YOU NEED SOMEBODY TO INTERPRET, TO TELL US WHAT THE LAW IS. SO, WE HAVE A VERY HEAVY DEPENDENCE ON THE SUPREME COURT. THE SUPREME COURT INTERPRETS THE LAW. (indistinct) IT MAKES, EVERY RULING IT MAKES, IT IS AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. NOW, BACK TO THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO DECLARE WAR-- ORIGINALLY, THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED THE CONGRESS TO MAKE WAR, NOT TO DECLARE WAR. BUT AFTER DELIBERATION, THEY DECIDED, "WELL, YOU KNOW, "THE PRESIDENT IS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. "SO, THE PRESIDENT SHALL MAKE WAR, BUT CONGRESS MUST DECLARE WAR FIRST." "DECLARE WAR" MEANS TO DECIDE WHETHER THE COUNTRY SHOULD GO TO THE WAR. IT'S NOT JUST A, LIKE, FORMALITY OR DECLARATION. I MEAN, IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF FORMALITY. IT'S A BIG DECISION TO DETERMINE WHETHER, YOU KNOW, OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS SHOULD DIE IN THE WAR. THAT'S A BIG THING. NOW, WE HAVE FOUGHT ABOUT 200 WARS ABROAD. HOW MANY OF THEM WERE DECLARED BY THE CONGRESS? ONLY FIVE. THE WAR OF 1812, THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN WAR, SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR, WORLD WAR I, AND WORLD WAR II... AND THAT'S ALL. SO, WITHOUT DECLARATION, THE PRESIDENT CAN STILL BRING THE TROOPS TO OTHER COUNTRIES. HOW COME? BECAUSE EVERY TIME THERE'S A WAR, CONGRESS JUST PASS A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT TO USE FORCE. SO, MY ARGUMENT IS THAT THE CONGRESS HAS FAILED ITS DUTY TO DECIDE WHETHER WE SHOULD GO TO WAR OR NOT. >> JUST BY PASSING A RESOLUTION? >> RIGHT. >> AH, OKAY. >> OKAY, I THINK I SAW A FEW HANDS OUT THERE. >> I DON'T NEED THE MIC. >> WELL, PLEASE, CAN WE-- IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, WE NEED THE MIC FOR THE RECORDED AUDIENCE AT HOME. >> OH, I SEE. ALL RIGHT, HELLO. I'M DAVID PARSONS. IT'S GOOD TO SEE DR. BAI AGAIN. I ATTENDED ONE OF HIS SESSIONS LAST SEMESTER. UH, I'M NOT AS WELL-EDUCATED AS EVERYBODY IN HERE. EVEN THE YOUNG ONES ARE PROBABLY SMARTER THAN I AM. OBVIOUSLY NOT AS WELL AS THE DOCTORS UP FRONT. >> YOU ARE VERY SMART-- I KNOW THAT, DAVID. >> (laughing) EXPERIENCED, MAYBE. BUT I THINK THAT THE MAIN PROBLEM-- AND YOU'RE NOT GONNA LIKE THIS-- IS WITH THE EDUCATORS, AND NOT AT YOUR LEVEL, BUT AT MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL LEVELS, WHERE THEY'RE NOT BEING TAUGHT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS. IT'S, UH, PATHETIC TALKING WITH SOME OF THE YOUNG STUDENTS AROUND SCHOOL HERE, HOW LITTLE THAT THEY KNOW. AND, UM, EVEN CURSIVE WRITING-- THEY'RE NOT EVEN TEACHING CURSIVE WRITING ANYMORE IN SCHOOL. I FOUND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE. I'VE GOT A FEW OTHER THINGS, BUT I'M GONNA LET IT GO AT THAT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION-- DO YOU FEEL LIKE THE LEVEL OF HOW INDIVIDUALS ARE INFORMED ABOUT GOVERNMENT HAS DECREASED? DO YOU THINK YOUR GENERATION WAS EDUCATED BETTER, UM, THAN LATER GENERATIONS? DO YOU THINK IT'S THIS GENERATION THAT IS WOEFULLY UNPREPARED? OR DO YOU THINK THAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A PROBLEM TO EDUCATE 'EM BETTER? >> I DO NOT KNOW, BECAUSE I HAVE NOT BEEN THERE-- >> RIGHT. >> SINCE MY HIGH SCHOOL DAYS. I GRADUATED IN 1970. UM, I MAJORED IN HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT-- ALL FOUR YEARS IN HIGH SCHOOL-- AND I ENJOYED IT. >> RIGHT. >> BUT YOU TALK-- MOST OF THESE KIDS DON'T EVEN GO TO VOTE, LET ALONE UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR VOTE DOES. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THE EDUCATION LEVEL IS ESTABLISHED AT MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL, WHO ESTABLISHES THE CURRICULUM, WHETHER IT'S THE TEACHERS OR THE PRINCIPAL OR SCHOOL BOARD, I DON'T KNOW. I ASSUME IT'S THE SCHOOL BOARD. BUT, UH, SOMEBODY'S BEEN SLEEPING ON THE SWITCH THERE, AND... AND LETTING ALL THIS STUFF SLIDE. I GOTTA FEELING THAT THE TEACHERS UNION HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THAT, TOO. >> OKAY. UH, I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS THAT MIGHT SHED LIGHT ON IT. CERTAINLY, I THINK WE'VE BEEN SEEING THIS ISSUE OF, UM... CHALLENGING THE ADEQUACY OF TEACHING. IN THE UNITED STATES, TEACHERS ARE PAID IN A MUCH LOWER LEVEL THAN SOME OF OUR COMPARATIVE COUNTRIES. UM, BUT I ALSO THINK IN THE LAST 30 OR 40 YEARS-- AND PROBABLY MANY WOULD AGREE-- THAT THE FAMILY MAKE-UP HAS CHANGED CONSIDERABLY. NOW, INSTEAD OF HAVING ONE PERSON AT HOME AND ONE PERSON WORKING, YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE OUT OF THE HOME-- BOTH PARENTS ARE WORKING. AND SO, MAYBE YOU HAVE LESS OF THAT TRADITIONAL FAMILY NUCLEUS. WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S A DISADVANTAGE OR AN ADVANTAGE, WHO KNOWS? BECAUSE THEN IF YOU BOTH PARENTS WORKING OUTSIDE THE HOME, YOU PRESUMABLY HAVE BETTER EDUCATED PARENTS WHO ARE WORKING OUTSIDE THE HOME, WHO BRING THAT BACK. UM, SO, THE DYNAMICS OF THE FAMILY MAY HAVE CHANGED. UM, FURTHERMORE... PARENTS' PARTY I.D. AND PARENTS' PARTY AFFILIATION IS SOME OF THE BEST-- IN POLITICAL SCIENCE, IT'S SOME OF THE BEST INDICATORS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEIR CHILDREN WILL BE OF A PARTICULAR PARTY I.D. OR HOW POLITICALLY INVOLVED AN INDIVIDUAL WILL BE. IF THEIR PARENTS-- I MEAN-- MY FATHER, GRANDFATHER-- MY FAMILY IS JUST VERY REPUBLICAN ON ONE SIDE, AND VERY NOT ON THE OTHER. UM, GREAT TIMES AT THANKSGIVING, BY THE WAY. UM, BUT I THINK THE FACT IS IS THAT OUR FAMILY HAS BEEN IN TUNE WITH POLITICS. AND SO, THAT KIND OF PASSES ON. SO, I THINK THAT GENERAL APATHY IS CONTAGIOUS. UM, AND SO, THOSE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS. BUT I THINK DEFINITELY THERE ARE CHANGES IN-- CHANGES ON THE HORIZON FOR TEACHING. UM, BUT I THINK WE ALSO HAVE, YOU KNOW, ANECDOTAL AT BEST, BUT I HAVE VERY GOOD FRIENDS WHO ARE K THROUGH 12 TEACHERS, AND THEY'RE DEALING, AT THE VERY YOUNGER AGES, MORE AND MORE WITH BEHAVIORAL ISSUES THAN THEY ARE WITH TRYING TO TEACH THE CONTENT. AND WITH FUNDING BEING CUT SO DRASTICALLY AND SO QUICKLY, UM, ESPECIALLY UNDER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION IN THIS STATE, THE FIRST THINGS TO GO ARE THOSE REMEDIAL CLASSES. AND SO, THESE STUDENTS WHO ARE IN THE REMEDIAL CLASSES WHO TRY AND GET THEM TO THE LEVEL OF THE OTHER STUDENTS IN THE CLASS, THOSE SECTIONS ARE BEING CUT, AND THOSE STUDENTS ARE JUST BEING PLOPPED INTO CLASSROOMS. MUCH LIKE-- I TEACH "P.S. 110." WE ALL DO. AND WE HAVE TO TEACH TO THE STUDENTS WHO HAVE-- AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT COMPLAINING, I THINK IT MAKES FOR A MUCH MORE DYNAMIC CONVERSATION-- THE STUDENTS WHO PASS UP AQUINAS AND GRAND VALLEY AND WESTERN BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT. BUT ALSO THE STUDENTS WHO ARE- BOY, YOU KNOW-- THEY'RE AT A FAIRLY LOW READING LEVEL, AND YOU'RE TRYING TO TEACH TO BOTH, AND YOU HAVE TO REACH BOTH. SO, I-- I'M CERTAINLY NOT TRYING TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR TEACHERS. I JUST THINK THAT-- AND I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE HAVEN'T FACED FOR 200 YEARS. BUT... TO JUST PLACE IT ALL AT THE BLAME OF THE-- UM, AT THE FEET OF THE TEACHERS, I THINK IS KINDA MISSING OTHER FACTORS. >> I DIDN'T MEAN ALL OF THE TEACHERS-- >> I KNOW-- I KNOW, I KNOW. AND-- BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE BRINGING TO LIGHT IS A LOT OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN CHICAGO RIGHT NOW, TOO. I MEAN, THE PROTESTS AND THE UNIONS AND-- YES, YOU KNOW, I STILL HAVE FRIENDS AND FORMER STUDENTS AT GRAND VALLEY WHO ARE NOW DOWN WORKING IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND THEY ARGUE WITH ME ALL THE TIME, THINKING THAT UNIONS ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY... UM, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE WORKPLACE PROBLEMS THAT YOU HAD IN THE, YOU KNOW, '40s AND '50s, AND "WORKPLACE IS EQUAL NOW," AND "THERE'S NO ISSUES, SO WE DON'T REALLY NEED UNIONS, "AND THEY'RE JUST PROTECTING THE BAD PEOPLE." AND YOU KNOW, I JUST-- I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD AGREE THAT THE EDUCATION OF OUR YOUTH IS SLIPPING THROUGH OUR FINGERS. I SHOW A MOVIE IN MY CLASS EVERY SEMESTER-- AND I'M SORRY IF I'M DOMINATING-- IT'S CALLED "TWO MILLION MINUTES." AND IF YOU'VE NEVER SEEN IT, IT'S A POWERFUL MOVIE THAT SHOWS-- YES, JADED AND CHERRY-PICKED AND NOT SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND, BUT IT SHOWS THE EDUCATION OF TWO INDIVIDUALS IN THE UNITED STATES. UM, CARMEL HIGH SCHOOL, ACTUALLY-- OUT OF INDIANA, I BELIEVE? >> MMM-HMM. >> WITH TWO INDIVIDUALS FROM INDIA AND TWO INDIVIDUALS OF CHINA. AND "TWO MILLION MINUTES" IS ACTUALLY THE POINT AT WHICH YOU START HIGH SCHOOL TO THE POINT AT WHICH YOU GRADUATE. AND, UM, YOU HAVE TWO MILLION MINUTES, AND WHAT DO AMERICANS DO WITH THAT? WHAT DO THE PEOPLE IN INDIA DO WITH THAT? AND WHAT DO THE PEOPLE IN CHINA DO WITH THAT? WELL, YOU FIND THAT THE EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES IS WHOLLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF INDIA AND CHINA, BUT YOU ALSO FIND THAT THERE ARE MORE STUDENTS ON HONOR ROLL IN INDIA THAN THERE ARE STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES. AND... WHAT OUR STUDENTS DON'T REALIZE IS THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE COMPETING AGAINST. AND I THINK PART OF THAT IS OUR PROBLEM, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT MAKING IT KNOWN THAT THE IPHONES THAT THEY'RE GETTING AT 13 AND 14 YEARS OLD, IT'S NOT COMMON THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. AND I THINK THAT'S, AGAIN, PART OF OUR PROBLEM... IS THAT WE'RE NOT MAKING 'EM WORK HARD ENOUGH. >> GORDAN, YAN-- >> I'M SORRY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT? OR SHOULD I TURN IT OVER TO ANOTHER QUESTION? >> I'LL JUST BRIEFLY SAY THAT I THINK AMONG MY STUDENTS, I ALSO NOTICED A GENERAL CONTEMPT FOR POLITICS. (audience murmuring) PART OF IT IS BOREDOM, BUT OTHER PART IS CONTEMPT, BECAUSE HOW THEY PERCEIVE POLITICS-- BEFORE, OF COURSE, THEY COME TO MY CLASS-- IS... (audience laughing) >> AND THEY LEAVE ENLIGHTENED. >> IT'S JUST A COLLECTION OF VERY LOUD AND ANGRY SOUND-BITES, RIGHT? WHICH-- FOR-- AND I NEVER REALLY TRIED IT-- MAYBE I SHOULD TRY IT, BUT I SHOULD ASK-- USUALLY, I SHOULD ASK THEM, "SO WHEN I SAY 'POLITICS,' WHAT IT IS THAT YOU THINK ABOUT?" I THINK, PERHAPS, MANY OF THEM WOULD SAY, "SCREAMING, FIGHT, DISAGREEMENT," AND THINGS LIKE THAT, ESPECIALLY IF I ASK THEM WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT POLITICIANS. AND I'M FROM A NICE FAMILY, SO I DON'T WANT TO EVEN THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT POLITICIANS, RIGHT? SO, POLITICIANS ARE USUALLY PERCEIVED AS FAIRLY BAD PEOPLE. POLITICS IS PERCEIVED AS JUST A STRUGGLE FOR WHO IS THE LOUDEST AND WHO WINS THE PARTICULAR DAY. AND I THINK THAT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE. UM, IT'S NOT-- IT IS NOT THAT-- I MEAN, THE FACT THAT THEY THINK ABOUT POLITICS IN THAT WAY IS NOT THE ONLY THING THAT IS UNFORTUNATE. I THINK THEY'RE PARTLY RIGHT BECAUSE AMERICAN POLITICS HAS BECOME SORT OF A COLLECTION OF ANGRY SOUND-BITES AND SCREAMING OVER EACH OTHER'S HEADS. I MEAN, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO CREATE DISCUSSION ABOUT SERIOUS ISSUES OR DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO SOLVE VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS THAT BOTHER THIS COUNTRY. I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT HOW THE TWO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE RUNNING THEIR CAMPAIGN, THEY'RE NOT REALLY TALKING ABOUT HAVING A SERIOUS DISCUSSION, AT LEAST NOT YET, RIGHT? ROMNEY IS REALLY AFRAID TO SAY WHAT HE THINKS, UNLESS HE IS IN FLORIDA TALKING TO FUNDRAISERS, RIGHT? AND OBAMA IS ALSO TALKING IN GENERALITIES, AND HE'S BASICALLY NOT REALLY SAYING WHAT REALLY WENT WRONG IN THE ECONOMY IN THE PAST, EXCEPT FOR SAYING, "WELL, IT'S THE PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN DECADES OLD," AND HE IS NOT REALLY SAYING HOW WE GO FROM POINT "A," WHERE WE ARE NOW, TO POINT "B." RIGHT, SO, I THINK MY STUDENTS ARE PARTLY RIGHT. I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT TO THEM IN PUBLIC-- JUST KEEP IT A SECRET AMONG OURSELVES, RIGHT? (audience chuckling) BUT... THEY'RE PARTLY RIGHT THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, AMERICAN POLITICS HAVE BECOME A COLLECTION OF ANGRY SOUND-BITES AND STRUGGLE AND FIGHT-- WHO IS GONNA WIN A PARTICULAR DAY IN THE MEDIA RATHER THAN WHO IS GONNA WIN ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF ARGUMENTS, RIGHT? I HOPE THAT CHANGES IN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS, BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE-- ON 3rd OF OCTOBER, WE WILL HAVE THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, SO I THINK THAT WILL BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR BOTH CANDIDATES TO TELL US WHERE THEY WANT TO TAKE US, RIGHT? OR AT LEAST-- I KNOW THAT THEY WILL SAY THAT THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE US TO A BRIGHTER FUTURE... BUT I WONDER WHERE THIS BRIGHTER FUTURE IS, SO... >> I HAVE A FEELING WE'RE GONNA GET MORE OUT OF JON STEWART'S DEBATE WITH BILL O'REILLY THAN WE WILL OUT OF THE OCTOBER 3rd DEBATE, AND I GOTTA TELL YOU-- >> I HOPE YOU'RE WRONG. >> THERE'S ONE I'M LOOKING A LOT MORE FORWARD TO. >> (laughing). >> I THINK POLITICIAN AND MEDIA MUST BE BLAMED, TOO. IT'S NOT JUST STUDENTS' FAULT. POLITICIANS KNOW THAT YOUNG PEOPLE DO NOT VOTE, SO "WHY BOTHER? "WHY SHOULD I, YOU KNOW, INVEST IN THE YOUNG PEOPLE? "WHY SHOULD I SPEND MONEY AND TIME ON THE YOUNG PEOPLE?" SO, THEY DON'T COMMUNICATE WITH YOUNG PEOPLE, STUDENTS. >> YEAH, I THINK IT'S INTERESTING TO-- IT'S OKAY-- IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE LARGEST INTEREST GROUP IN THE UNITED STATES IS-- AS MANY OF YOU WELL KNOW-- IS THE A.A.R.P., AND IF YOU WERE TO GATHER ALL COLLEGE STUDENTS TOGETHER, UH, AND GET THEM INTO A VOTING BLOC, THEY WOULD HAVE JUST AS LOUD AND AS POWERFUL OF A VOICE AS THE A.A.R.P., AND THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO OFFSET A LOT OF THOSE THINGS THAT PEOPLE WHO VOTE PURSUE INTO THE A.A.R.P. UM, AND YOU KNOW, YOU'D PROBABLY SEE MORE MONEY AVAILABLE FOR STUDENT LOANS AND LOWER INTEREST RATES ON THOSE STUDENT LOANS. SO, I-- JUST WORTH NOTING. >> OKAY, WE HAVE A QUESTION HERE. >> HELLO, MY NAME'S JESSE JONES, AND I JUST THOUGHT I'D THROW OUT SOME VIEWPOINTS FROM THE YOUTH. I'M A LITTLE OVER-AGED FOR THAT AGE GROUP, BUT THAT'S DEFINITELY THE AREA THAT I FIT INTO. UM, AND FRANKLY, FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, YOU KNOW, THE YOUTH OF AMERICA KIND OF BLAMES THE ELDERLY AND THE OLDER GENERATIONS, LIKE, UM... LIKE THE BABY BOOMERS, IN PARTICULAR. THAT'S WHERE WE SEE THE BLAME IS, AND FIRST OF ALL, THOSE ARE THE MAJOR BLOC OF VOTERS, THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE VOTING IN WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. UM, THEY'RE POINT OF VIEW IS WHAT DOMINATES THE TELEVISION... UM, AND THE MEDIA. SO, YOU KNOW, FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, THEY'RE THE ONES IN THE CONTROL, AND IN MANY ASPECTS OF LIFE, YOU CAN'T CHANGE THING UNTIL-- CHANGE THINGS UNTIL THE OLD GUARD IS GONE. AND SO, THERE IS SOME... LAZINESS AND JUST WAITING FOR THEM TO DIE, AND LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT GENERATION DYING OUT. (audience chuckling) AND THERE'S A LOT OF ISOLATED HOPELESSNESS IN THE YOUTH. YOU KNOW, THE ISSUES THAT CONCERN US AREN'T ON T.V. AND FRANKLY, A LOT OF US DON'T SEE OURSELVES AS AMERICANS. IT DOESN'T HELP THAT WE'RE CONSTANTLY TOLD THAT WE'RE NOT "REAL AMERICANS" ON THE MEDIA CHANNELS, BUT THE YOUTH HAS GROWN UP WITH THE INTERNET. WE'VE GOT FRIENDS GLOBALLY. YOU KNOW, SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS, ONE OF WHICH IS JUST SAW THIS SUMMER, IS FROM GERMANY. I HAVE A FRIEND WHO'S FROM RUSSIA, YOU KNOW, SOUTH AMERICA. WE DO A LOT OF TRAVELING THERE... UM... YOU KNOW, TO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, AND WE HAVE A COMMUNITY THAT'S GLOBAL. UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY, IN A LOT OF POINTS, THAT GLOBAL COMMUNITY AND COMMUNICATION THAT WE HAVE IS ALMOST EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF INTERACTION WE HAVE LOCALLY. AND BECAUSE OF THAT... YOU KNOW, WE-- >> THERE'S A PROTEST COMING IN. >> YEAH, I GUESS, THIS IS A SIT-IN OR SOMETHING. SORRY, JESSE. >> NO, THAT'S FINE. IT'S JUST, UM-- YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT WE TALK ABOUT IN THE FOUNDING OF THE COUNTRY, ABOUT UNIFYING THE STATES ON A FEDERAL LEVEL IS A LOT OF THE FEELINGS, I THINK, THE YOUTH HAVE ABOUT MULTI-CULTURALISM AND JOINING TOGETHER SUCH AS WITH THE U.N. AND, UM... THAT'S KIND OF THE THING THAT WE LIKE, BUT, UM... YOU KNOW, ALL OF OUR ISSUES ABOUT THINGS LIKE COPYRIGHT FOR USE ISSUES... THOSE AREN'T ADDRESSED IN THE MEDIA AND IN THE DEBATES HERE IN AMERICA. ALTHOUGH THE YOUTH HAS BEEN GAINING GROUND IN EUROPE WITH THE "PIRATE PARTY" FOR THESE TYPES OF ISSUES. UM, THERE'S ALSO THINGS LIKE THE MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION ISSUES. BUT IT'S DOMINATED BY PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE GRANDPARENTS AND UNCLES THAT WE HAVE WHO ARE STILL HUNG UP ON... BLACKS, AND SEGREGATION ISSUES. AND YOU KNOW, WE STILL HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS THAT ARE GOING OFF ABOUT COMMUNISM. AND AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS A CLOSE FRIEND FROM RUSSIA, I THINK THAT IT'S LUDICROUS. UM, AND FRANKLY, WE DON'T SEE "BEING AMERICAN" AS BEING AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM. YOU KNOW, A LOT OF US-- THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM-- THEY'RE SIMPLE ECONOMIC ISSUES. AND FRAMING ONE AS "EVIL" IS JUST, YOU KNOW, RIDICULOUS. BUT THERE'S SO MUCH HOPELESSNESS BECAUSE OUR GENERATION DOES FEEL ISOLATED BECAUSE THERE'S NO COMMUNICATION. AND YOU'RE RIGHT-- I-- I'M ALSO PRETTY UPSET THAT NOT SO MANY OF THE YOUTH AREN'T GETTING OUT AND VOTING. AND SO, IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE UNEDUCATED. IF YOU SPEND ANY TIME ONLINE IN ANY OF THE FORUM BOARDS, UM, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION THAT'S GOING ON BETWEEN PEOPLE. IT'S, UM-- >> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? >> MMM-HMM. >> DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD REQUIRE YOUNG PEOPLE TO VOTE? DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD PASS A LAW WHICH IS MANDATORY? IF YOU DON'T, YOU'LL BE PUNISHED OR PENALIZED. >> NO-- >> TAXED-- >> NO, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF... THE THING IS, IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT OUR FREEDOMS IS THE FREEDOM TO BE DIFFERENT. I MEAN, A LOT OF ISSUES LIKE WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN BE FORCED TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, UM... >> BUT THERE'S ALSO THIS IDEA THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO-- THAT MAYBE NOT VOTING IS STRATEGIC AS WELL. AND SO, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DON'T TURN OUT TO VOTE, SOMETIMES THAT IS A RATIONAL CHOICE FOR THEM. >> YEAH, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF THINGS LIKE THAT. LIKE EVEN PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT SERVING IN THE MILITARY AS BEING A CONDITION FOR CITIZENSHIP. AND I THINK THAT YOU GUYS ARE MISSING THE IMPORTANT POINT, IS I KNOW A BIG PART OF WHY THERE'S A HOPELESSNESS, BESIDES THE FACT THAT, UM, THE MAJOR PARTIES AND NEWS OUTLETS AREN'T HAVING THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE, IS THE FACT THAT... THE USELESSNESS OF THE CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY SEEN. I MEAN, WHEN WE SEE THINGS LIKE THE IRAQ WAR NOT EVEN BEING DECLARED AS A WAR, BUT CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT A COMMON PERSON CAN DO ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE U.N. TREATY... AND BEING A TREATY, IT'S U.S. LAW. BUT WE STILL TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST A COUNTRY, AGAINST THE U.N. TREATY, WITHOUT THE PROVISIONS OF BEING MILITARILY ATTACKED BY THAT COUNTRY OR BEING GRANTED PERMISSION THROUGH THE SECURITY COUNCIL. UM, SO, WE SEE A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND WHAT CAN AN AVERAGE PERSON DO ABOUT THAT? >> I THINK-- >> I WOULD DISAGREE A LITTLE BIT WITH THAT STATEMENT. THE, UM-- I WOULD SAY BOTH CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS DID VOTE TO APPROVE THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE INVASION OF IRAQ IN 2003. (one person clapping) THE VOTE TOOK PLACE IN 2002, AND IN MARCH OF 2003, GEORGE BUSH TOOK THAT BLANK CHECK, SO TO SPEAK, AND CASHED IT. UM, THE FACT THAT IT DIDN'T SAY "DECLARE WAR," I WOULD ARGUE IS KIND OF A SEMANTIC ARGUMENT THAT'S NOT REALLY RELEVANT. IT DID AUTHORIZE THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE, AND EVEN HILLARY CLINTON VOTED FOR IT. UM, SHE LATER TRIED TO CLAIM THAT IT SHOULDN'T COUNT AGAINST HER BECAUSE SHE WAS-- BECAUSE SHE FELT LIKE SHE WAS MISLED. WELL, YOU KNOW, IT TAKES TWO PEOPLE FOR THE LIE TO WORK, RIGHT? IT TAKES THE LIAR AND THE PERSON WHO BELIEVES IT, SO I THINK THAT WAS A LITTLE DISINGENUOUS ON HER PART. BUT THE POINT IS, IS THAT CONGRESS DID AUTHORIZE THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE, AND THE UNITED NATIONS ITSELF DOES NOT PREVENT THE UNITED STATES-- OR CANNOT PREVENT THE UNITED STATES FROM DECLARING WAR ON A PARTICULAR-- >> BECAUSE WE ARE A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY. >> ON A PARTICULAR STATE, RIGHT. IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY ANY U.S. SOVEREIGNTY IN THAT REGARD. UM-- >> CAN I ADDRESS THE "OLD GUARD" AND THAT THE BABY BOOMERS ARE CONTROLLING EVERYTHING? CAN I-- >> YEAH, ABOUT THEM DYING OFF AND-- THAT WOULD SOLVE THE UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM, TOO, WOULDN'T IT? >> RIGHT. >> YEAH, AND EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE WHEN WE DIE OFF. >> I'M A BABY BOOMER. >> OH, OKAY. WELL, YOU JUST PICK UP THE PACE! (all laughing) >> OLD SOLDIER NEVER DIES... HE JUST FADE AWAY. >> WELL, I THINK THE PROBLEM IS IS THAT WHEN YOU SAY THAT, UM, THE OLDER GENERATION IS THE ONE THAT'S STIFLING THE CONVERSATION, I THINK THAT YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT, IS THAT THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE AN OLDER GENERATION. UM, WE VOTE BASED ON THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN. UH, THERE'S AN OLD SAYING THAT "IF YOU'RE 20 AND NOT A DEMOCRAT, "YOU HAVE NO HEART. "IF YOU'RE 40 AND NOT A REPUBLICAN, YOU HAVE NO HEAD." AND THAT'S-- THAT-- I DIDN'T MAKE IT UP. DON'T-- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER. (laughing) UM, BUT IT'S THIS IDEA-- AND WE CALL IT A "GENERATIONAL EFFECT" IN POLITICAL SCIENCE. AND IT IS STATISTICALLY SOUND THAT PEOPLE VOTE BASED ON THE SITUATION THAT YOU'RE IN. YOUNGER GENERATIONS TEND TO VOTE MORE DEMOCRATIC. INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE SINGLE TEND TO VOTE MORE DEMOCRATIC. INDIVIDUALS WHO RENT TEND TO VOTE MORE DEMOCRATIC. AND THAT'S BECAUSE, AS YOU GET OLDER, YOU GRADUATE FROM COLLEGE, YOU GET MORE STUFF, YOU MAKE MORE MONEY, YOU WANNA KEEP MORE OF THAT MONEY, SO YOU TEND TO VOTE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. IT'S NOT-- IT'S NOT A MATTER OF YOUR SKIN COLOR OR YOUR SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS. A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH WHERE YOU ARE IN YOUR GENERATION. MIDDLE-AGED INDIVIDUALS ARE GONNA VOTE DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE NOW THEY HAVE DIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES. YOU HAVE CHILDREN IN SCHOOL, YOU'RE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, YOU TEND TO MAYBE WANNA SIT ON THE P.T.A., HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE SAY IN THE BOOKS THAT ARE USED TO EDUCATE YOUR CHILDREN, YOU GET A LITTLE BIT OLDER, NOW YOU'RE IN RETIREMENT-- WELL, YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOUR MEDICARE THAT YOU WERE PROMISED AND YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY THAT YOU WERE PROMISED AND, "OH, BY THE WAY, I'VE BEEN PAYING INTO THIS FOR 65 YEARS. "I'M ENTITLED TO THIS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN PAYING INTO IT, "BECAUSE THAT'S THE SYSTEM THAT WE CREATED." THERE'S ALWAYS GONNA BE ANOTHER GENERATION RIGHT BEHIND IT THAT HAS PAID INTO THE SYSTEM AND "DESERVES" THAT. SO, YOU'RE NEVER GONNA GET AWAY FROM THE "OLD GUARD," BECAUSE THERE'S JUST GONNA BE A "NEW GUARD" STEPPING INTO THE "OLD GUARD'S" SHOES. AND EVENTUALLY, THAT'S GONNA BE US. AND THEN, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THE YOUNGER GENERATION SAYING, "WELL, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE OLD PEOPLE THAT'S STIFLING THE CONVERSATION." NO, IT'S THE OLD PEOPLE THAT ARE VOTING. AND SO, YEAH, THEY'RE CONTROLLING THE SITUATION AND THE CONVERSATION. SO, MY SOLUTION, AGAIN, IS GET YOUR BUTT TO THE POLLS. >> I THINK MOST AMERICANS ARE (indistinct). UH, MOST AMERICANS ARE WAITING TO MAKE PROGRESS. THEY DO HAVE THE SENSE OF PROGRESS, BUT THEY'RE MORE WILLING OF MAKING SLOW, INCREMENTAL, GRADUAL PROGRESS-- NOT IN A RADICAL-- NOT SWEEPING CHANGE. >> AND IT'S SUSTAINABLE THAT WAY. >> YES. >> OKAY, WE GOT ANOTHER QUESTION HERE. >> UM, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT "OBAMACARE" AND NOT BEING INCLUDED WITH THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE, OR THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. UM, IN 1792, GEORGE WASHINGTON AUTHORIZED THE BILL REQUIRING ALL CITIZENS-- WELL, I THINK ALL MALE CITIZENS TO CARRY A GOOD MUSKET, AND THAT WAS UNDER, I BELIEVE... ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 16. "TO PROVIDE FOR ORGANIZING, ARMING, AND DISCIPLINING THE MILITIA, "AND FOR GOVERNING SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED "IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, RESERVING TO THE RESPECTIVELY." UM, SO, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS IF USE-- AT ONE POINT, OUR FOUNDING FATHER GEORGE WASHINGTON HAD USED THE CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE US TO PURCHASE SOMETHING, WHY COULDN'T "OBAMACARE" BE UPHELD IN THE SAME MANNER? >> I THOUGHT IT WAS. >> UH-- >> OH, YOU'RE SAYING THROUGH ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, THROUGH THAT PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH, WHY WASN'T THAT ONE USED? BECAUSE-- >> YOU SAID IT WAS BECAUSE-- YOU WANTED TO KNOW WHY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WASN'T RELEVANT OR SUPPORTIVE OF "OBAMACARE"? >> BUT ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, PARAGRAPH 1, THAT ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT-- ER, CONGRESS TO TAX, ESSENTIALLY WHAT "OBAMACARE"-- EVEN OBAMA'S CALLING IT "OBAMACARE"-- (laughing) THE NAME STUCK. THAT'S TRUE-- PARAGRAPH 1 AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, WHICH IS THE POWER TO TAX, WHICH IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT USED RATHER THAN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE-- >> HE WANTS TO KNOW WHY NOT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. >> OH! >> BECAUSE-- >> IS THAT THE QUESTION? >> YEAH, THAT'S THE QUESTION. >> I THINK THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WELFARE CLAUSE, RIGHT? >> YES, GENERAL WELFARE-- THE GENERAL WELFARE, BASICALLY-- YOU KNOW, THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE-- >> BUT THAT'S THE PREAMBLE, AND THAT'S NOT A BINDING-- >> NO, BUT IT'S SECTION 8 ACTUALLY STARTS WITH THE GENERAL WELFARE, TOO. >> YEAH, IT DOES START WITH GENERAL WELFARE-- >> SO, I THINK-- I THINK THE ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT GENERAL WELFARE, IN TERMS OF THE HEALTHCARE IN THE UNITED STATES, ALREADY EXISTS BECAUSE THERE IS A FEDERAL LAW THAT REQUIRES DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS TO TREAT PEOPLE WHO ARE IN MEDICAL EMERGENCY, AND THEN THE HOSPITAL AND DOCTOR ARE JUST-- ACCORDING TO THE LAW, THEY JUST HAVE TO STABILIZE YOU, WHICH MEANS YOU CANNOT DIE JUST THAT DAY, BUT MAYBE A FEW DAYS LATER. (audience laughing) BUT, UM-- >> (laughing) YAAAY! >> BUT THEY DON'T-- THEY DON'T HAVE TO HEAL YOU, RIGHT? SO, THAT'S-- I MEAN, SOME OF MY CONSERVATIVE STUDENTS ARE SAYING, "WELL, THERE IS A-- "MAYBE THERE IS NOT UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE IN THE UNITED STATES, "BUT THERE IS DEFINITELY UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE." AND THEY ARE REFERRING TO THIS PARTICULAR FEDERAL LAW THAT REQUIRES MEDICAL PROFESSION TO STABILIZE YOU. I DON'T KNOW-- MY MOTHER IS A DOCTOR-- I KNOW PRETTY WELL WHAT HEALTHCARE IS, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO EMERGENCY ROOM FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU NEED, RIGHT? JUST HAVING A REGULAR DOCTOR WHO TAKES CARE FOR YOU, 10, 20, 30 YEARS-- HOPEFULLY IF HE OR SHE IS ALIVE THAT LONG, RIGHT? WHY NOT COMMERCE CLAUSE, RIGHT? WELL, I THINK COMMERCE CLAUSE IS PROBLEMATIC BOTH ON ACCOUNT OF SUPREME COURT, RIGHT? JOHN ROBERTS-- THE CHIEF JUSTICE-- SAID THAT THIS WAS PROBLEMATIC, BUT IT'S EVEN MORE PROBLEMATIC THAN HE SAID, RIGHT? IF YOU READ THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, COMMERCE CLAUSE IS REGULATING THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ACROSS STATE BORDERS AND ACROSS-- WELL, ALSO ACROSS NATIONAL BORDERS, RIGHT? BUT LET US ASSUME THAT YOU BUY HEALTH INSURANCE WITHIN THE STATE AND PARTICULAR INSURANCE COMPANIES WITHIN THE STATE-- DOES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE APPLY? I THINK THE SUPREME COURT PERHAPS, IF HELD UNDER THE GUN, WOULD SAY, "WELL, ANY ECONOMIC ACTIVITY APPLIES UNDER COMMERCE CLAUSE," RIGHT? EVEN IF IT IS WITHIN THE STATE, RIGHT? BUT THE ARGUMENT THAT ROBERTS READ, AND THIS IS MAINLY HIS OPINION, RIGHT? THE ARGUMENT THAT ROBERTS READ IN TERMS OF THE "OBAMACARE" WAS THAT THERE IS NO WAY IN WHICH PEOPLE SHOULD BE FORCED TO ENTER A MARKET-- WHICH IS MARKET FOR HEALTH INSURANCE, RIGHT-- WITHOUT REALLY WANTING TO ENTER IT, RIGHT? >> SO-- BECAUSE FOR THEM, THIS WAS PERCEIVED AS SORT OF A SLIPPERY SLOPE. IF THE GOVERNMENT FORCES YOU TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE THEN THEY CAN BASICALLY FORCE YOU TO BUY BROCCOLI OR CHEVY VAULT. >> (giggling). >> BUT THE GOVERNMENT CLAIM THAT HEALTHCARE MARKET, OR HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET, IS A DIFFERENT ONE. SO, IT’S NOT THE SAME, LIKE BROCCOLI OR CHEVY VAULT, RIGHT? IT’S A MARKET IN WHICH ALL OF US WILL USE HEALTHCARE SOONER OR LATER... AND NOT ALL OF US WILL BUY BROCCOLI, RIGHT? AND THEREFORE, IF YOU’RE NOT ABLE TO PAY FOR THE SERVICE, RIGHT, THEREFORE, OTHERS WILL PAY FOR US THROUGH HIGHER INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND FOR HIGHER PRICE, RIGHT? BUT ROBERTS SAID, "WELL, COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT APPLY, "BUT THE POWER TO TAX DOES," RIGHT? SO, THIS-- IF YOU DON’T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE STARTING IN 2014, THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO SLAP YOU WITH A PENALTY, AND ROBERTS SAID THAT THIS PENALTY COULD BE INTERPRETED AS A TAX, RIGHT? DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS AGAINST CALLING IT A TAX. (laughing) BUT ROBERTS SAID, "OH, WELL, WE CAN CALL IT A TAX "BECAUSE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SARAH MARSHALL ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT IT’S ALWAYS GREAT--" "IT’S ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA TO SEE CONSTITUTION "HOW A CERTAIN LAW COULD BE JUSTIFIED, "REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT APPELLANT OF THAT LAW "MAY NOT EVEN WANT TO HAVE THIS ARGUMENT HEARD." ALTHOUGH, IN THE ARGUMENTS, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION MENTIONED THE POSSIBILITY TO INTERPRET THAT PENALTY AS A TAX. BUT THAT WAS SORT OF A SIDE ARGUMENT. BUT ROBERTS, IN HIS OPINION, IS SAYING THAT’S THE MAIN ARGUMENT-- INTERPRETING THIS PENALTY THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY IF YOU DON’T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE IN 2014 CAN BE CALLED A TAX. AND THERE’S ABSOLUTELY NO LIMIT IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS HOW MUCH GOVERNMENT CAN TAX YOU, THERE IS NO LIMIT-- THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT TAX YOU FOR THE THINGS YOU DON’T WANT OR NEED, RIGHT? THE GOVERNMENT-- THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT GOVERNMENT CANNOT TAX YOU ONLY IF YOU JUST SIT AT HOME AND DRINK FRENCH COGNAC AND SMOKE CIGARS, RIGHT? >> (giggling). >> GOVERNMENT CAN EVEN TAX YOU IN THAT PARTICULAR-- ESPECIALLY THEY CAN TAX THE COGNAC AND CIGARS. AND SO-- BUT THIS, I THINK IT'S-- PERSONALLY, THAT IT’S A VERY STRANGE DECISION BECAUSE IT SAYS, "ON ONE HAND, "THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO BE CONSTRAINED IN ITS POWER "TO FORCE YOU TO BUY STUFF, BUT HOW COME--" MY QUESTION IS, HOW COME THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT CONSTRAINED IN ITS ABILITY TO TAX? I THINK, PERHAPS, THAT WAS A POLITICAL DECISION-- WHICH, BY THE WAY, I AGREE-- (laughing) UH, AND I THINK ROBERTS WAS BASICALLY LOOKING FOR A PLAUSIBLE JUSTIFICATION IN THE CONSTITUTION TO JUSTIFY THE DECISION THAT HE PROBABLY MADE BEFORE HE EVEN PERHAPS THOUGHT ABOUT ARGUMENTS. IT’S ALSO JUST-- THAT'S JUST A SPECULATION. OF COURSE, I DON’T KNOW. AS FAR AS GEORGE WASHINGTON IS CONCERNED, RIGHT, UM, IF YOU READ THE CONSTITUTION CAREFULLY, THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT TELLING YOU THAT YOU SHOULD BUY A WEAPON, RIGHT? IT DOESN’T MENTION MUSKETS OR GUNS OR SHOTGUNS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, RIGHT? THERE WAS A LAW, RIGHT, THAT BASICALLY FORCED PEOPLE TO BUY WEAPONS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND WHAT THEY WERE DEFENDING, RIGHT? BUT NOT THE PARTICULAR CONSTITUTIONAL... CONSTITUTIONAL THING ITSELF, RIGHT? UH, WHY WAS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT? WE DON’T KNOW, BECAUSE NOBODY CHALLENGED IT, RIGHT? SO, IN ORDER FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO SAY THAT SOMETHING IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT, THERE HAS TO BE A TEST CASE. THERE HAS TO BE A CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, RIGHT? THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT JUST GO AROUND STATES OR TALK TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND SAY, "LOOK, WHAT YOU JUST PASSED IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL." IT DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY, RIGHT? SO, I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT IF SOMEBODY CHALLENGED... (laughing) THE ORDER OR LAW BY GEORGE WASHINGTON, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS WELL. >> MAYBE I MISSED IT, BUT IF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS OUR TOPIC TODAY, SAYS THAT THE CONGRESS CAN REGULATE COMMERCE-- BUSINESS TRADE, IN EFFECT-- HOW IS HEALTHCARE NOT BUSINESS TRADE COMMERCE? >> BECAUSE YOU MAY DECIDE NOT TO HAVE HEALTHCARE, RIGHT? YOU MAY DECIDE NOT TO BUY. SO, WHY WOULD WE PENALIZE YOU FOR NOT BUYING SOMETHING? WHY WOULD WE PENALIZE YOU FOR NOT BUYING A CHEVY VAULT? WHY WOULD WE PENALIZE YOU FOR NOT BUYING BROCCOLI, RIGHT? SO, THE LAW IS SAYING THAT IF YOU DON’T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE IN 2014, WE GONNA PENALIZE YOU, AND 26 STATES WERE SAYING, "WELL, THAT’S WRONG "BECAUSE THE CONGRESS IS NOT ALLOWED TO PENALIZE PEOPLE FOR DOING NOTHING." >> BUT YOU CAN BE FORCED TO BUY SOCIAL SECURITY, A PENSION... >> THAT’S WHY-- THAT'S WHY-- I MEAN, I HAD A FEW THINGS, YEAH. ON FRIDAY, I WAS LISTENING TO N.P.R. AT THE BEGINNING, THE RADIO SAYS THE WHOLE THING WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. NOW, AFTER A FEW HOURS-- A FEW HOURS LATER, THEY CHANGED. THEY SAID JOHN ROBERTS ACTUALLY SAID THE AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE IS CONSTITUTIONAL. ACTUALLY, THERE WERE TWO VOTES. NOW, ON THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, JOHN ROBERTS STOOD WITH THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES. THAT MEANS, YOU KNOW, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT APPLY. BUT THE SECOND VOTE WAS WHETHER THE TAX-- UH, WHETHER THIS SHOULD FALL IN THE PROVINCE OF TAX. IN THAT CASE, JOHN ROBERTS VOTED WITH THE LIBERAL JUSTICES. SO, THEY NOW USE COMMERCE CLAUSE, THEY USE TAX, BECAUSE EVERYBODY HAS TO BE TAXED AND GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWER TO MAKE PEOPLE PAY TAXES. AND THAT’S THE 16th AMENDMENT. NOW, BUT JOHN ROBERTS SAYS THE TAX IS NOT PENALTY. THE TAX IS USED TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE, TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR. IF YOU WANT HEALTHCARE, YOU HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR BEHAVIOR, YOU HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE, YOU HAVE TO PAY INTO THAT. SO THIS ENCOURAGEMENT IS NOT PENALTY-- THAT’S THE PURPOSE OF TAX. I THINK, ANOTHER THING IN THAT RULING IS THAT JOHN ROBERTS ACTUALLY ADDED A FEW THINGS TO THE CONSTITUTION. HE SAID THAT SUPREME COURT COULD MODIFY THE CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION. UM, I MEAN, THAT’S KIND OF A, YOU KNOW, A VERY BIG CHANGE. JOHN ROBERTS SAID, "IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL BILL "OR LEGISLATION IS NOT CLEAR, "THE SUPREME COURT CAN INTERPRET, CAN ADD, CAN MODIFY." >> YEAH. >> SO, THAT’S SOMETHING, YOU KNOW. >> AND SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE ARE TAXES, NOT PENALTIES, AND THEREFORE, IN THAT PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION, ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. >> SO PRESUMABLY, IF THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE COVERAGE AND MADE YOU PAY FOR IT, THEN, THEN, LIKE SOCIAL SECURITY, IT WOULD BE ALLOWED? >> IF YOU COULD INTERPRET IT AS A TAX, AND FOLLOWING THIS PARTICULAR DECISION, THEN YES, THAT’D BE CONSTITUTIONAL. >> OKAY. >> OKAY, IN 1995, I BELIEVE IT WAS, CONGRESS PASSED-- OR WAS IT IN 1996-- CONGRESS PASSED THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT? >> SIX. 1996. >> OKAY. >> SORRY. >> CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. >> IT WAS THEN A FEW YEARS LATER CONGRESS ATTEMPTED-- WELL, A FEW MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ATTEMPTED TO LIMIT THE FEDERAL COURT’S ABILITY TO ACTUALLY ACT ON THAT, TO RULE IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. UM, I GUESS MY QUESTION NOW IS... DOES THE CONSTITUTION DIRECTLY SAY, OR INDIRECTLY SAY, THAT CONGRESS HAS THE ABILITY TO MODERATE THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THAT MANNER BECAUSE THEY ARE THE GUARDIANS OF THE CONSTITUTION IN MANY WAYS AND RESPECTS? >> THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS-- DID YOU SAY CONGRESS? UM... THE ABILITY TO CONTROL THE APPEALS THAT CAN BE HEARD, BECAUSE CONGRESS CREATES THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS. SO, UM... CONGRESS GIVETH AND CONGRESS CAN TAKETH AWAY. AND SO, BECAUSE THEY CREATE THOSE LOWER COURTS, ESPECIALLY THE DISTRICT COURTS, THEY CAN EXPAND AND CONTRACT THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS, AS WELL AS THE APPEALS COURT-- THE COURT OF APPEALS. AND THE APPEALS PORTION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. SO, YOUR QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN RESTRICT THEIR ABILITY TO HEAR? YES. UM, OFTEN TIMES I GET-- THE DIFFERENT QUESTION IS, "CAN-- OR IS D.O.M.A., "THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, CONSTITUTIONAL?" AND YEAH, IT IS. UM, UNDER ARTICLE IV OF THE CONSTITUTION, IN THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE-- AT THE VERY END OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, IT SAYS THAT CONGRESS CAN PRESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS WILL BE PRESCRIBED. SO, CONGRESS CAN MAKE THOSE EXCEPTIONS AND CONGRESS CAN CHANGE THE APPELLANT JURISDICTION OF THOSE COURTS. SO, I THINK I-- >> SO, D.O.M.A. IS CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORDING TO YOU? >>YES. >> BUT THAT LAW DEFINES THE MARRIAGE-- THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE, ACCORDING TO CONGRESS-- MARRIAGE IS A TRADITIONAL UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. THAT’S MARRIAGE. SO, IF YOU’VE GOT A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A MAN OR A WOMAN AND A WOMAN, THAT’S NOT MARRIAGE. THAT’S PASSED IN 1996. NOW, HOW MANY STATES HAVE NULLIFIED OR INTERPOSED THAT LEGISLATION? I’M NOT SURE, BUT MANY-- NOT MANY-- SEVERAL STATES SAY, YOU KNOW, THEY GO THEIR OWN WAY TO DEFINE MARRIAGE. >> I GUESS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT ISN’T THAT IT DEFINES WHAT MARRIAGE IS. IT LEAVES UP TO THE STATES, WHICH IS APPROPRIATELY WHERE IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION DOESN’T MENTION MARRIAGE. THAT IT’S UP TO THE STATES TO DETERMINE HOW THEY RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE, AND UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE-- UM, IT’S UNDER ARTICLE IV OF THE CONSTITUTION-- WHICH IS AN ARTICLE THAT DEFINES FEDERALISM AND HOW THE STATES WILL RELATE TO EACH OTHER. AND THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE JUST SAYS THAT ONE CONTRACT OR DECREE OR AGREEMENT IN ONE STATE IS RECOGNIZED IN ANOTHER STATE. UM... MY UNDERSTANDING OF D.O.M.A. IS THAT IT GETS-- IT’S ALMOST A "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE" CARD FOR THE STATES, WHERE THEY CAN-- UNDER D.O.M.A., THAT STATES DON’T HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE OF ANY OTHER STATE, SHOULD IT CHOOSE NOT TO. IT’S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT D.O.M.A. ACTUALLY DEFINES WHAT MARRIAGE IS. >> (inaudible speaking). >> OF D.O.M.A.? >> YES. >> OKAY, I SIT CORRECTED. >> IT WAS CHALLENGED UNDER THE 14th AMENDMENT AND THE 5th AMENDMENT, UM, AND I THINK IT WAS ALSO CHALLENGED IN ANOTHER AMENDMENT, BUT I CAN’T BE SURE. >> BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER REALLY WEIGHED IN ON MARRIAGE BECAUSE MARRIAGE ITSELF IS CONTROLLED BY THE STATES. SO, MY ONLY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE BECAUSE OF TAXES. THAT THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ISN’T GOING TO RECOGNIZE THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE UNDER THE GUISE-- UNDER THE TAX STRUCTURE, MAYBE. >> YEAH, IT WAS-- IT HAD TO DO WITH SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES, AND STUFF SUCH AS THAT, AND MILITARY BENEFITS, MORE SPECIFICALLY. >> YES. >> AND THAT’S WHERE THE CHALLENGE CAME IN. (indistinct)-- IT WAS ALSO DEEMED AS A STATE’S RIGHTS ISSUE. IF A STATE WISHES TO RECOGNIZE A UNION, NO MATTER WHO IT BE WITH, THE STATE HAS A RIGHT TO DO THAT. >> THE STATE CAN, BUT THEY’RE NOT REQUIRED TO. >> YEAH. >> YEAH. >> BY THE WAY, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DECIDED NOT TO DEFEND D.O.M.A. IN COURT, SO THAT’S ONE OF THE POWERS OF EXECUTIVE POWERS. THE EXECUTIVE ORDER BY THE PRESIDENT SAYS THAT THEY’RE NOT GOING TO DEFEND THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT IF ATTACKED IN COURT, SO... IT’S NOT BEING IMPLEMENTED. >> WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THAT’S CONSTITUTIONAL, BECAUSE ISN’T THAT EXACTLY WHAT WE IMPEACHED A PRESIDENT OVER? FOR NOT ENFORCING A LAW? >> YEAH. >> WHICH PRESIDENT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? BILL CLINTON? >> UH, NO. HE GOT IN TROUBLE FOR SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT. (audience laughing) I'M, UM-- >> ANDREW JOHNSON? THERE’S ONLY BEEN TWO. >> WELL, YES-- AND SO, IT’D BE THE OTHER ONE FOR-- >> ANDREW JOHNSON? >> FOR REFUSING THE-- >> TENURE OF OFFICE ACT. >> TENURE IN OFFICE ACT. SO, IT’S UNDER ARTICLE II-- THE PRESIDENT HAS TO TAKE CARE TO ENSURE THAT THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY FOLLOWED. UM, LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS-- HE DOESN’T GET TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH LAWS ARE ENFORCED. HOWEVER, THE PRESIDENT CAN CHOOSE WHERE HIS AGENDA IS AND SET HIS PRIORITIES, AND HE MIGHT JUST SAY THIS ISN’T A PRIORITY FOR US. >> MY PREDICTION IS THAT THE COURTS THEMSELVES WILL RULE D.O.M.A. UNCONSTITUTIONAL EVENTUALLY. >> YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, I GUESS-- >> WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ALL THESE YOUNG PEOPLE GET INTO OFFICE? >> (laughing). >> DON’T WORRY-- IT’S CALLED "GENERATIONAL EFFECT." >> YEAH, BUT IN MY CLASSES, THERE ARE AT LEAST FIVE FUTURE PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES. >> OH, GOOD-- OKAY. >> I’D LIKE TO GO BACK TO-- UM-- I MEAN, I WAS KINDA DETECTING A THEME EARLIER THAT IT’S REALLY NOT OUR CONSTITUTION THAT’S THE PROBLEM, BUT I’M DETECTING THAT IT’S REALLY THE CITIZENRY THAT’S THE PROBLEM. THEY’RE NOT PROACTIVE ENOUGH, THEY’RE NOT INVOLVED ENOUGH, THAT IT’S THE MEDIA, I HEARD, THAT WAS THE PROBLEM. >> IT'S ONE PART. >> I HEARD THAT IT WAS OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM THAT WAS THE PROBLEM, BUT APPARENTLY, THE CONSTITUTION IS ABSOLVED. AND PERHAPS RIGHTLY SO, BUT THE-- I THINK THAT THERE IS SOME COMPLAINTS ABOUT OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM-- PERHAPS IF NOT THE CONSTITUTION, AT LEAST THE WAY OUR DEMOCRACY’S BEING IMPLEMENTED. AND, I MEAN, TAKE GERRYMANDERING, FOR EXAMPLE. I MEAN A LOT OF YOUNG PEOPLE PERHAPS ARE TURNED OFF OF VOTING BECAUSE THEY FEEL LIKE, "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? "A REPUBLICAN’S GONNA WIN THIS DISTRICT." >> YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT THEY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REPUBLICAN AND A DEMOCRAT. (audience laughing) >> YES, I’M ASSUMING THAT-- YES. >> THAT’S A LOT OF ASSUMPTION. >> BUT MANY PEOPLE HAVE POINTED OUT THAT THE WAY THE CONGRESSIONAL SYSTEM-- THE WAY CONGRESS AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS GERRYMANDERED MEANS THAT THERE’S SO FEW DISTRICTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY REALLY COMPETED OVER, THAT, FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF DISTRICTS, IT’S A FOREGONE CONCLUSION WHICH PARTY IS GONNA WIN AUTOMATICALLY THAT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. AND SO, IS THERE NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE, IF NOT CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION, AT LEAST SOME SORT OF REFORM? MAYBE THAT CAN BE DONE NATIONWIDE THAT WOULD BREAK UP THIS GERRYMANDERED SYSTEM THAT PREVENTS, IN MANY PEOPLE’S EYES, DEMOCRACY FROM BEING REALIZED, THAT REAL REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE-- >> YOU STILL GET TO VOTE... YOU STILL GET TO VOTE. >> I GOT AN IDEA. MOSTLY RIGHT NOW, THE STATES GET TO DECIDE WHERE TO DRAW THE LINES TO FORM THE DISTRICTS. CAN WE ELECT THIRD PARTY, NON-PARTISAN COMMISSIONS STAY THERE AND MAKE DECISIONS THAT WILL BE FAIR AND REASONABLE? SO-- >> WELL, THE CHALLENGE WILL BE-- >> TAKE OVER FROM STATE GOVERNMENTS. >> MORE OF A NEUTRAL WAY OF SELECTING CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS. >> NEUTRAL WAY? >> YEAH, TO FORM DISTRICTS. AND WHY NOT JUST A FEW STATES? NOT ALL OF THEM. IF ALL OF THEM FOLLOWED SUIT, I THINK THIS ISSUE CAN BE SETTLED, CAN BE SOLVED. >> YEAH, BUT I THINK THAT SOME STATES ARE FAIRLY INNOVATIVE, AND IF YOU LOOK AT HOW AMERICAN POLITICS WORKS, REALLY, THEN YOU WILL SEE THAT STATES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SORT OF PERCEIVED AS SITES OF POLITICAL EXPERIMENTATION. AND IF YOU SEE A BUNCH OF ARTICLES IN THE CONSTITUTION ARE BASICALLY TAKEN FROM STATE CONSTITUTIONS THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, RIGHT? (laughing) FROM THE FIRST 13 COLONIES, RIGHT? SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE STATES OF OREGON AND IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY OPEN PRIMARIES, WHICH MEANS THAT THE PRIMARIES-- WELL, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON’T KNOW, PRIMARIES ARE ELECTIONS THAT CHOOSE THE CANDIDATES WHO ARE GOING TO RUN IN THE GENERAL ELECTIONS, RIGHT? SO, UH, IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IN THE STATE OF OREGON, THERE ARE NO SEPARATE DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES. BUT THERE IS ONLY ONE PRIMARY AND THE FIRST TWO CANDIDATES WHO END UP HAVING THE MOST VOTES IN THE PRIMARY BASICALLY COMPETE AGAINST EACH OTHER. SO NOW, IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN SOME DISTRICTS, WE HAVE THE SITUATION IN WHICH TWO DEMOCRATS COMPETE AGAINST EACH OTHER... (laughing) OR IN OREGON, WHERE TWO REPUBLICANS COMPETE AGAINST EACH OTHER. AND SO, I MEAN... THE GENIUS OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM IS ACTUALLY IN FEDERALISM, RIGHT? AND FEDERALISM IS, TO A GREAT DEGREE, PRESCRIBED BY THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH ALLOWS STATES TO BASICALLY EXPERIMENT WITH POLITICAL INNOVATION, WITH CREATING NEW INSTITUTIONS AND WAYS OF DOING THINGS WITHOUT THIS-- SOME KIND OF A CRANKY, BUREAUCRATIC MECHANISMS THAT WOULD BASICALLY, I THINK, IMPEDE THE LIBERTY OF THE STATES AND THE LIBERTY OF INDIVIDUALS, RIGHT? >> THIS ACTUALLY-- IT BRINGS ME BACK TO MY ORIGINAL ARGUMENT-- THAT IS, THAT CONGRESS HAS TO BE CHANGED. NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIZE OF STATES-- CALIFORNIAN VERSUS WYOMING, FOR EXAMPLE-- I MEAN, EACH STATE HAS TWO SENATORS. CALIFORNIA IS SUCH A BIG STATE, WHICH HAS LIKE 35 MILLION PEOPLE-- IT HAS TWO SENATORS. WYOMING HAS LIKE 500,000-- IT STILL HAS TWO SENATORS. SO, HOW DO YOU APPLY ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE? IT’S NOT PROPORTIONAL. SO, THAT’S WHY, AGAIN, CONGRESS HAS TO BE CHANGED ACCORDING TO THE TIMES. IN THAT CASE, CALIFORNIA IS UNDER-REPRESENTED, WYOMING IS OVER-REPRESENTED. >> IT’S UNDEMOCRATIC-- >> UNDEMOCRATIC. >> AND THAT THE CONSTITUTION COULD BE MADE MORE DEMOCRATIC IF WE MADE THE SENATE MORE PROPORTIONAL OR IF WE DID AWAY WITH THE SENATE ALTOGETHER? >> MORE PROPORTIONAL. >> WHICH WOULD, OF COURSE, REQUIRE-- BASED ON THE POPULATION, I MEAN. LARGE STATES SHOULD HAVE MORE, SMALL STATES SHOULD HAVE LESS-- >> I’D LIKE YOU TO GET TO SEE THE SENATE AGREE TO THAT. AND ACTUALLY, IT’S IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE ONLY PART OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT CANNOT BE CHANGED, IS THAT YOU CANNOT TAKE THE TWO SENATORS FROM EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE STATE. IT’S THE ONLY PART OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT CANNOT BE CHANGED. >> THAT'S TRUE-- THAT'S TRUE. THAT’S WHY IT SHOULD BE CHANGED, NO? (audience laughing) >> THE ONLY PART THAT CAN’T BE AMENDED IS THE ONLY PART THAT SHOULD BE AMENDED, RIGHT? >> YEAH, BUT I’M REALLY SKEPTICAL ABOUT THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT MORE DEMOCRACY. I MEAN, UH... I MEAN, WE JUST AGREED THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE TERRIBLY INFORMED, AND TERRIBLY INFORMED PEOPLE MAKE CRAPPY CHOICES, SO WHY WOULD WE-- >> WHICH IS WHY WE-- >> WHY WOULD WE GIVE THEM MORE CHOICE, RIGHT? (audience laughing) >> WHICH IS WHY WE DO NOT WANT TO GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. >> I AGREE WITH THIS THING THAT EACH STATE HAS TWO SENATORS BECAUSE THEN SMALL STATES HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE... I MEAN, INFLUENCE. IF YOU LOOK AT HOW AMERICAN POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS ARE CREATED, I THINK FOUNDING FATHERS-- AND I ALWAYS WONDER WHERE THE MOTHERS WERE-- BUT FOUNDING FATHERS, RIGHT-- OR FRAMERS, BETTER TO CALL THEM-- FRAMERS BASICALLY CREATED A BALANCE BETWEEN PROTECTING THE POWER OF THE MAJORITY AND PRESERVING SOME POWER FOR THE MINORITIES, RIGHT? SO, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, RIGHT, WHICH ARE THE INSTITUTIONS THAT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY, SUCH AS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THEN YOU HAVE THE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES PROPORTIONAL TO THE POPULATION. BUT THEN, YOU LOOK AT-- I WOULD CALL IT "CLASSICAL LIBERAL INSTITUTION," WHICH IS THE SENATE, AND LIBERALISM-- CLASSICAL LIBERAL-- NOT LIBERALISM OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY BUT CLASSICAL POLITICAL LIBERALISM OF JOHN LOCKE AND IMMANUEL KANT-- IS GOING TO TELL YOU THAT, BASICALLY, MINORITIES HAVE TO BE WELL-REPRESENTED, RIGHT? THEIR RIGHTS HAVE TO BE PRESERVED, RIGHT? BECAUSE LIBERALISM-- CLASSICAL POLITICAL LIBERALISM-- STARTS FROM (indistinct), FROM INDIVIDUAL, RIGHT? SO INDIVIDUAL-- EVEN REGARDLESS OF HOW INSIGNIFICANT AND SMALL THIS INDIVIDUAL IS, ALSO HAS TO BE PRESERVED. SO, I THINK-- AND LOOK AT THE SUPREME COURT. SUPREME COURT IS ABSOLUTELY UNDEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION, RIGHT? ONCE THESE JUSTICES ARE PUT ON THE BENCH, THEY DO NOT REALLY-- >> THEY SHALL SERVE FOR 50 YEARS, NOT LIFE. >> YEAH, AN OVERSIGHT. SO, I THINK THIS BALANCE BETWEEN REPRESENTING AND RESPECTING THE POWER OF MAJORITY AND PRESERVING THE RIGHTS OF MINORITY IN THE SENSE OF THOSE WHO ARE SMALLER THAN THE MAJORITY IN NUMBERS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. AND THAT’S-- I THINK THAT’S THE GENIUS OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM. I DON’T THINK THAT DEMOCRACY IS THE... MEDICINE FOR EVERYTHING. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, WHICH MEANS THE FIRST SEVEN ARTICLES, YOU’LL SEE THAT THE FRAMERS ARE VERY SKEPTICAL OF DEMOCRACY, RIGHT? THE ONLY HOUSE OF CONGRESS THAT WAS DIRECTLY ELECTED WAS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RIGHT? SENATE WAS NOT DIRECTLY ELECTED, IF YOU LOOK AT ARTICLE I. SENATE WAS ELECTED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE STATES, RIGHT? (chuckling) AND THE PRESIDENT, AS HE STILL IS TODAY, IS ACTUALLY ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. I MEAN, MEMBERS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DO NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION TOWARDS THE POPULAR VOTE. >> WRONG. ACTUALLY SOME STATES DO-- 38 STATES HAVE-- >> OKAY, ALL RIGHT, LET'S CONSTITUTIONALIZE THAT, THOUGH. >> CONSTITUTIONALLY, NO-- ONLY IN THE STATES. >> THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT TELL THE MEMBERS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, "YOU HAVE TO VOTE IN THE SAME WAY AS YOUR STATE." >> BUT THAT TELLS THAT THE FRAMERS HAD A FEAR OF THE PEOPLE. >> THAT’S RIGHT, AND I DO HAVE FEAR, TOO. (all laughing) SO, THAT’S WHY I’M SAYING THAT DEMOCRACY IS NOT NECESSARILY THE MEDICINE FOR EVERYTHING. I THINK THE FRAMERS WERE FAIRLY WISE IN BALANCING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, BUT ALSO THE-- HOW SHOULD I SAY IT? ALSO THE COMPETENCE OF THE-- >> IT'S FILTERING-- >> COMPETENCE OF THE ELITE. >> OURS-- I MEAN, AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IS NOT DIRECT, PURE DEMOCRACY. AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IS INDIRECT. >> YEAH. >> REPRESENTATIVE, REPUBLICAN. >> YEAH. >> SO, WE CHOOSE OUR LEADERS, WE CHOOSE REPRESENTATIVES, AND THESE REPRESENTATIVES MAKE RULES IN OUR NAMES AND ON OUR BEHALF. >> SO, IT ALL COMES BACK TO US. >> SO, WE HAVE TO KEEP AN EYE ON THEM. >> YES. >> YEAH, BUT AS HAMILTON OR MADISON, REGARD-- I MEAN, IF YOU-- I DON’T KNOW-- THERE IS DISAGREEMENT WHO AUTHORED FEDERALIST PAPER NUMBER 52, WHETHER HAMILTON OR MADISON. I MEAN, "IF PEOPLE WERE SAINTS, WE WOULDN’T NEED GOVERNMENT," AS HAMILTON OR MADISON SAID, RIGHT? SO, HAVING THIS BALANCE OF POWER AND HAVING DEMOCRACY IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE TO HOLD OUR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE IS OUR DISBELIEF IN THE GOODNESS OF HUMAN NATURE, RIGHT? WE SAYING, "WELL, WE HAVE THESE CRAPPY LEADERS," AND THEY’LL ALWAYS REMAIN CRAPPY IF WE DO NOT CONTROL THEM, RIGHT? BUT IF HUMAN NATURE WAS DIFFERENT, THEN WE WOULD NOT NEED DEMOCRACY BECAUSE WE WOULDN’T NEED TO CONTROL THE LEADERS BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE NATURALLY GOOD, RIGHT? >> AND THAT’S WHY-- >> WHICH MEANS CARING ABOUT THE GOODS OF THE COMMUNITY. >> THAT’S EXACTLY WHY WE NEED TERM LIMITS-- WE CAN’T LET THEM STAY FOREVER. WE HAVE TO LET THEM SERVE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO GO. >> BUT THE TERM LIMITS HAVE GOTTEN US INTO SO MUCH TROUBLE IN MICHIGAN. I MEAN, WE HAVE TERM LIMITS ON OUR LEGISLATURE AND ON OUR GOVERNOR, WHICH IS ALL FINE AND DANDY IF THEY WERE STAGGERED. BUT IN MICHIGAN, WE HAD WHAT? A THIRD OF OUR HOUSE, A THIRD OF OUR SENATE, AND OUR GOVERNOR CHANGE OVER IN 2010. THAT WOULD BE THE SAME YEAR THAT WE REDISTRICTED, AND SO IT WENT FROM ONE CHAMBER BEING CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS, ONE BEING CONTROLLED BY REPUBLICANS, AND THEN, A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR, TO ALL REPUBLICANS, AND THEY ARE THE ONES WHO REDEFINE AND REDRAW THOSE DISTRICT LINES THAT WILL HOLD FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS. SO, TERM LIMITS AREN’T NECESSARILY A GOOD THING, AND PERSONALLY, THEY’RE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC. I MEAN, YOU’RE CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT THE CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE. IF A SENATOR IS DOING A GREAT JOB, HE SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ELECTED. SO, IF A SENATOR IS NO LONGER DOING HIS JOB, PEOPLE SHOULD BE SMART ENOUGH AND INFORMED ENOUGH TO NOT CHOOSE THEM, ISN’T IT? RIGHT? SO, IF YOU INSTITUTE A TERM LIMIT, YOU’RE ACTUALLY LIMITING THE CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE AND-- >> AND PUNISH GOOD PEOPLE-- >> PUNISH GOOD PEOPLE. I MEAN, WE HAVE TERM LIMITS IN THIS COUNTRY. THEY’RE CALLED ELECTIONS. AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE THEM EVERY TWO YEARS, NOT EVERY FOUR. SO... >> QUESTION OVER HERE. >> I WANTED TO ASK YOU IN PARTICULAR, KEITH, BECAUSE YOU LIVED IN ILLINOIS, AND YOU SAW THE ILLINOIS GOVERNMENT UP CLOSE-- THE LEGISLATURE THAT DOES NOT HAVE TERM LIMITS. I WONDER IF ANYONE ON THE PANEL OR ANYONE ELSE WHO’S LIVED IN BOTH MICHIGAN AND A STATE THAT DOESN’T HAVE TERM LIMITS, IF YOU’D LIKE TO COMPARE THE POLITICAL CULTURE. IF ANYTHING FLOWS FROM THE STATE WITH TERM LIMITS AND ONE WITHOUT. >> WELL, I’VE SAID BEFORE THAT I’M OPPOSED TO TERM LIMITS. I THINK THAT THE PROBLEM WITH TERM LIMITS IN MICHIGAN, AND I GOT HERE TOO LATE TO STOP YOU GUYS FROM ADOPTING THAT IN YOUR CONSTITUTION-- >> (laughing). >> BUT THE PROBLEM WITH IT IS THAT YOU HAVE NO INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY. UM, BASICALLY, EVERYBODY’S RELATIVELY NEW, I MEAN, YOUR FIRST TERM IN OFFICE IS REALLY JUST FIGURING OUT WHAT THE JOB IS, AND SO, YOU’VE GOT EIGHT YEARS YOU CAN SERVE IN THE STATE SENATE, SIX YEARS IN THE STATE HOUSE, AND THEN YOU’RE OUT. AND IT’S-- A LOT OF PEOPLE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY VOTED FOR THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IN MICHIGAN-- IMPLEMENTING TERM LIMITS-- THEY DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS A LIFETIME LIMIT. IT’S NOT LIKE-- I MEAN, ONCE YOU’VE SERVED YOUR SIX, THEN YOU’RE DONE FOR GOOD. YOU CAN NEVER BE ELECTED TO THAT CHAMBER AGAIN FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, SO IT IS THE MOST STRICT TERM LIMITS IN THE UNITED STATES, I BELIEVE. AND, UM... AND WHAT WE’VE GOTTEN INSTEAD IS A RELATIVELY YOUNG, OR NEW, CLASS OF STATE LEGISLATORS WHO DON’T REMEMBER MANY OF THE SAME ARGUMENTS THAT THEY ARE HAVING NOW, WERE ARGUED 20 YEARS AGO, AND THERE’S NO INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY. UM, A LOT OF THEM ARE DEPENDENT, THEN, ON THE LOBBYISTS TO TELL THEM HOW THEY SHOULD VOTE, BECAUSE THEY DON’T KNOW THE LAW WELL ENOUGH THEMSELVES, AND, YOU KNOW, THEY DON’T HAVE THE SELF-CONFIDENCE AND THE TENURE TO BELIEVE THAT THEY DON’T NEED THE MONEY THAT LOBBYISTS PROVIDE TO GET RE-ELECTED. SO, I FEEL LIKE, REALLY, THE GROUP IN LANSING THAT HAS BEEN EMPOWERED BY TERM LIMITS HAS REALLY BEEN THE LOBBYISTS. >> WELL, AND THE WHOLE POINT IN INSTITUTING TERM LIMITS, AT LEAST MY UNDERSTANDING IS-- I COULDN’T-- I’M SORRY, I COULDN’T VOTE AT THAT POINT. UM... (laughing) >> YOU JUST GOT ONE TERM FOR THE HOUSE IS SIX-- THREE TERMS, SIX YEARS. >> RIGHT. >> FOR THE SENATE, IT’S TWO TERMS, TWELVE YEARS. >> RIGHT, RIGHT, BUT-- >> EIGHT IN THE STATE SENATE. >> RIGHT-- BUT THE POINT IS, THE WHOLE REASON WHY THEY INSTITUTED TERM LIMITS WAS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WANTED INTEREST GROUPS AND LOBBYISTS TO HAVE LESS INFLUENCE. AND THEY FELT VERY STRONGLY THAT PEOPLE WERE GETTING ELECTED AND THEY WERE IN THERE FOR SO LONG, THAT THEY WERE HEAVILY INFLUENCED AND BOUGHT OUT BY INTEREST GROUPS, MUCH LIKE OUR CURRENT HOUSE AND SENATE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, BUT THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN YOU INSTITUTE TERM LIMITS, THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO KNOW NOW HOW TO WRITE LEGISLATION ARE THE INTEREST GROUPS AND THE LOBBYISTS. SO, WE’VE ACTUALLY SHOWN-- IT’S BEEN STATISTICALLY PROVEN THAT WE ARE DEPENDING MORE NOW ON INTEREST GROUPS AND LOBBYISTS TO WRITE OUR LEGISLATION BECAUSE OUR LEGISLATORS DON’T KNOW HOW TO DO IT, AND BY THE TIME THEY LEARN IT, IT’S TIME FOR THEM TO LEAVE. SO, GO MICHIGAN. WE COULD JUST HAVE LONGER TERM LIMITS. FIFTEEN YEARS, EIGHTEEN YEARS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> OR NONE. >> THAT’D BE SMART-- >> OR NONE AT ALL. >> OR NONE AT ALL. >> IS THERE A QUESTION OVER HERE? >> JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, I DON’T WANNA UPSET ALL THE YOUNG FOLKS IN HERE. I STILL CONSIDER MYSELF YOUNG, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, AT 60, UM, BUT... TO GO ALONG WITH THE COMMENT THAT PROFESSOR SARAH MADE-- ER, HEATHER MADE A LITTLE WHILE AGO, I WANNA ADD TO IT-- YOU DON’T GROW A BRAIN UNTIL YOU’RE 30 YEARS OLD. THINGS THAT YOU WERE TAUGHT BY YOUR PARENTS, AS FAR AS POLITICIANS OR POLITICAL PARTIES-- GENERALLY, TEENAGERS ARE REBELLIOUS, AND, IN MY CASE AND IN MANY OTHER CASES, I WENT THE OPPOSITE WAY OF MY PARENTS UNTIL I GOT TO BE ABOUT 30. (laughing) UM, THE U.N. NEEDS TO BE EVICTED FROM THIS COUNTRY. I SUGGEST IT GOES TO HOLLAND, SO THAT WHEN GLOBAL WARMING HITS BETTER, THEY'LL GO UNDERWATER. >> (laughing). >> THE BUILDING ITSELF SHOULD BE TURNED INTO HOUSING FOR THE POOR PEOPLE. LIBERAL MEDIA CONTROLS MOST OF THE TIME ON TELEVISION, UNLESS YOU GET SMARTS ENOUGH TO WATCH FOX NEWS. AND, I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT HERE. TIME FOR ME TO SHUT UP-- SOME YOUNG PEOPLE CAN TALK NOW. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE THING BEFORE HEATHER SAYS ANYTHING. (audience laughing) >> CAN I JUST COMMENT-- >> WINSTON CHURCHILL SAID THIS-- “IF YOU’RE NOT LIBERAL AT 20, YOU HAVE NO HEART. "IF YOU’RE NOT CONSERVATIVE AT 40, YOU HAVE NO MIND.” >> YEAH. >> WELL I’M 47 AND I’M OFFENDED. (all laughing) >> WHICH WAY, WHICH WAY? >> I MEAN, BECAUSE I REMEMBER BEING UNDER 30 AND I WOULD OBJECT TO SOMEBODY TELLING ME THAT I DIDN’T HAVE A BRAIN. UH, EVEN AT 21, OR 18. AND YET, I THINK THAT THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16, AS A MATTER OF FACT, BECAUSE I THINK WE COULD TEACH ‘EM IN HIGH SCHOOL-- THAT WOULD BE-- THAT’S WHERE YOU REALLY ENGAGE 'EM. THAT’S WHERE THEY START BECOMING POLITICALLY AWARE, AND-- BUT I KNOW I’M IN THE MINORITY ON THAT ONE. >> I THINK THE DRINKING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 18. IF YOU CAN DIE FOR YOUR COUNTRY, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO AT LEAST DRINK. >> DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YOU HAVE A QUESTION-- THERE IS A QUESTION OVER THERE. >> SORRY. (chuckling) >> HI-- MY QUESTION-- I’VE HEARD EACH OF YOU KIND OF INDICATE THAT THERE’S THINGS IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH. WHAT ONE THING BOTHERS YOU THAT, IF YOU COULD CHANGE, YOU WOULD DO IT, AND WHY? >> HMM. >> WHAT ABOUT THIS ONE? I KNOW, I KNOW, YOU DON’T LIKE THIS IDEA. WHAT ABOUT, OKAY-- AMERICAN PRESIDENT MUST BE FROM NATIVE AMERICANS. IF YOU’RE NOT NATIVE-BORN-- NATURAL BORN CITIZEN-- YOU CANNOT BE THE PRESIDENT. HOW ABOUT ALLOWING THE FOREIGN-BORN AMERICANS TO BE THE PRESIDENT? I’M NOT GOING TO RUN, YOU KNOW, FOR THE PRESIDENT. (all laughing) I'M FOREIGN-BORN. >> THE CHINESE-AMERICAN. >> THEN WE COULD GET ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. (audience laughing) >> SCHWARZENEGGER OR JENNIFER GRANHOLM, RIGHT? >> NO, SHE’S NOT-- (all laughing) >> I KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE HER. >> I KNEW YOU'D LIKE THAT ONE. (all laughing) >> ANYWAYS, THAT'S JUST (indistinct)-- >> OKAY, NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. GORDAN? I DON’T KNOW YET. >> I DON’T KNOW, I’M-- I THINK THE CONSTITUTION IS BASICALLY A POETIC DOCUMENT, RIGHT? IT’S POETIC BECAUSE... IT ALLOWS FOR WIDE INTERPRETATION, RIGHT? IF YOU LOOK AT-- ESPECIALLY, I THINK, THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS-- THE BILL OF RIGHTS, RIGHT? I THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE FASCINATED WITH THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH... BUT THEY PERCEIVE THIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AS ABSOLUTE-- THEY CAN SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT AT ANY TIME, RIGHT? WE TALK ABOUT THAT IN CLASS. ACTUALLY, I WILL TALK ABOUT THAT WITH MY CLASSES NEXT WEEK. BUT... WHAT, BASICALLY, FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS TELLING YOU IS THE FREEDOM OF ANTI-GOVERNMENT SPEECH. IT IS TELLING YOU THAT YOU CAN BASICALLY TALK AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT MAKE ANY RULES THAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM DOING THAT, BUT IT DOESN’T TELL YOU THAT YOUR EMPLOYER CANNOT PREVENT YOU, ESPECIALLY IF IT’S A PRIVATE EMPLOYER. IT DOESN’T TELL YOU THAT A PRIVATE SCHOOL CANNOT PREVENT YOU FROM SAYING THINGS. SO, PERHAPS, IN THAT PARTICULAR SENSE, I WOULD LIKE THE CONSTITUTION TO BE MORE PRECISE... RIGHT? UH, I THINK THAT THERE IS-- THE CONSTITUTION IS-- THE MAIN PURPOSE OF IT, IS TO CONSTRAIN THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT, RIGHT? IT'S TO PREVENT WHAT MANY CONSERVATIVE AMERICANS CALL "TYRANNY." TYRANNY FROM THE GOVERNMENT OR BY THE GOVERNMENT, RIGHT? BUT IT’S STRANGE THAT, UM, IN THAT PARTICULAR SENSE, IT DOESN’T REALLY EXPLICITLY MENTION THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY. AND WHEN I ASK PEOPLE, “WHAT DOES RIGHT TO PRIVACY MEAN?” MOST OF THEM TELL ME, “OH, RIGHT TO PRIVACY-- "JUST TO BE PRIVATE FROM INTRUSION FROM OTHER PEOPLE.” I SAY, “NO, THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT-- "ALTHOUGH THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT MENTION IT-- "IS THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY FROM THE UNNECESSARY INTRUSION OF GOVERNMENT.” SO, I CAN SEE WHY SOME PEOPLE LIKE THE POETIC NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH MEANS THIS BROAD, METAPHORICAL NATURE OF CONSTITUTION BECAUSE, PERHAPS THIS IS GOOD BECAUSE IT COULD BE APPLIED WITHOUT MANY CHANGES, OR COULD BE INTERPRETED WITHOUT MANY CHANGES OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, RIGHT? I MEAN, THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN IN 1787, RATIFIED '88-'89... SO, TODAY’S 2012, RIGHT? AND WE ARE STILL USING IT. (laughing) WHY? PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF ITS POETIC NATURE, RIGHT? BUT I THINK THIS POETIC NATURE ALSO HAS A FLIP SIDE, AND THAT FLIP SIDE IS THAT IT MAY BE WRONGLY INTERPRETED AND ABUSED, AND THEREFORE, PERHAPS, LOSE SOME OF ITS RELEVANCE. SO, I THINK, PERHAPS, I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE MORE PRECISE, BUT NOT OVERLY PRECISE IN THE SENSE THAT ONE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE IT TOO MANY TIMES-- >> RIGHT-- >> SO THAT IT APPLIES TO THE TIME. YES, SO... AND I THINK SOME THINGS SHOULD BE ADDED. I THINK... RIGHT TO DIE SHOULD BE ADDED. IF YOU ARE SO TERMINALLY ILL THAT THERE IS NO HELP, RIGHT? SOME SCHOLARS ARE ARGUING THAT’S WITHIN YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT FORBID YOU TO DIE, RIGHT? (laughing) AND THAT’S YOUR PRIVATE RIGHT, BUT THAT’S NOT AS CLEAR, I THINK, AS IT COULD BE. SO, I’M A LITTLE BIT TORN. I WOULD LIKE, ON THE ONE HAND, MORE PRIVACY, BUT NOT TOO MUCH PRIVACY, SO-- NOT TOO MUCH PRIVACY-- I WOULD LIKE A LOT OF PRIVACY. (laughing) BUT PRECISENESS-- I WOULD LIKE MORE PRECISENESS, BUT NOT TOO MUCH PRECISENESS IN THE SENSE THAT IT WOULD CONSTRAIN THE CONSTITUTION TO SERVE US, I WOULD SAY FAIRLY WELL OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. >> IF I COULD CHANGE-- I DON’T THINK THAT I WOULD TAKE AWAY ANYTHING. I WOULD, UM, WISH THAT THE E.R.A. WOULD HAVE BEEN-- THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN RATIFIED. IT’S UNFORTUNATE THAT THAT WENT UP AROUND THE SAME TIME OF "ROE VERSUS WADE" AND IT WAS CONNECTED TO THAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE LOSE SIGHT-- AND YES, I UNDERSTAND-- A LOT OF PEOPLE LOSE SIGHT THAT WOMEN GOT THE RIGHT TO VOTE FULLY 50 YEARS AFTER ALL MALES DID. UM, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN’T GET THE RIGHT TO VOTE UNTIL 1920, AND IF WE... IF WE DON’T START TALKING ABOUT THE OBVIOUS, AND THAT IS, THERE IS A DEFINITE GENDER GAP IN PAY IN THIS COUNTRY. UM, YOU KNOW... BEING A SINGLE MOM... IT’S TOUGH THAT-- IT’S JUST A TOUGH AREA BECAUSE I STILL HAVE TO PROVIDE FOR MY CHILD, AND YET... UM, JUST BECAUSE I WAS BORN A CERTAIN WAY THAT I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL OVER, I’M TREATED DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE OF THAT-- THAT’S FRUSTRATING. SO, I WOULD HAVE WISHED THAT THE E.R.A. WOULD’VE BEEN IMPLEMENTED. SO... EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT, I’M SORRY. THAT WOMEN AND MEN WOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY. BUT I STILL DON’T WANNA REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT. CAN I HAVE BOTH? >> NO, NOT REALLY. >> OKAY... DAMN IT. >> I’M JUST KIDDING-- >> IF I COULD CHANGE-- >> I WOULD’VE SERVED IN THE MILITARY, BUT WOMEN COULDN’T SERVE UNDER-- COULDN’T FIGHT ON THE FRONT LINE, AND I WANTED TO DRIVE FIGHTER THINGS. (audience laughing) THEY WOULDN’T LET ME, SO... >> (indistinct speaking). >> TRUTH. I COME FROM A LONG LINE OF MILITARY. SO, I WOULD’VE DONE IT-- >> IT WAS MEANT TO BE PROTECTIVE. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THE REASON WHY WOMEN WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THE SAME THING AS MEN, PRETTY MUCH, IN THOSE DAYS, THE CONGRESS BELIEVED WOMEN SHOULD BE PROTECTED. WOMEN SHOULD NOT DO STRENUOUS WORK. >> I CAN PROTECT MYSELF. I CAN HOLD A GUN JUST AS WELL AS ANYONE ELSE-- >> THEY SHOULD NOT LIFT HEAVY WEIGHT. SO PRETTY MUCH, IT’S PROTECTION INTENDED, NOT A DISCRIMINATION INTENT. >> YEAH, BUT THE WHOLE POINT IN PROTECTING WOMEN WAS PRESERVATION OF SOCIETY, BECAUSE WE’RE THE ONES THAT HAVE KIDS. LET’S NOT KID OURSELVES HERE. THE WHOLE REASON WHY WE WEREN’T ALLOWED ON THE FRONT LINE UP UNTIL, WHAT? EIGHT, TEN YEARS AGO? WAS PRESERVATION OF SOCIETY. UM, IF MEN COULD HAVE KIDS, WE’D BE THROWN UNDER THE BUS AND PUT ON THE FRONT LINE. >> YOU NEVER KNOW, WITH THE ADVANCEMENT OF MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY. >> HEY, I AM READY TO GIVE UP THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND SHARE THAT WEALTH. (all laughing) SO, NO-- I MEAN, YEAH, I GET THE WHOLE IDEA OF PROTECTIONISM, I GET THE WHOLE IDEA OF WOMEN, AND THE WHOLE OPENING DOORS AND CHASTITY AND ALL OF THAT, BUT I STILL JUST THINK THAT... IT’S 2012, AND WE SHOULD BE BEYOND THAT, YOU KNOW? >> HOW I WOULD CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION-- I’D GO BACK-- IF I DIDN’T CONVINCE YOU BEFORE, LET ME TRY AGAIN-- I’D DO AWAY WITH TERM LIMITS FOR PRESIDENT. >> I AGREE. >> IT BOTHERS ME A LOT THAT IF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IS RE-ELECTED, THAT HE WILL NOT HAVE TO WORRY, OR NOT BE ABLE TO COMPETE FOR ANOTHER TERM IN OFFICE, AND THEREFORE, IN MY MIND, HE DOESN’T HAVE TO TAKE AS MUCH INTO CONSIDERATION ABOUT WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT IN THE SECOND TERM AS PRESIDENT. AND THAT BOTHERS ME A LOT, THAT PRESIDENTS IN THEIR SECOND TERM DON’T HAVE TO BE-- DON'T HAVE TO FEEL AS ACCOUNTABLE DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE AND-- >> I THINK THAT RAISES-- >> AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE-- WE’D SEE A DIFFERENT PRESIDENCY, FOR SURE. >> ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY. I WOULD AGREE 100 PERCENT. DO YOU THINK-- (laughing) DO YOU THINK CLINTON WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THINGS THAT HE DID IN HIS SECOND TERM HAD HE KNOWN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO RUN FOR RE-ELECTION? DO YOU THINK PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE SAME COURSE HAD HE KNOWN HE COULD’VE RUN FOR RE-ELECTION? I THINK THERE’S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ACCOUNTABILITY KNOWING THAT YOU CAN RUN FOR RE-ELECTION IS THAT IT’S AN ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PEOPLE. AND YOU DEFINITELY SEE PRESIDENTS IN THEIR SECOND TERM TAKING MORE RISKS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEY’RE DONE. AND, YEAH, I WOULD AGREE 100 PERCENT. >> NOT TO ME-- I MEAN, IT’S NOT THE SECOND TERM. IT’S THE LAST TWO MONTHS. (audience laughing) IT’S LAME DUCK. BECAUSE THEY KNOW, YOU KNOW, THEY’RE GOING TO LEAVE. I MEAN, THEY HAVE TO TRANSFER THE POWER TO THE NEXT ONE. SO, THE LAST TWO MONTHS BETWEEN NOVEMBER AND JANUARY-- >> OH, RIGHT. SO, DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE AN IMMEDIATE TAKEOVER? >> WELL, WHAT I THINK IS-- YOU KNOW, THEY STILL HAVE TWO TERMS, BUT FOR EACH TERM, IT SHOULD BE SIX YEARS, NOT FOUR YEARS. MORE TIME FOR THEM TO FULFILL WHAT THEY PROMISED. IF YOU GOT FOUR YEARS FOR ONE TERM, THEY WILL BE (indistinct), YOU KNOW, CAMPAIGNING FOR THE NEXT TERM. GIVE THEM MORE TIME, SO THAT THEY CAN DO MORE. SO TWO TERMS, EACH SIX YEARS-- TWELVE YEARS, AND THAT’S IT. >> BUT THEN, YOU’D HAVE TO EXTEND-- >> YOU’D PREFER THAT CHANGE TO YOUR PREVIOUS ONE? >> YEAH. >> WHICH ONE? >> I DON’T-- >> (laughing). WELL, WE WERE SUPPOSED TO PICK ONE THING THAT WE WOULD CHANGE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION-- >> BUT IF YOU CHANGE THE PRESIDENT TO SIX YEARS, YOU’D HAVE TO EXTEND THE SENATE TO EIGHT. QUITE SIMPLY BECAUSE THE FRAMERS WERE INTENTIONAL ABOUT THE STAGGERED TERMS, TWO YEARS FOR THE HOUSE, FOUR YEARS FOR THE PRESIDENT, SIX YEARS FOR THE SENATE, SO THAT YOU DIDN’T GET A COMPLETE TRANSITION. SO, OH, I DON’T KNOW-- YOU WOULDN’T GET WHAT MICHIGAN JUST DID. YOU’D THINK MICHIGAN WOULD HAVE LEARNED SOMETHING FROM OUR CONSTITUTION? YEAH, THEY DIDN’T. SO, THOSE STAGGERED TERMS, IF YOU EXTEND THE PRESIDENT TO SIX, YOU SHOULD EXTEND THE SENATE TO EIGHT, SO THAT YOU DON’T HAVE A COMPLETE TRANSITION. >> BUT THINK ABOUT IT-- YOU SEE HOW LITTLE TRUST THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION HAD IN THE ABILITY OF ORDINARY PEOPLE TO DO POLITICS. THE ONLY HOUSE IN CONGRESS, OR THE ONLY REALLY ELECTED OFFICE, CHOSEN DIRECTLY BY THE PEOPLE, IS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RIGHT? AND THEY HAVE THE SHORTEST TERM-- TWO YEARS. SENATORS WERE ELECTED BY THE STATE LEGISLATORS, IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, AND PRESIDENT IS ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. ALL BASICALLY SELECTED BY THE ELITES. THE ONLY HOUSE IN CONGRESS ELECTED DIRECTLY BY THE PEOPLE HAS THE SHORTEST TERM. WHY? BECAUSE THE FRAMERS DIDN’T BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE ARE CAPABLE OF MAKING GOOD DECISIONS. >> IT’S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE, AND I'D POINT THIS OUT TO MY STUDENTS ALL THE TIME, THE PEOPLE WHO COULD VOTE AT RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION-- 24 YEARS OLD, WHITE, LAND-OWNING MALES WITH A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF EDUCATION BECAUSE THAT TRANSLATED INTO WEALTH. WHO VOTES TODAY? TWENTY-FOUR YEARS OLD OR OLDER, LAND-OWNERS-- PEOPLE WHO OWN HOMES VOTE MORE THAN RENTERS-- UM, MALES A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN WOMEN, AND I DON’T KNOW THAT THERE’S A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND WHITE VOTER TURN-OUT, UM, BUT THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LATINO VOTER TURN-OUT AND CAUCASIAN VOTER TURN-OUT. BUT A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE LANGUAGE BARRIER. SO, A LOT OF THE SAME PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE RESTRICTING VOTING TO ARE ALSO THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO VOTE TODAY. UM... (laughing) SO-- AND WE HAVE A WIDE-OPEN RANGE OF PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE, AND YET, YOU STILL HAVE THOSE TRADITIONAL PEOPLE WHO OWN PROPERTY, ARE BETTER EDUCATED, WHO HAVE HIGHER INCOMES, WHO HAVE MORE STUFF, WHO ARE MARRIED, WHO HAVE KIDS, TRADITIONALLY TURN OUT TO VOTE MORE. SO, I MEAN, HOW MUCH HAVE WE PROGRESSED IN 220 YEARS? >> I ALWAYS THINK, "WHAT CAN MAKE THE YOUNG PEOPLE "FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE SOMETHING AT STAKE, SO THAT THEY GO AND VOTE?" >> STUDENT LOANS. >> (laughing). WHAT-- OKAY-- ONE THING THAT-- >> THE DRAFT-- >> ONE THING THAT ALL VOTERS WILL HAVE AT STAKE IN THIS ELECTION IS THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, REGARDLESS OF OBAMA OR ROMNEY, IS GOING TO HAVE A HUGE INFLUENCE AT THE SUPREME COURT, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY’RE GOING TO APPOINT, I THINK, AT LEAST TWO NEW JUSTICES TO THE SUPREME COURT, RIGHT? RUTH BADER GINSBURG IS FAIRLY OLD. UNFORTUNATELY, SHE HAS PANCREATIC CANCER, SO MOST LIKELY THAN NOT, SHE’S GOING TO RETIRE VERY SOON. AND KENNEDY, RIGHT? JUSTICE KENNEDY’S GOING TO, PERHAPS, TO RETIRE. SO, AT LEAST TWO NEW JUSTICES ON THE SUPREME COURT. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE WHAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOUR LIBERAL JUSTICES, FOUR CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES, ONE SWING VOTE, RIGHT? >> KENNEDY BEING A SWING-- >> SO, TWO NEW JUSTICES ON EITHER SIDE WILL BASICALLY, TO A GREAT DEGREE, DECIDE WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DOES, HOW IT DECIDES ON WHERE THIS COUNTRY’S GOING. SUPREME COURT BASICALLY MAKES HUGE DECISIONS ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES, ABOUT ISSUES OF ELECTIONS, ABOUT ISSUES OF CAMPAIGN FINANCING-- ALL EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY, SO THIS IS A HUGE STAKE-- YOUR VOTE-- THE VOTE OF-- AND OUT OF US FOUR, ONLY YAN IS NATURALLY CITIZEN. I’M NOT A CITIZEN, SO I CANNOT VOTE. (laughing) >> WELL, I CAN'T BE THE PRESIDENT-- >> BUT THE-- (audience laughing) THE VOTE OF CITIZENS WILL, TO AN EXTREMELY HIGH DEGREE THIS TIME, DETERMINE THE FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY. NOT ONLY IN TERMS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL POLICIES, BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT. >> GORDAN, I’M WONDERING-- YOU TALKED ABOUT THE POETIC NATURE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION? I’M WONDERING IF YOU FOUND THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION EQUALLY POETIC. >> I THINK AMENDMENTS ARE MORE POETIC THAN-- ESPECIALLY THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS MORE POETIC THAN THE FIRST SEVEN ARTICLES. (laughing) >> THEY WERE RATIFIED AT THE SAME TIME-- >> ESPECIALLY AMENDMENT NINE. I THINK AMENDMENT NINE IS EXTREMELY POETIC. IT JUST HAS ONE SENTENCE, AND I THINK A WHOLE BOOK COULD BE WRITTEN ABOUT JUST ONE-- >> ENUMERATIONS-- >> (laughing). >> IT’S AN AWESOME AMENDMENT. >> ON THE SUBJECT OF THE SUPREME COURT-- SUPREME COURT JUSTICES NECESSARILY-- THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, SO NECESSARILY, YOU COULD APPOINT A 15 YEAR OLD TO THE SUPREME COURT-- >> THEY’D NEVER GET THROUGH THE SENATE. >> THE ONLY THING STOPPING IT. >> THERE IS ONE REQUIREMENT-- GOOD BEHAVIOR. >> THAT’S THE ONLY THING STOPPING IT. >> YEAH. THEY HAVE TENURE BASED ON GOOD BEHAVIOR. >> AND IMAGINE HOW MANY 15 YEAR OLDS HAVE GOOD BEHAVIOR. I DON’T THINK THAT YOU WILL FIND ANY. (all laughing) >> YEAH-- NO, THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS, BUT YOU JUST HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE VETTING PROCESS THROUGH THE SENATE, AND GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF INFLUENCES GORDAN WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT, THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS, UM... IF HIGHLY ACCLAIMED AND VERY WELL-EDUCATED PEOPLE HAVE A VERY HARD TIME, YOU’RE NEVER GOING TO GET ANYBODY WHO ISN’T A LAWYER AND YOU’RE NEVER GOING TO GET ANYBODY WHO DOESN’T HAVE SOME KIND OF KNOWLEDGE, REPERTOIRE, OF THE CONSTITUTION, 'CAUSE THEY’D NEVER MAKE IT THROUGH THE QUESTIONING. JUST LOOK AT HARRIET MIERS, SO... >> BUT ALSO THINK ABOUT THIS. THERE IS NOBODY ON THE SUPREME COURT RIGHT NOW WHO IS WHITE, ANGLO-SAXON PROTESTANT. THERE IS NOBODY WHO IS RUNNING A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WHO IS WHITE, ANGLO-SAXON PROTESTANT, RIGHT? NONE OF THEM. (deep chuckle) (audience laughing) SO-- >> THAT’S A VERY EVIL LAUGH-- >> (over-exaggerated laughing). (audience laughing) AND THIS COUNTRY IS-- I MEAN, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-- THE INTERNAL THINKING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS THAT REGARDLESS OF WIN OR LOSE THIS TIME AROUND, THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE MAJORITIES IN CONGRESS AND MANY DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS FOR A LONG TIME TO COME IN THE FUTURE. WHY? BECAUSE THEY SEE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE UNITED STATES CHANGING, RIGHT? IN 25 YEARS OR LESS, THERE WILL BE NO RACIAL MAJORITY IN THIS COUNTRY, IN THE SENSE THAT THERE WILL BE NO RACE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO HAS 50 PERCENT OR MORE PARTICIPATION IN THE WHOLE OF POPULATION, RIGHT? SO, ALL OF US ARE GOING TO BE MINORITIES, RIGHT? AND WHO CAPTURES THESE SO-CALLED "MINORITIES," ESPECIALLY THE FASTEST-GROWING ONES-- HISPANIC AND ASIAN-AMERICANS? THEY’RE GOING TO CAPTURE THE POLITICAL POWER OF THE COUNTRY. SO FAR, REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS NOT PROVED ITSELF TO BE AS SUCCESSFUL AS DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN CAPTURING, ESPECIALLY HISPANIC AND ASIAN VOTE-- ESPECIALLY HISPANIC VOTE, RIGHT? SO, INTERNAL THINKING IN DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS, "OKAY, WE MAY LOSE THIS TIME," ALTHOUGH, I DON’T THINK SO RIGHT NOW, "BUT THE FUTURE FOR US IS GUARANTEED BECAUSE WE ARE THE ONES--" I THINK WHAT JESSE, RIGHT-- WHAT JESSE SAID, "WE ARE THE ONES WHO APPRECIATE," WHAT JESSE, I THINK, CALLED, "CULTURAL DIVERSITY," RIGHT? >> I DISAGREE-- >> AND THIS COUNTRY IS CHANGING ABOUT. SURE. >> I DON’T THINK THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE, OR I DON’T THINK THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE IT SET UP. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST ELECTION, MORE REPUBLICAN-- OR MORE GOVERNORSHIPS WENT FROM DEMOCRAT TO REPUBLICAN IN THE UNITED STATES. I THINK EIGHT. AND IF WE POLL MOST OF OUR-- I WILL SAY MOST-- OF OUR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FROM GUBERNATORIAL SEATS, THEN REPUBLICANS ARE SETTING THEMSELVES UP TO HAVE MORE EXPERIENCED INDIVIDUALS RUNNING. NOW, YES, I WOULD AGREE WITH THE DEMOCRAT DEMOGRAPHICS OF THAT, BUT I WOULD DISAGREE THAT REPUBLICANS CAN’T PULL THOSE VOTES IN. YOU SAW THE LATINO VOTERS VOTE FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON IN 1996-- ER, EXCUSE ME, IN 1992 AND 1996, BUT YOU ALSO SAW THEM VOTE FOR PRESIDENT BUSH IN BOTH ELECTIONS. AND THEN, THEY VOTED FOR OBAMA-- >> IT’S THE HIGHEST ONE. PRESIDENT BUSH GOT 41 PERCENT OF THE LATINO VOTE, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST OF ALL THE PRESIDENTS-- >> RIGHT, SO MY PREDICTION IS-- >> HIGHEST OF ALL THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS-- >> THAT THE REPUBLICANS CAN DEFINITELY WIN THE LATINO VOTE, IF THEY GET SMART ABOUT THEIR PLATFORM ON IMMIGRATION AND STOP DENYING THAT IMMIGRATION IS HERE TO STAY AND THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT IGNORANT, THAT YOU CAN’T GROUP THEM ALL TOGETHER. THERE IS AS MUCH DIVERSITY IN THE LATINO VOTE IN THE UNITED STATES AS THERE IS IN-- IT’S JUST INCREDIBLE, THE DIFFERENCES IN LATINOS. THE ONE ELECTION THAT I AM WAITING FOR IS 2016, AND THAT IS BECAUSE I WILL PREDICT-- YOU CAN CALL ME OUT IN FOUR YEARS-- HILLARY CLINTON AND JEB BUSH. >> WE’RE GOING TO PLAY THIS TAPE FOR YOU IN 2016. >> OKAY, GO AHEAD. >> (laughing). >> JEB BUSH-- HE IS OBVIOUSLY OLDER BROTHER OF-- WELL, HERBERT WALKER-- ER, GEORGE W. BUSH. UM, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR A COUPLE YEARS. HE’S ACTUALLY MARRIED TO A LATINA, SPEAKS FLUENT SPANISH, HAS BIRACIAL CHILDREN, AND HAS BEEN HOUNDING THE G.O.P. TO LIGHTEN UP THEIR RHETORIC ON IMMIGRATION. BECAUSE HE UNDERSTANDS THAT THE FUTURE IN THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO BE HANDLED BY THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE MINORITY. HOWEVER, LATINOS ALSO LOVE THE CLINTONS. SO, I THINK A TRUE FIGHT... WILL BE CLINTON AND BUSH IN-- >> YEAH, I DON’T DISAGREE WITH YOU. I JUST SAID IT WAS INTERNAL THINKING OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY-- >> I CAN’T WAIT. >> HOW ABOUT CALLING THIS ELECTION? >> CALLING IT, RIGHT NOW? >> YEAH. >> YOU MEAN WHO WINS? >> YES. >> (laughing). >> IT’S DANGEROUS. >> I KINDA WANT TO KNOW, BECAUSE, WELL-- >> WHO ARE THE-- I MEAN, LIKE-- >> (indistinct speaking). >> NO, IT’S TOO-- >> I DON’T MEAN STATISTICALLY-- >> I MEAN, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN-- >> INTUITION. >> I MEAN, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THERE’S CREDIBILITY TO THE FACT THAT THE MEDIA WAS ABLE TO SPIN THIS-- UM, THE DEATH IN THE EMBASSY AND ROMNEY’S FUMBLINGS AGAINST HIM, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, WE DID HAVE AN AMBASSADOR OVERSEAS GET MURDERED-- >> IT’S STILL ON ECONOMY. IF THE ECONOMY IS IMPROVING-- >> YEAH-- >> OBAMA WILL BE RE-ELECTED. >> I DON’T KNOW THAT IT’LL IMPROVE-- >> PEOPLE SAY NO PRESIDENT HAS BEEN EVER RE-ELECTED WHEN THEIR APPROVAL RATE IS BELOW 7.3-- >> BELOW OR ABOVE? >> I MEAN, ABOVE. >> GOTCHA. >> ABOVE 7.3. >> IT’S 8.1 RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? >> RIGHT NOW, IT’S 8.1-- >> 8.3, I THINK. EXCEPT FOR REAGAN. REAGAN GOT ELECTED IN '84-- >> BUSH. BUSH SENIOR, I MEAN-- THAT’S 7.2-- HE LOST. >> OKAY, WE HAVE ONE FINAL QUESTION. >> HE NEVER ASK QUESTIONS-- HE JUST GIVES COMMENTS. >> BACK AGAIN. >> (laughing). >> ON THE FEMALES IN THE MILITARY, I’M IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH YOU THAT FEMALES SHOULD BE IN THE MILITARY-- >> THEY ARE IN THE MILITARY-- I’M JUST SAYING ON THE FRONT LINES-- >> BUT NOT ON THE FRONT LINE. >> AH, OKAY. >> BECAUSE IT DESTROYS THE COHESIVENESS OF THE UNIT. YOU TALK TO THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN THERE... THEY WANNA PROTECT THE WOMAN, THEY’RE NOT DOING THEIR JOB, THEY’RE TRYING TO PROTECT HER. I HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH IT, BACK WHEN E.R.A. WAS GOING ON IN THE '70s. I WAS IN THE MILITARY, IN VIETNAM, AND THEY PUT SOME WOMEN IN MY SQUAD. I WAS A JET ENGINE MECHANIC. THEY COULD NOT DO THE JOB. THEY COULD DO THE LIGHT WORK, BUT THEY COULD NOT DO THE HEAVY WORK. AND SO, WE HAD TO TAKE UP THEIR SLACK. >> I AGREE WITH DAVID-- >> THEN THEY SHOULDN’T BE POLICE OFFICERS, THEY SHOULDN’T BE FIREFIGHTERS, WE SHOULDN’T BE IN ANY POSITION THAT WOULD PUT US IN HARM’S WAY OR REQUIRE US TO DO HEAVY LIFTING. >> OR GET SHOT. >> OR GET SHOT? SO, NO POLICE OFFICERS THAT ARE COPS? >> BUT WOMEN CAN FLY JET ENGINES, WOMEN CAN DRIVE TANKS, BUT WOMEN-- >> OH, ‘CAUSE COMBAT AND GETTING SHOT IN COMBAT IS DIFFERENT THAN GETTING SHOT ON THE STREETS ON THE SOUTH SIDE? (audience laughing) ON A SUNDAY? AT 3:00 IN THE MORNING? >> BUT DAVID-- >> OKAY, JUST CHECKING. DO YOU KNOW THAT WOMEN ARE ALLOWED TO WORK IN THE SUBMARINES? >> JUST RECENTLY. >> JUST RECENTLY. >> SO, WE CAN DROWN? (audience laughing) >> WE’LL HAVE TO CONCLUDE-- >> I WON'T SAY ANYTHING-- MY WIFE WILL SEE THE TAPES. >> YEAH. (audience laughing) HE'S AFRAID OF NINA. >> WELL, THAT'LL HAVE TO BE THE SEASON FINALE FOR THIS YEAR. >> THANK YOU ALL. >> BUT THERE'S ALWAYS NEXT YEAR. BUT I'D LIKE TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR COMING. DO REMEMBER, WHEN YOU LEAVE, THERE ARE CHANCES FOR YOU TO REGISTER TO VOTE FOR THIS EXCITING ELECTION COMING UP IN NOVEMBER. >> AND MY STUDENTS GET EXTRA CREDIT FOR VOTING. >> FOR REGISTERING OR FOR VOTING? >> FOR VOTING. >> OOO. >> THERE YOU HAVE IT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU ALL. >> HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY VOTED? >> THEY GET A RECEIPT. (applause)

Republican primary

Candidates

Nominee

Primary results

Republican primary results[3]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Cynthia Lummis (incumbent) 73,153 98.1
Republican Write-in 1,393 1.9
Total votes 74,546 100.0

Democratic primary

Candidates

Nominee

Primary results

Democratic primary results[3]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Chris Henrichsen 16,259 98.9
Democratic Write-in 177 1.1
Total votes 16,436 100.0

Minor parties

Candidates

  • Richard Brubaker (L), truck driver[4]
  • Daniel Cummings (Constitution), physician[5]
  • Don Wills (Wyoming Country), software engineer and former chairman of the Libertarian Party of Wyoming[6]

General election

Results

Wyoming's at-large congressional district, 2012[7]
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Republican Cynthia Lummis (incumbent) 166,452 68.89% -1.53%
Democratic Chris Henrichsen 57,573 23.83% -0.65%
Libertarian Richard Brubaker 8,442 3.49% -1.46%
Constitution Daniel Clyde Cummings 4,963 2.05% N/A
Wyoming Country Don Wills 3,775 1.56% N/A
n/a Write-ins 416 0.17% +0.02%
Total votes '241,621' '100.0%' N/A
Republican hold

References

  1. ^ "2012 Key Election Dates" (PDF). Secretary of State of Wyoming. Retrieved April 14, 2012.
  2. ^ a b Pelzer, Jeremy (March 21, 2012). "Casper College professor launches congressional campaign". Casper Star-Tribune. Retrieved April 14, 2012.
  3. ^ a b "Statewide Candidates Official Summary" (PDF). Secretary of State of Wyoming. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  4. ^ Reed, Martin (May 2, 2012). "Two Libertarians from Riverton file in 2012 elections". The Riverton Ranger. Retrieved May 7, 2012.
  5. ^ "Casper doctor is Wyoming Constitution Party candidate". Billings Gazette. Associated Press. August 13, 2012. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  6. ^ Brown, Trevor (August 28, 2012). "Country Party candidate seeks U.S. House seat". Wyoming Tribune Eagle. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  7. ^ Statewide Candidates Official Summary. Wyoming General Election - November 6, 2012 Retrieved December 20, 2022

External links

Campaign websites


This page was last edited on 2 February 2024, at 14:42
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.