YALE UNIVERSITY. HE IS THE AUTHOR OF "THE ROAD TO UNFREEDOM, RUSSIA, EUROPE, AMERICA." PROFESSOR SNYDER, SO, THERE IS SOMETHING WORSE THAN A KING. >> OF COURSE THERE IS. THERE ARE LOTS OF KINGS RULING LOTS OF PERFECTLY DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES RIGHT NOW IN EUROPE. OUR TRADITION COMING FROM THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE HOLDS THAT THERE IS NATURAL LAW BUT ALSO BRITISH LAW, WHICH GEORGE III VIOLATED AND THAT WAS THE BASIS FOR OUR REBELLION. IT IS NOT OUR TRADITION THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CAN BE ABOVE THE LAW AS SUCH. THE CONSTITUTION IS THAT EVERY OFFICE IS GIVEN A FIRM BASIS OF REGULATION. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH SUGGESTS THERE ARE PEOPLE, WHATEVER OFFICE THEY MAY HOLD, WHO CAN BE ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION OUTSIDE OF THE RULE OF LAW. AND, THAT IS THE DANGER WHICH I THINK HASN'T BEEN QUITE SPECIFICALLY EXPRESSED HERE, THAT THE IDEA OF IMMUNITY MEANS THERE COULD BE A PERSON WHO IS OUTSIDE OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM. >> IF SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS FASCINATE ME BECAUSE THEY ARE LIMITED, OF COURSE, TO LEGAL PRACTITIONERS. YET, THEY INVOLVE SO MUCH MORE, SO MUCH OF THE TIME. SOMETIMES IT INVOLVE SCIENCE, SOMETIMES IT INVOLVES MEDICAL SCIENCE, SOMETIMES IT INVOLVES HISTORY. OBVIOUSLY, A LOT OF HISTORY, AMERICAN HISTORY, OTHER HISTORY. I AM OFTEN WONDERING WHAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE A LOT OF THE AUTHORITY THAT THE SUPREME COURT WISHES IT HAD, WHAT THEIR REACTION IS TO SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS, WHICH IS WHY I'M THRILLED TO HAVE YOU HERE TONIGHT. I'M JUST WONDERING, WHAT WAS GOING THROUGH YOUR MIND AS A HISTORIAN AS YOU WERE LISTENING TO IT, WHAT DID YOU WISH YOU COULD HAVE TOLD THE COURT, IF YOU HAD A CHANCE? >> IT WOULD BE THREE VERY BASIC POINTS. THE ONE IN HOLDING A HEARING ON THE IDEA OF IMMUNITY, YOU ARE CALLING A CONCEPT INTO EXISTENCE WHERE IT HADN'T EXISTED BEFORE. NUMBER TWO, THE U.S. HISTORY POINT WOULD BE IF YOU ARE A TEXTUAL LIST OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THERE IS NOTHING LIKE IMMUNITY IN THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION. NUMBER THREE, MOST FUNDAMENTALLY, WHAT THE HISTORY OF COMPARATIVE LAW TEACHES US IS THAT THERE IS A TRADITION IN WHICH YOU SAY THE CONSTITUTION IS JUST THERE FOR US TO WAIT AND FIND OUT WHO IS GOING TO BREAK IT AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO ENDORSE THAT PERSON AND GIVE THEM SPECIAL RIGHTS. THAT TRADITION, AGAIN, THIS IS HISTORY OF COMPARATIVE LAW, IS THE TRADITION. THIS IS WHAT WORRIES ME. ON JANUARY 6, 2021, IN THE WEEKS BEFORE THAT, WE ENCOUNTERED AN INDIVIDUAL WHO TRIED TO PUT HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW AND NOW WE ARE FLIRTING WITH THE IDEA THAT, PERHAPS THAT MIGHT BE ALL RIGHT. >> THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THEY NEVER DO, IS LOOK BEYOND THE NARROW BORDERS OF AMERICAN MOM TO FIGURE OUT THEIR OWN GUIDANCE FORWARD. >> AND, I THINK THIS IS A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS IS A MISTAKE. IF YOU READ THE 193 PAGES, OR WHATEVER IT WAS, OF THAT HEARING, YOU FIND A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH BUT YOU FIND NO REAL CONCEPTUAL CHALLENGES, EXCEPT BY COUNSEL AND A COUPLE OF THE JUSTICES TO THE IDEA THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS OF THIS PERSONAL IMMUNITY. AND, IN OUR TRADITIONS, IN THE CONSTITUTION OR NOT, AND OTHER TRADITIONS, IT IS SOMETHING YOU ARE DRAWN BY. YOU CELEBRATE IT, YOU FIND THE PERSON WHO WILL BREAK THE LAW AND THAT PERSON BECOMES THE LEADER, THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF THE FASCIST LEADER, THE PERSON WHO IS OUTSIDE
