Uncommon Knowledge: The Constitution

two men who in one way or another have dedicated their lives to the constitutional order of the United States Hugh Hewitt and John you uncommon knowledge now welcome to uncommon knowledge I'm Peter Robinson with a BA from Harvard and a JD from Yale Law School john yoo has clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the US Department of Justice during the George W Bush administration now a professor at the Boalt law school at Berkeley mr. you is the author of a number of books too many books as far as I'm concerned I'm I have a backlog on my bedside table a number of books including his 2014 volume point of attack preventive war international law and global warfare also with a BA from Harvard but a JD from Michigan Hugh Hewitt has served as a researcher and writer for former President Richard Nixon as assistant White House Counsel and special assistant to the Attorney General during the Reagan administration and as a partner in prominent Southern California law firms the host of the hugh hewitt radio show a top ten talk radio program mr. hewitt also teaches constitutional law at Chapman University John and Hugh thank you for joining me i special carve out for you for you Hugh I know you're suffering a very bad cold and you are it is good of you to join us it is direct most of your questions to John that way what sounds are bad hey by the way could i voice just sounds bad by itself without any help Hugh Hewitt Harvard class of 78 John you Harvard class of 87 just just before we get to the Constitution what does Harvard make of the two of you two of the most prominent conservatives in the country well both Harvard and Michigan have never invited me to the campus I confess I had just had my 25th college reunion they had me on a a panel of alumni who've been in politics so it was just all war stories but I was surprised actually that they were so welcoming of course they asked me for money right after the pan I could have done almost every five years a panel with Deval Patrick mark guaranty grover norquist all of us graduated at the same time Oh No Grover and myself against the governor and the former communications director of the White House but that's all alumni stuff nothing nothing for mine that's a fair berest all right Obamacare King versus Burwell this is the case that Supreme as we tape this the Supreme Court heard oral oral arguments just about 48 hours ago at issue 7 words in the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare a piece of legislation that runs to roughly two thousand pages a section of the law says that government subsidies must flow to health insurance customers quote through an exchange established by the state close quote since more than 30 states failed to establish exchanges the IRS disregarded the language of the law this is not in dispute this is not contentious the IRS disregarded the language of the law to hand out subsidies through a federal exchange instead okay challengers argue the IRS broke the law the government's claim in the words of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli during oral arguments the challenger's interpretation quote revokes the promise of affordable care for millions of Americans that cannot be the statute that Congress intended close quote John whose right I think the challengers are right but first let's say there's no constitutional issue here unlike two years ago about whether the government could even pass Obamacare and impose it on the American people in the States this is just a question of reading what Congress wrote if you read you just quoted the statute if you read it and apply what the words of the statute means it says no subsidies for anyone in a state that didn't set up an exchange the government's claim is really one of don't enforce the laws that's written because it would lead to a terrible result the consequences are so bad it must be in that mistake it was a drafting error it's absurd to think that the statute would mean what it says this can only happen if there's no real reason it's it's totally irrational so for example a statute that said build the bridge and this from point A to point B and there's actually no line that connects point A to point B then you would say that's so crazy Congress Mendte here i think the majora's a very rational reason to write the law this way which professor Gruber at MIT explained at length and many TV appearances and public appearances were who participated in the drafting of the legislation he was calling himself the primary architect of the law when he was out giving speeches about it which is and I have to say I just taught a case in class this week that's identical to this case which is first set up unemployment compensation laws in the United States which is the government wants the states to take the primary responsibility for running these exchanges so they put a huge carrot in front of them and they said if you set up the exchanges you get a massive amount of money and if you don't you lose and that's perfectly rational because the in fact the federal government does this all the time and spending loss okay Hugh listen to this this is an exchange that took place during oral arguments Justice Alito if the challengers win quote it's not too late for a state to establish in exchange so going forward there would be no harm close quote Solicitor General replies the suggestion is quote completely unrealistic whereupon Justice Scalia comes in and says quote what about Congress you really think Congress is just going to sit there close quote the Solicitor General comes in and says this Congress question mark and there's general laughter if there are two justices on the court who understand the difference between reading the statute and concerning themselves with the consequences of the Court's decision it is Mr Justice Alito and Mr Justice Scalia and yet Alito and Scalia themselves seemed to have feel compelled to enter into a discussion about the consequences of the court's decision what is going on in that chamber well I would Deb I'd love to hear what John thinks about this I think this is an argument for the Chief Justice's vote and as you'll recall Peter in our white house days the Chief Justice was down the hall down the hall and this week with me and you were down the hall in the suite with the speech writers and the Chief Justice is very smart so they're arguing over the mind of the Chief Justice as to whether or not he can be persuaded that it is not the destruction of the court and the legacy to strike this down because the left is saying woe unto us if John's perfectly executed summary happens and they strike it down well unto us seven million people will be thrown off of Medicaid they will have no care Justice Alito raised the possibility of a stay of the decision so that there be eight nine months and Justice Scalia said the Congress will act and that in the Solicitor General did what the Solicitor General should do cast down upon that and the Chief Justice sat back and waited there's a part of it though that's interesting called Chevron deference and I don't want to get too deep into the weeds of the lawyer but thank tiles yeah well I know it's a worse doctor going on how much do we let agencies do this unfortunately for the Republic we have increased the amount of deference exponentially over the last many decades so there's an argument at 30,000 feet lurking behind here is are we going to give again more power to bureaucrats to decide what laws mean that's a big struggle so there is a statute to be determined but there's also an approach that will be decided okay so do you agree with brother Hugh here that the Chief Justice as with whom you Hugh and I occasionally used to play basketball had I known if you want to call that basketball if you want to call that bet I bet you slid away let them over all the time but do you do you accept you could do that beat oh listen I know you do accept so let me just the notion that the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is not they are arguing over him Scully on one side Breyer on the others they're they're arguing over him over his mind about questions of what this will do to the image of the good this is not lawyerly disputation they were saying John mr. Chief Justice don't worry this is going to be fine even if we is is that what it has come to that John Roberts has turned into Warren Berger I think they're fighting the last war and not the current one the last war was two years ago Chief Justice Roberts reportedly voted to strike down Obamacare because I think and this was the correct view I think that it went beyond Congress's taxing spending and Commerce Clause powers Chief Justice Roberts reportedly switched his vote in the course of the few months afterwards because of all the political pressure that fell all over them now the problem there's a Churchill line about this I can't remember about once you're used to political pressure do you buy that no I don't I am one of the few dissenters who believe the chief actually clung to the doctrine if there's any way to save the lie we'll save it and therefore the taxing power came up he did I know that many people find that very skeptical but I think he does act with and it's not inappropriate to act with the future of the court in mind but I do believe there is this doctrine that if you can save the law John I write if you could say in a lot you have to save a lot I just don't think you could say which leadeth to when he was thinking is an instant I agree he was thinking in the what he thought was the best political interest of the court these V the President and Congress my instinct is you're on the Supreme Court so you don't have to think about that stuff decide what's right let the politics take the consequences if certainly if he was not the Chief Justice I'm sure I bet he would not have thought about that at all but he thinks he's the Chief Justice and that how he has a special role I wish he wouldn't think that way but they but he probably does and that's why Scalia and Alito are arguing that way okay yeah one other exchange during oral arguments and you're gonna have to treat me you're gonna have to be kind to me on this one what was Justice Kennedy doing he said to the plaintiff to he said you may prevail let me see if I can find Mike refreshing the plate exactly thank you very much perhaps you will this is Justice Kennedy - Michael carbon perhaps you will prevail on the plain words of the statute now according to you and you and Hewitt stop there plain words of the statute we're done no no but there's a serious constitutional problem Justice Kennedy continues if we adopt your argument close quote what is he talking about well let me let me speak a word in his defense he is a genuine Federalist he does and has a long history of writing in defense of the states and their authority and how they cannot be coerced by the federal government into doing things so the point is raising there is that this would be profoundly coercive of states if we interpreted it the way that the the government is interpreting it and so which was John's interpret John laid it out that the government offers them in an enormous can doorman and says if you don't do our will no carrot and the first time that's ever been upheld was two years ago the spending clause was actually invigorated for you know we're all kind of stunned by that so I think it's a genuine concern and and I don't know how it works to strike down the federal exchange it could work to strike down the state exchanges but I I honestly do not know what he was attempting to communicate there John yeah there's - I mean there's two possums one is this is I think is the least activist thing to do is read the statute as plainly as it is and if it violates the spending clause and strike the law down on the spending clause but to take a long twist and turn it into something it's not to avoid a constitutional problem that may not even be there right Kennedy's not saying I know it violates the spending clause he's saying it it might and the reasons why it doesn't there's never been I think a case where a statutes been mangled up just to avoid reviewing its spending Clause implications because that would mean we'd have to rewrite every spending clause every every spending of federal dollars of unemployment insurance Social Security these are huge areas where a lot of money is given to the states and they cooperate and programs they may not like just to get the federal money is it is the Supreme Court really going to redo all the federal welfare Perl it's very accepted for the federal government to bribe the states that's what they did with the speed limit and for your audience they'll understand that the the federal government would pass enormous incentives to lower your speed limit to 55 right and they threatened to cut those off if you didn't do so right and everyone said okay it's their money it's a bribe and the federal government can't bribe the states what Justice Kennedy has a long history of genuinely doing and saying you can only bribe so much and that by at that point it goes from being bribed into being coercion Tony Soprano is living in your living room playing your sporting goods store that's no longer a bride that's the threat of violence okay what's I'd like to get to another couple of issues here so let's close this one out John you said there's really no constitutional issue here but if I may we've been hearing for days now that if the court sides with the plaintiffs and strikes down this aspect of Obamacare on the plain language of the statute there will be terrible consequences let me put it to you the other way if the court sides with a government there that's a clear constitutional development is it not it will be it will be codifying the ability of a relatively low level at the IRS to substitute his judgement for the plain language of a kanay statute passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States that's fundamental or am I just being an icon a man who doesn't sophisticated and you're very you're much more sophisticated than many law professors entered on this case I couldn't put it better than that but they put in context it's ratifying a much bigger phenomenon which we ought to be concerned about which is this is a tiny species of what the Obama administration has been doing an immigration education welfare which is Congress passes a law they don't like it now they could say we think it's unconstitutional so we object but they're not they're just saying that's a bad idea we could do better and we're gonna rewrite the law and a force only the parts we like or don't like so this is that's the real danger is if Justice Kennedy does decide to go to liberals he's actually putting his stamp on a kind of unilateral lawmaking which he's actually criticized heavily in many other cases he'll call it how's the court vote going to vote they're going to strike down the government's interpretation of this well there's no bite his musings from their bench no way to uphold it unless you wish to empower as John just said every bureaucrat with the right to rewrite the law it would be the triumph of Leviathan if they don't strike it down because every agency would then lose notice and comment to extend their power to whatever they thought reasonable it would be a very bad result the other way John I agree I think it's gonna be five to four because the striking thing is and this should not go without comment is the four liberals always vote as a bloc on every case as an ideological team no one in the press criticizes them for this no one criticizing first truth and do not have an open mind about politically important questions and they should several there was just a case a very funny case about whether when you throw a fish back into the ocean you've committed a federal crime by throwing away evidence that you might have violated the law and Justice Kagan wrote this penis the you know when it says you can't throw away records or other tangible things it means other tangible things which is including including a fish and now she'd say oh no we've got to read exchange by state to mean any any kind of government right so they're the four liberals to vote this way of throwing out their own principles on how to read the law to get an ideological result we're talking about lawlessness or or unilateralism on the part of the administration the deal with Iran article 2 section 2 Constitution of the United States quote the President shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur close quote sometime this spring March 24th if Iran abides by the deadline if they can pull it off in time President Obama will reach a nuclear agreement with Iran under a correct reading of the Constitution should the president be required to submit that agreement to the Senate he has said that he will not should he I do not think so John I think it's a very complicated question it really depends on what we agree to do if we make we the United States agree to do with Iran if Iran just says we're gonna do all these things and you United States don't do anything then I don't think you have to submit to the Senate or Congress because we haven't actually obliged ourselves but the idea is that I mean the leaks that you hear about what we're promising to do I think it's got to be submitted to Congress if we sign an agreement not to attack Iran you know some kind of non-aggression idea that's that that's gotta be done if it's a some kind of arms control agreement where we we agree to some kind of verification process and we take on certain obligations every arms control agreement ever signed by the United States except one temporary one has been submitted to the Senate as an arms control grit treaty or if we agree to lift sanctions then either you submit it to the Congress or the sanctions aren't going to get lifted because the president can't lift sanctions on Iran unilaterally here anyway whew was it wrong for george w bush to unilaterally abrogate the ABM Treaty no I do I do think presidents have the right to terminate treaties that's right goes back to the Nixon years actually and before so I think it actually sets up this very interesting problem which is if you're Iran what do you want if you're Ron and you sign this deal you want Congress to agree because President Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush could terminate it so you want to see Congress pass a law lifting sanctions permanently otherwise you don't think you're really getting any pick a night up to the two of you let me just let me just put a scenario to the two of you and have you comment on it if this isn't even a question it's just a kind of bundle of thinking I was in Washington ten days ago we almost overlapped with each other and at an event where there were a couple of well was more or less off-the-record so there were a couple of journalists and a couple of members of the United States Senate the president this and they were trying to think it through and they began I think we can stipulate this they certainly did stipulate it that any agreement that permits Iran to achieve a nuclear weapon is simply unacceptable so what do they in their duty as members of the Senate do item one they thought that the the Republicans should move Menendez corker which is a bill sponsored by a Democrat Menendez of New Jersey that would scream out cry to the heavens for the President of the United States to submit it to the Senate nobody believes the president would submit it to the Senate but they want this the Congress on record as saying let us have a role and then they were thinking through presidential candidates Republican presidential candidates should say sorry he didn't submit it to the Senate this is a matter of the highest solemnity he does not have the right to bind the country this is a deal between Barack Obama and Iran I push or I Ted Cruz this was Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz were not present but candidates should say if I am elected president I have the right under the Constitution and before my conscience to re-examine that deal and repudiate it if I believe it in our national interest comment I think they're accurate and what they should do I also believe that they could do other things in the interim including using the power of the purse to abrogate the ability to implement the treaty they can deploy more troops they can do all sorts and the president can veto it when I go back to is the Foreign Affairs power the president submits and I don't want to limit it I believe in the unit don't don't learn it eliminate if you're gonna make bad deals presidents make bad deals all the time sometimes I make good deals they give destroy mr. Churchill when were in his darkest hour without congressional assent so very leery about saying that the president ought to have to go to Congress but Congress can do what it wants in response to this I fully agree that and I would say there are two things go beyond this which Congress could do why why worry about you know whether submits agreement or not to the Senate the Congress should just impose mandatory sanctions on Iran that are higher than ever we've put on them cut them out of the international banking system cut them out of international trade I posed an oil embargo on them they'll don't let them export oil into the Western says if you really want to ratchet the president doesn't have the power over foreign commerce knew you who worked with and became devoted to a man who suffered through a constitutional crisis do not shrink from the notion that there's a constitutional crisis brewing your view is let it come let Congress do what it wants to do that right Lincoln and then the war came and this is and then the crisis came it would be so easy for the Congress to strike back so easy because they have a veto-proof apparently majority to do so they could even grant citizens standing to enforce sanctions if they wish to go hog-wild on enforcing sanctions they could do all sorts of innovative things to drive Iran to its knees it's up to them to do it though not the president and increase military spending back way above Obama recommended it out of the secret raishin yeah yeah just rebuild the Navy and Air Force in that that can strike in that region okay the president in Congress the use of force responding to Isis last year the president ordered American warplanes to begin bombing targets in Iraq and Syria this is six seven months ago it's been going on for a time in February he's submitted to Congress a request for an authorization to use military force or is everybody in Washington calls it because there's no such thing as too many acronyms and AUMF the President's request with limit operations to three years and would rule out quote quoting from the request enduring offensive ground combat operations close quote let's come to the substance of the AUMF in a moment first of all what is he thinking he's been at war with Isis for six or seven months and now he's requesting Authority why so this site to me is really an attempt to bind his successors hands if he wants to not have any ground combat operations he's the commander in chief he can ensure that for the rest of presidency so what you have is a remarkable unprecedent never had you know I've I've read every authorization to use force I've written some or drafted some of them this is the first time a president has gone to Congress and say infringe on my commander-in-chief Authority take away my tactical and strategic control over the Armed Forces do something unconstitutional to my commander in chief with our never happened before why would Obama do this who's on the other hand flying drones around dropping bombs on people outside the Afghanistan Iraq region why because he doesn't want President Clinton or president Jeb Bush or president Ted Cruz to be able to conduct military operations so this is this has been the story of his presidency while we all look at a lot of these things he's done and claimed the executive powers out of control in foreign affairs he's actually been reducing it decreasing it in line with his effort to decrease America's role in the world and this is just another example of him trying to harm the presidency permanently in our foreign affairs you subscribe to that that is exactly right senator cotton on my radio show said it should be called a restriction on the use of military force not an authorization on the use of military force because it does attempt to to limit the next president in his or her operations and it I think it's if they actually just passed it through you know by mistake on a transfer it's unconstitutional as can be he can't find his successor against the Constitution but I think John has completely and accurately stated his motive and his reasoning okay what about the epstein response Richard Epstein our mutual friend Richard Epstein has said wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute Congress should ignore this request for an authorization for the use of military force and do what the Constitution quite explicitly authorizes it to do send him a resolution of war it's even a constitute good constitutional question says Richard whether the president's signature is it's a good question whether veto it if he president doesn't have to doesn't actually have to sign the declaration other-- instance where we just are waiting around for Congress to find some resolve and and boldness you know the president runs the war and so I understand why Congress is hesitant to tell them what to do they don't have access to the information even people like Mike Pompeo they don't have the intelligence I would I would agree with professor Epstein to this extent they should not pass this I don't think we need a declaration of war the president Aaron authority to strike under the old AUMF I think John do you hear that yeah I think Congress can only do make things worse at this point yeah even if you were Richard and you thought Congress has to declare war different presidencia face it you know Mike my colleague Richard yet has this view there already is a 2001 and a 2002 AUMF and they both apply they the 2002 one which goes overlooked says the president's allowed to use force in Iraq to stop national security threats coming from Iraq I don't know what Isis is other than that by definition now the the thing we should note is again it should be say that President Obama in his great foresight was asking for those two authorizations to repealed as recently as last summer she shows you how much foresight he had into the you know into the actual foreign policy national security threats facing our country we won didn't you know that John okay two quotations there's a broader question of lawlessness or unilateralism I think that's a probably a better formulation unilateralism two quotations one President Obama last summer quote middle-class families can't wait for Republicans in Congress to do their stuff so sue me close quote he's talking about actually there's so many things he could have been talking about it doesn't matter senator Ted Cruz also this past summer quote of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency none is more dangerous than the president's persistent pattern of lawlessness his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive Fiat close quote so the general point I'm assuming that the two of you or leaned heavily toward Ted Cruz's interpretation of this right yes I do John lawlessness only with what he's been doing domestically I don't think President Obama's been lawless and foreign affairs but okay fine so we'll stipulate that from this point on we're discussing purely domestic matters can you address this question of excuse me President Obama said so sue me and the House of Representatives has done just that there is a suit underway to sue him for his immigration his unilateral decision to permit some four or five mazing thing is nobody can even count how many people it applies to but some millions of people and even on our side so to speak the conservative side there's much commentary in the Wall Street Journal saying this is a terrible mistake it's unconstitutional wrong way for the House of Representatives to go and underlying all of this is the question of standing the president gets to do what he wants to because and nobody has standing to bring suit how can it be that the president behaves lawlessly harming everyone who lives in the constitutional order of the United States which is to say every American and yet no one has standing to bring suit could you just explain that to me to an exasperated layman Charlie because I hold you responsible I look I actually agree with Justice Scalia and the concerns on standing generally because I do think and you guys who are in the Reagan administration should remember the days when the courts were second-guessing every decision by the executive regime we don't want to go back to that world and that's partially what standing does is it gets the courts out of being the third house of the legislature that's not what Justice Scalia called it but there is a way to sue it's just Congress isn't the right body and the successful suit that is going forward and I think has standing is the states because these days attorney there's this case going on in Texas where the district judge just I think on the wrong grounds but I think properly the end result was he's he enjoined he stopped President Obama's immigration order because he said Texas and a lot of other states are forced to treat the people who are allowed to stay under Obama's order equally with citizens so that means they all get a driver's license they always thought gain benefits under state law and so they've been harmed and that's appropriate I think states do have the right to sue the reason congressmen and congresswomen can shoot sue is because they have a way to effect their views which is they're members of Congress they should get off their butts and pass laws to counteract what President Obama is doing whether it's cutting off funds or whether it's changing the law in certain ways okay the two of you are so fun basically unimpressed by the leadership in the House of Representatives which has had a Republican majority for two years and two months now and so far by the leadership in the Senate which has now had a Republican majority for a couple months is that right well I'm sympathetic to the difficulties governing but I do point out that with what John just said it's absolutely true there the side effect of President Obama's lawlessness and I use that all the time is that he's invigorated the state's attorneys general Scott Pruett in Oklahoma mark burnovich in Arizona cynthia coffman in Colorado these offices never used to attract much attention now they do have standing his job is just laying out the Texas lawsuit with 24 other states to block the president's direction he didn't actually sign an executive order his direction to his Secretary of Homeland Security to move forward it's a very good thing it's a great thing they're the right people they've been injured and so they've had I don't like gimmicks and the lawsuit was a gimmick an attempt to respond to the most amplified voices that are anti illegal immigration in the United States I think that was a mistake but it is a good thing that the State Attorney's generals have stepped up because they often do have standing as John just described President Obama what he's doing is actually destroying the presidency in the long term because no Congress in the future can trust presidents to exercise the power they have because if you can't if your Congress you write a law you delegate power in immigration even if they pass some immigration law that both of us like how do you know the next presidents not going to change the numbers on you and so it's means conga it's just gonna make it harder and harder for presidents actually to get Congress to trust the long view let's let's all let's pursue that the long view Hugh you worked with then former President Richard Nixon who of course was accused over and over again of being lawless on that question of lawlessness contrast Richard Nixon with Barack Obama well I'm beginning to think that Hillary makes them both pikers given the email scandal but what President Nixon did with impoundment which was struck down what he did with the plumbers and what happened in the obstruction of justice are clearly led to the imperial presidency by Arthur Schlessinger so it was not a happy time for the the rule of law in the United States and I'm an admirer of President Nixon I understand very complicated reason why it happened that President Obama has systematized and expanded and indeed made it not only a recurring theme but something to be admired among the left to break the bonds of trust with the legislature which is a very long-term problem that John just alluded to which is no one trust President Obama on Hill nobody trusts him and so that you say nobody you include many Democrats lutely absolutely right so how does how serious long-term problem I think I'm just I'm quoting you back to yourself what what can be done what's the next president to do this is a hard problem because there has to be some discretion in the executor I think President Nixon actually gets a bum rap and that he didn't seat a lot of incredible domestic reforms to try to rationalize the crazy Great Society and all its you know rickety programs and conflicting mandates at LBJ and the Great Society Congress have passed so there it has to be some discretion for presence and President Reagan was actually probably the most effective president and trying to stop wild regulatory growth make things rational we're just having conference at Hoover just right before the show about how do presidents do that they get through the Office of Management and Budget in your time in the White House so has to be that flexibility and so what the next president has to do is to say you know you can try we still have to work together to stop the burdens that the regulatory states placing on the economy but I'm going to go back and I'm going to repeal every one of President Obama's executive orders that's what he can do day one let's start with a fresh slate to prove that I'm trustworthy I'm going to repeal it every executive order that President Obama put out and I'm going to start working with Congress to make sure we have some consensus so we're gonna go forward that's the minimum I think oh really right or Republican that doesn't set in motion a kind of long term tit-for-tat no no because I don't I feel his executive orders that no successor will repeal president he'll say and in these areas where President Obama went too far I'm going to invite the leaders of Congress to sit down with me and we are going to try to come up with orders that reflect a consensus between our two branches the president may lose on policy but he's got to do it to restore trust in the office otherwise our system cannot our system cannot work unless there's a question I wanted to go there we may be seeing the eclipse of the Republic I'm not an alarmist it's not the end of the world but that even as the ancient Republic of Rome became a more Imperial structure the government may have grown so large and the responsibilities so immense that the government will change under the burdens of world in the modern speak and and that John is hoping to take it back I'm just a pessimist about whether or not it can be done it's so large now it's so nice I thought it was your job to rage against this just here you are Hugh Hewitt saying the eclipses of the Republic is a very real possibility as well she gets to be a Gustus yeah from North Africa with tears in my eyes so I have to say as I made notes for this all my thinking was in terms of what can be done to put this president back in the box but the two of you sort of there's there's the other possibility here is that one thing that could happen between now and his leaving office is that the Republicans in the House and the Senate get their act we have executive and the legislative branch yes well they should have passed a budget already they should have gone after defense they should be funding a higher class submarine they should be funding new aircraft carriers they haven't done any of this yet so the part of my pessimism about turning it around is your side is our lack of talent and our talent is very junior in the hierarchy of the house in the Senate very junior now if a dynamic and extraordinary individual rises up this President Reagan did in 1980 and command the Congress is he doing anyone in 82 and 83 things could change but you know it's really I think conservatives have to be as pessimistic as the typically are and William F Buckley we all know tit but I don't think we should be overly optimistic about reversing it okay last couple of questions here the press broadly speaking the mainstream press is backed Obama and backed this this agenda of creeping unilateralism or lawlessness and broadly speaking it's been the new alternative media the Hugh Hewitt show law talk John John use podcast that has been pushing back and puts bad plug I love it and pushing back fair fair summation right yeah yeah okay so so what's your are you optimistic about that balance no no no doesn't the mainstream media do the decent and dodge very relevant and are they're just absolutely relevant this president has proven that the White House press corps is it was toothless now Hillary gait or a pot dome or what are you a comb Bruce candle whatever it is it shows us that the Washington Post is going after former Secretary of State Clinton with both barrels I mean they are really going after this because it's maybe there is some recognition that they have abdicated and they did abdicate for the last six years they have not covered you're a veteran of the Bush administration we're veterans of the Reagan administration we know what a hostile White House press corps does right that isn't there it's gone and so maybe it will regenerate but I think it's gotten younger and younger and the byline has become the brand and they're less interested in threatening their axis than they are exposing perfect okay final question last time I interviewed Justice Scalia this is about 18 months or so ago he spoke as of course few people can with real pet real love really for the Constitution and the constitutional order and he concluded this beautiful little paragraph with the following words and I'm quoting him we had a good thing here and then he corrected himself and he said we have a good thing here has tense well that's what struck me as well so five years from now that gets us a few years into the next administration where will we be well the constitutional order will the Republic be receding in the distance well I think Scalia gave you exactly a hint of the pessimism I put on the table which is that I don't know how you can turn this much of a nightmare around President Obama so not to fundamentally transform America he has fundamentally transformed America a Republican who wishes to campaign on fundamentally transforming it back might have legs but that's far no one's actually said that John I'm more much more optimistic I guess because I thank goodness because almost like the end to show about the shows going on for another half hour you talk about guys getting started maybe it's over no so I would not disagree with Hugh probably on all the bad things Obama has done but what has impressed me over this last six years is the robustness of our system that he has not been able to destroy our system look at the tea parties the states coming back up where's in Congress our system has ways to press back so I just look at things like if we're in such bad shape why is every country in the world asking us for our troops to come back why are so many millions of immigrants trying to get into the country why is everyone wanting to lend money to us at basically zero interest rates you know our systems not great but if you look at compared to the rest of the world we're still The Shining City except on the other one thing we do not have Ronald Reagan 600 ship Navy we do not have the MX gadolinite we do not have any military thrust capability remotely what we need for a world is dangerous I agree we need to rebuild defense the thing we don't have is a world that's hostile to us right we have a world that wants us to build up our defense and to play a leadership role the PRC everyone but Japan and Russia but I think they're wrong we haven't we have that's why we have so many people asking his first back is because the last six years the that's the real threat I don't I think we can prepare what's going on at home though what the problem is can we repair what President Obama has done abroad because we've allowed these rivals to rise without any meaningful strong okay boys in four years maximum I'll get the two of you right back at this table and one of you will be able to look the other in the eye and say I told you so it's true John you Hugh Hewitt thank you thank you Peter thanks for the Hoover Institution in The Wall Street Journal I'm Peter Robinson

Channel: Hoover Institution

Views: 26,556

Keywords: Constitution, Obamacare, Iran deal, Isis

Id: PNg_hsK5des

Length: 39min 32sec (2372 seconds)

Published: Fri Sep 04 2015