- Good afternoon.
Let me begin my welcoming
the Dartmouth class of 2022 to campus and by welcoming back
our returning students for another year.
For those of you whom I have not yet have the chance to meet
my name is Andrew Samwick.
I'm a faculty member in the Department of Economics
and I'm the director of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center.
The Rockefeller Center is celebrating
its 35th anniversary this year.
The day-to-day mission of the Rockefeller Center
is to educate, train, and inspire
the next generation of public policy leaders.
One of the ways we seek to achieve that mission
is to host lectures on a broad range of topics
in public policy and the social sciences
by leading academics, policy makers, and practitioners.
If you want to stay informed about our programs and events,
particularly in this anniversary year,
please go to our website rockefeller.dartmouth.edu
to sign up for news updates via email
or your favorite social media platforms.
It is a recent tradition at the Rockefeller Center
to open the academic year with a program
in honor of Constitution Day.
On September 17th 1787 the delegates
to the Constitutional Convention met for the last time
to sign the U.S. Constitution
and present it to the American public.
The Constitution is the singular document
that guarantees a representative democracy
in the United States, and it's formed the basis
of our freedoms for over two centuries.
Those freedoms are a delicate balance,
not just for the individual
relative to the federal government,
but in the responsibilities afforded
to the federal government
relative to state and local governments.
In honor of Constitution Day,
today's lecture will focus on federalism,
both its importance in the design of the Constitution
and its relevance for the quality of public policy making
in Washington today.
We are honored to welcome today Kelly Ayotte,
a former United States senator for New Hampshire
and the 2018 Perkins Bass Distinguished Visitor
at the Rockefeller Center.
This visitorship and a companion internship program
for students commemorate the public service of Perkins Bass,
a member of the Dartmouth College class of 1934,
who served the state of New Hampshire as an elected official
at the local, state, and national levels.
Each year we have the privilege
to honor a New Hampshire citizen who has made
an outstanding contribution in the field of government.
Perkins Bass visitors make several trips to campus
to engage with students, faculty,
and the larger Dartmouth community.
During her time in the Senate from 2011 to 2016
Senator Ayotte chaired
the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness
and the Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation Operations.
She also served on the Budget,
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and Aging committees.
She also served as the sherpa for Justice Neil Gorsuch,
leading the effort to secure his confirmation
to the United States Supreme Court.
From 2004 to 2009 Senator Ayotte served
as New Hampshire's first female attorney general,
having been appointed to that position
by Republican Governor Craig Benson
and reappointed twice by Democratic Governor John Lynch.
Prior to that she served as the deputy attorney general,
chief of the Homicide Prosecution Unit
as as legal counsel to Governor Craig Benson.
She began her career as a law clerk
to the New Hampshire Supreme Court
and as an associate at the McLane Middleton law firm.
At present she serves on numerous boards
in both the private and nonprofit sectors.
Senator Ayotte graduated with honors
from Penn State University and earned her JD
from the Villanova University School of Law.
Our program with start with some prepared remarks
by Senator Ayotte posing the question,
can federalism, the genius of the Constitution
restore public confidence in Congress
and U.S. government institutions?
We will then invite Professor Herschel Nachlis
to join her for a conversation
and a moderated question and answer session.
Professor Nachlis is a research assistant professor
in the Department of Government
and a Policy Fellow at the Rockefeller Center.
He received his PhD and Masters
in Politics and Social Policy from Princeton University
and his BA in Political Science from Macalester College.
He studies and teaches American politics and public law
focusing on institutions, health, and social policy.
His courses at Dartmouth include, Law Courts and Judges
and Policy Implementation.
Ladies and gentlemen please join me in welcoming
Senator Kelly Ayotte. (audience applauding)
- Thank you so much Andrew for that kind introduction.
And I am very honored to be here today at Dartmouth.
This is actually an important day
for a couple of reasons for me.
First of all, believe it or not,
it's my son Jacob's birthday,
which we celebrated yesterday
but I had a lot of fun on the way into school today
because he has turned 11 today
so we were talking about the fact
that his birthday is Constitution Day.
And what an important day that he was born on
because, you know, as Andrew said, if we go back
to September 17th of 1787 that is the day
that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention
actually completed their work.
And not all of them, but many of them
signed onto our draft Constitution.
And of course New Hampshire holds a very special place
in the ratification of our constitution
being the ninth state and the state that was needed
because they needed nine out of 13 colonies
to actually make the Constitution effective.
And if you think about it, after four months
of very vigorous debate the Framers emerged
with a brilliant, innovative framework
for the new American government, a constitutional republic.
As we sit here today it's pretty easy
to take their work for granted,
but the ratification, the drafting, the final product,
and the ratification of our Constitution
was by no means assured at the time.
And I think we sometimes forget that.
The Framers believe that in order
to protect individual liberty,
power should not be concentrated
in more than one person or one institution.
To protect liberty they created a system of federalism
with dual national and state governments and further,
three separate branches within our federal government
in Article One, Article Two, and Article Three
of our Constitution reflecting on the legislative,
executive, and judicial branches.
This was a great conversation, by the way,
on the way to school and finally my son said, "Really Mom?"
OK. (attendees laughing)
Now we all know that the concept of federalism
or sharing power, or maybe we don't think that much about it
but the sharing of power between the state
and federal government actually wasn't a given at the time.
If you think about this unitary system
that they had come from as colonists of,
it was a unitary system of Great Britain
and they were reacting, really, to being subjects
of the King, and so in reaction to that they went
and of course our first somewhat form of government
were the Articles of Confederation with a very,
very weak national government which had no effect.
Really no power to collect taxes,
no power of the states to actually work together
to enforce laws, and it was really in reaction
to this ineffectual form of government that went
to the other extreme that the Constitutional Convention
met against this backdrop.
And the debates were fierce in that convention.
I'm sure many of you here have studied them
in much more detail than I have,
but when I thought about it today
I was thinking about my own experience in government
both at the state level and then also serving
in the United States Senate representing New Hampshire.
We all know that the approval ratings of Congress are,
I think abysmal is probably a kind word.
In fact, one of the students that was interviewing me today
said she looked it up and I think it's at 17% right now.
I think all of us would want more than a 17% approval rating
and unfortunately this has been the case
no matter which party is in charge
that the approval ratings of Congress
have a lot to be desired.
And my good friend, who recently passed away, John McCain
had a joke that he made all the time
about the approval ratings of Congress.
And he used to say that the approval ratings were so low
that basically we're down to blood relatives
and paid staffers. (attendees laughing)
And he always got a laugh out of that.
But then when they got even worse
he took it one step further and he used to say,
"You know what, I called my mother."
And by the way, his mother Roberta is 105 and still alive
and very engaged in the world.
And John would say, "Yeah, and I called my mother
"and was talking to her about what's happening in Congress
"and she doesn't approve of what we're doing.
"So now essentially we're down to the paid staffers
"that approve us."
Now John had such a great sense of humor,
but let me just say first today
that the reason he thought that Congress's approval ratings
were so poor and that the American people
had such a dim view of Congress
is that people didn't work together.
And that was something that he cared about deeply.
He worked across party lines
whether it was on McCain-Feingold
or whether it was working with Ted Kennedy,
there were many issues that he worked across party lines.
And I'm sure many of you followed the funeral ceremonies
for Senator McCain recently in Washington.
I had the privilege, he was a mentor to me
and someone who really has meant a lot to me in my life.
And I had the privilege of doing a reading at that ceremony
and it really struck me, first of all.
John put the entire ceremony together,
but to see President Obama and President Bush
eulogizing the same man, to see Republican and Democrats
and independents all sitting in the Washington Cathedral
to honor the memory of Senator McCain.
And I believe that is because of his legacy,
not only as a patriot but also that he was deeply committed
to be bipartisan.
You didn't have to agree with him and there was often people
who vehemently disagreed with him.
By the way, they forget that now.
But that he could be a statesman
and he could bring people together.
And I think the fact that there was such a big outpouring
for Senator McCain was not just a reflection on his life,
which was such a great one, but I think it's also a hunger
right now among the American people
for people that work together,
for people that put country first,
for leaders to solve problems.
And for a moment the country stopped
and really saw Republicans and Democrats
and people of different viewpoints all sitting
in the same room for a patriotic ceremony that mattered.
And the reason I raise that today,
because that is really what my friend Senator McCain
thought was the problem with Washington.
And he wanted people to find common ground,
and I don't disagree with him
because I think that a huge problem
with what happens in our dissatisfaction as people
about what happens in our nation's capital can be reflected
in the extreme partisan differences we see now.
We're not just in a place where we disagree with people.
We have to insult them, too.
And it's really hard to get business done
when you're insulting each other.
But as I've reflected on my experience
I don't think that it's the only issue that is at play
of why we're often dissatisfied with our government.
And so I wanted to get to, also, the topic
of our discussion today.
One of the issues that I think is significant
is the larger role our federal government continues to play
and it continues to grow and how intertwined it is
in people's daily lives.
And it seems that often the more that the government grows
and the more its involved in people's lives
the more people are dissatisfied with it.
And this isn't something that I just came to
as some kind of philosophical conclusion.
One of my jobs when I served, and I had the privilege
of serving New Hampshire in the Senate,
wasn't just to legislate,
it was actually to help constituents
and people in New Hampshire who had problems.
And that's why you see members of Congress
having offices throughout our state
because people in New Hampshire would come to me,
come to my staff, but I could of course learn about it
and they'd have a problem with a federal agency.
And they would have some difficulty that you can imagine,
whether it was a veterans issue or a Social Security issue
right, almost any issue you could think about
I would have a constituent come to my office.
And they really couldn't get an answer
or they couldn't get their problem solved.
And sometimes we'd just look at things things and we'd say,
wait a minute, this is obvious.
There's a really easy solution.
And the person who brought it to me would say,
yeah, if they just did this we could fix this problem.
But the breadth and size and the rules and the regulations
and the size of where things are done
often made it really hard to satisfy people
and to really get them the result
that they deserved from their government.
So as I reflected on this and really the continued expansion
under frankly both parties, it's not just a one party issue.
I was wondering if we should ask ourselves, are we dealing,
when we legislate in Washington
or when the executive branch, unfortunately,
tries to legislate beyond its role,
what kind of issue are we dealing with?
Are we dealing with an issue that truly crosses state lines
and can't be dealt with effectively at the state,
local, or community level, for example national defense.
Or is the issue that has come before us,
is it one where more of our tax dollars and resources
would be better left locally at the state, local,
or even the community nonprofit level
rather than the federal government taking the slice
employing people, and then giving us less back
to deal with a problem in our community?
I think our Framers anticipated this balance
when they drafted the 10th Amendment to the Constitution
which states that powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution
or prohibited by it to the states
are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.
As James Madison described it,
the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution
to the federal government are few and defined.
Those which are to remain in the state governments
are numerous and indefinite.
Would people feel better about their federal officials
not only if they worked together more,
which I'm gonna go to Senator McCain's proposition
which I hope we all think about more.
But also would they feel better
if they didn't always look to the federal government
to solve every problem, and could these problems
be more effectively solved at the state and local level
where officials, I think, are more accountable
because they have to see locally the citizen that they serve
much more than our representatives in Washington do.
As Thomas Jefferson said,
"The states can best govern our home concerns
"and the general government our foreign ones.
"I wish, therefore never to see all offices
"transferred to Washington where further withdrawn
"from the eyes of the people they may more secretly
"be bought and sold at market."
I thought that quote was somewhat apt
from Jefferson this morning.
Would members of Congress be better at their jobs
if before approving a new piece of legislation
in Washington, which most of it does typically delegate
a lot of authority to the federal bureaucracy
if they ask, is this the best place to do it,
or should these resources really be spent better
at the local level?
Federalism also offers more creativity
and a unique solution to allow states
to tailor policies to their diverse residents
and the specific issues in their states.
And we all know that how we address certain poverty issues
in New Hampshire may be different
than how someone in another state in the South
may need to address poverty issues
or other important issues.
And giving our government the flexibility to do that
in my view is very important.
We have seen in the last decade that so much anger
is fueling our national politics.
And I think we all can agree
that we've seen that very much today,
not just on the left, on the right,
but whatever your political perspective.
We see populist movements demanding change.
Many people feel disconnected with their government.
They feel that their representatives
can't empathize with them, don't understand them,
and that they are not working for them.
I would argue that part of the problem
is not only polarization and the foulness of our politics
where people often unfortunately insult each other
rather than trying to find common ground,
but it is also that people feel detached
from the federal government,
which continues to seek more and more control
over their daily lives just by its sheer breadth.
Not by malfeasance, but just often unfortunately
I've found when I was a senator
and I was trying to solve a problem for a constituent
it's not that people working for a federal bureaucracy
aren't good people trying to do the right things.
It's just sometimes what they're surrounded with
and the rules and the regulations
and the things that they have to comply with
make it very difficult for them to serve the people
that they're trying to serve.
So on Constitution Day I wanna leave you with two points.
And most importantly, the reason I wanted to change this
into a conversation is because
we will have an opportunity to talk about certain issues
that relate to federalism, but I want to give
a sufficient opportunity for you to ask your questions
about what is on your mind on this important day.
But the two points I want to leave you with is, first,
the obvious one, the need for more collaboration,
compromise, and civility in our national politics,
but at politics at every level.
But I think we see the acrimony the worst
at our national level.
And second, let me just say that I think
that if we think about compromise
we would not have a republic.
We would not have our form of government
if our framers did not compromise.
In fact, one speech I would ask you to take a look at,
which I thought was a very brief speech but a very good one.
It was a speech that Benjamin Franklin actually drafted
for the last day of the Constitutional Convention.
And he himself did not give it
because he was frail at the time.
His friend James Wilson gave it.
But in that speech he humbly confessed
that there are several parts of this Constitution
which I do not at present approve.
But I'm not sure I shall never approve them,
for having lived long I have experienced many instances
of being obliged by better information
or fuller consideration to change opinions
even on important subjects which I once thought right
but found to be otherwise.
It is therefore that the older I grow
the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment
and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.
Could you imagine a politician today admitting that?
I think it would be a good thing.
It's clear that our framers understood
that they were not going to agree
on every word of our Constitution.
But imagine if they were in the Constitutional Convention
and they decided it was my way or the highway.
Where would we be today?
So compromise is my first point.
My final point is getting back to the genius of federalism,
a bedrock of our Constitution.
Deciding how much power and control do we want to
or should we give our federal government?
Or would we be better off allocating more resources
at the state, local, and community level to solve problems
rather than expecting many of these problems
to be solved in Washington D.C.
I leave you, again, with the words of Benjamin Franklin.
As he left the hall in Philadelphia,
and many of you have heard these words before
but they're important ones.
A woman yelled from the crowd and asked him,
"Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
And Franklin famously answered,
"A republic if you can keep it."
No matter what your political viewpoints are, as Americans
we all have more in common than we have differences.
And we all share a responsibility to preserve this republic.
We cannot take it for granted and we have to ensure
that it continues to serve we the people.
And if we continue at our national politics
to insult each other, to disagree in ways
that are beyond issues but are much more
in going to the character of people then I don't see
how we're ever gonna work together to solve it.
And secondly, if we don't really think hard
about what role we want our federal government to play
I fear that we will continue to be dissatisfied
with some of the results that we get
from the alphabet soup agencies in Washington.
So I thank you for having me today
and most important I'm looking forward
to this conversation with Herschel,
whose questions will be excellent, I'm sure.
But I'm also looking forward to time from all of you
to ask whatever questions are on your mind.
Thank you for having me. (audience applauding)
- Thanks so much. - Thanks.
- That was great.
We're being told to switch seats.
- Oh.
- From Joanne, who really runs the show here.
Great-- - Oh, I think she told me
and I just didn't follow directions, it's typical.
- So thanks so much for those words
to start us off on Constitution Day.
We will return to Senator McCain and his legacy soon,
but want to start off thinking about federalism
for a little bit before we get to something
that I think is probably on everybody's mind
which is the Supreme Court nomination politics.
So a bit about federalism first.
So I think you helpfully pointed out
that in the area of national defense
that's something we might have the federal government
have more control over, but thinking about domestic policies
specifically can you tell us some of the areas
where you think local control and laboratories of democracy
are something we wanna see more of?
But then maybe a set of issues where you do think
in domestic policy national and uniform standards
are really the way to go.
- Well, I mentioned one that is one that upsets me
is veterans, number one.
You know, we have a very large per capita population
of veterans in this state.
I also come from a military family.
I'm married to an Air Force veteran
but thankfully he hasn't needed any services
of our government, but I was really surprised
at how many veterans issues.
I wasn't surprised 'cause I heard a lot about it
on the campaign trail, but just,
you've heard all the horror stories about,
unfortunately probably some of you remember
manipulated wait list and all those issues.
And these issues aren't unique to a Democrat in office
or a Republican in office.
And unfortunately they're not being served
whether on healthcare benefits.
They wait a long time often.
I had a veteran come up to me the other day in a store,
in the grocery store and its like,
makes me feel good that I had the opportunity to serve
'cause he came up and hugged me and said,
"You changed my life."
Because he was waiting for years for a disability payment.
And so I think that's an area
where we can have a Veterans Administration
at the federal level, on certain national issues,
but on the healthcare and the care level
in a state like New Hampshire we would be better off
giving veterans, I worked on the Veterans Choice Program,
but that had a ton of bureaucracy, too.
We'd be better off getting veterans
the opportunity to go to any hospital in this state,
and there's a lot of discussion about that.
And we'd be better off cutting through
a lot of the bureaucracy and simplifying
and making it easier.
They've been trying for years, for example,
if you're a disabled veteran, to qualify
you have to go through two sets of qualifications
and simplifying things, so sometimes issues like that
I think we should be, yes, have a national policy,
but we should deal with that at a state level
because I think that our veterans would be better served.
I think a lot of issues, for example, like healthcare.
We have a big debate about that,
but when we had things like the rollout of healthcare.gov
that was kind of a mess I think having at the state level
more support and innovation than dealing
with the federal HHS and this sort of bureaucracy
that we're better off on issues like that.
On issues of poverty I think
that the issues in New Hampshire
may be very different than they are in Utah.
For example, Utah has an innovative state program
that they've dealt with some poverty issues.
So I don't think that there's a monolithic answer
to all of this, what I do think
is that we should be thinking better about, should we create
a new bureaucracy in Washington or would be better off
leaving those resources in the community
and letting the communities address these issues.
Because what happens is, when our taxpayer dollars,
we all know what happens, right?
When we pay our taxes and they go to Washington
on every issue there's a slice.
Even if we're granting it back to the states,
there's a slice that's taken to administer it
of the people that have to administer the agency, right?
It's just common sense, so if we could figure out
on some of these issues how to make sure
the hand's going directly to the people that are need,
and work together on these issues.
It doesn't mean we're gonna do the issues.
I think sometimes people think something like block granting
is oh, we're gonna abdicate our responsibility.
That's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is, let's more effectively serve people
at a closer level.
So issues that I think
the national government has to deal with.
I mean, national defense, some common ones.
You know, the Constitution spells it out.
I mean, trade and treaties have to be dealt with
at a national level, we can't have New Hampshire
having a different policy toward China
than Arkansas or something.
I also believe that issues of environmental quality,
that it's important to have some federal laws
and some issues dealt with at the national level
because when it comes to clean air
and clean water there aren't boundaries,
and so certain issues there aren't boundaries
that it makes sense, so my whole view on this
is that it's really come to more of where I've seen people
just have problems with getting anything done.
And so do I think the state government is perfect?
No, but do I think it's closer to the people
and we can hold it more accountable
than the people in Washington often?
Yes.
- Another controversial case of local control
is what's come to be called nationwide injunctions.
So not to get too into the weeds here, but this'll end up
being about both President Trump's travel ban
and also Obama's DACA program.
So when President Trump issued the travel ban,
the Muslim ban, whatever you wanna call it,
it wasn't the Supreme Court who initially said no.
It wasn't the nine justices.
It wasn't initially one of the 200 circuit court judges.
- It was a district court, right?
- It was one of the 700 district court judges
in a random district court in the state of Hawaii.
So one judge sitting in the state of Hawaii
said that an entire national policy could not be implemented
so Democrats were thrilled, right?
Democrats love this judge is not allowing
the implementation of the travel ban, the Muslim ban.
Democrats cheered for-- - It's great
if you like the issue. - Right.
- But if you don't like the issue,
like for example if you're a huge fan of the ACA
and they were to stop the implementation of health care,
you know, you can see yourself
on different political sides on this
why this could be an issue. - Right.
So Republicans were livid, but then during
the Obama administration when a district court judge
stopped the implementation of DACA
Republicans cheered and Democrats were livid.
- Right. - So do you think
this is something that local judges
looking sort of at their own districts
but then aggregating to national policy.
Like district court judges should not do at all,
there should be no more nationwide injunctions?
- Yeah, first of all I Think that
they should be very limited, if any.
I think this idea that the federal district court
in New Hampshire can suddenly issue an injunction
for the entire nation before it goes
up to the circuit court of appeals level
would create a lot of problems
and in some ways is very undemocratic
because yes, the Article Three branch of government
is supposed to be a check on what happens
obviously in both the legislative and executive branch,
but when a district court orders an injunction
that is issued to the entire nation
rather than a certain geographic area
that just one district court has an oversized impact.
And it's really a trial level judge position
at the federal level.
Can I say never?
Yeah, you know, I'm sure we could all come up
with some scenario that we could all agree on
on both sides of the aisle so I'm not gonna say never,
but I think it should be incredibly limited.
And if the issue is of that importance
than you should be able to file an expedited ruling on it.
If it's an issue of an emergency
then there is a procedure in our federal courts
where you can actually go up within the federal court system
to the higher courts and get a ruling
if it's one of that importance and emergence.
So it's not that people aren't without redress
if there were some thing
that needed to be enjoined right away.
- Interesting, all right so-- - So you have me thinking
of things I haven't, you know.
And this is really interesting
having been a state attorney general,
I probably, if I was an issue I cared about
would have wanted to try to enjoin the entire nation on it.
- Right. - But now that I've had
a chance to be at the federal level
and I can look at the bigger picture I'm not sure
that that's necessarily the right result.
- That's really interesting.
So I-- - 'Cause you know
the attorney generals are pretty involved
in some national issues.
- And actually that's a new phenomenon as well, right?
It comes out of some of the dynamics you've described.
So take the case of tobacco regulation.
This was something that was not happening in Congress.
Tobacco, cigarette products weren't being regulated
in Congress, they weren't being regulated FDA,
and then it was state attorneys general
that sort of got together, advocated
and really changed policy in that regard.
So do you think that that's sort of a nice way
for the states to sort of assert themselves
amidst this gridlock, this polarization
that we're describing or do you think now
states attorneys general have actually got too much power?
- I think it depends on where you sit
on that side of the issue of whether you think
state attorneys general have too much power.
I think the way that the tobacco issue was addressed
by the states attorneys general is actually a good example
of states joining together on an issue.
The reason that the tobacco companies
basically had to enter a settlement,
and it was a settlement.
It was their agreement to enter the settlement.
It was a private agreement, they didn't have to do it.
They may not have liked the results they were getting
in the court system, but it was their choice
to enter the settlement, and what made it powerful
was it wasn't just one attorney general.
It was a bipartisan group of attorney generals
where they started to become a consensus of states
that really made it happen, so yes AGs have a lot of power,
but they're the most powerful when there's a consensus.
And right now the issue to watch is opioids
because the attorneys general have been suing
not only the drug manufacturers of opioids,
but also now the pharmacy benefit managers,
the sort of middlemen in this issue.
And I don't know the last number,
but it's a very large number of states
on both sides of the aisle that have joined in
on this issue and now there is a case in Ohio
that it's a multi-district legislation.
Now that decision if they were to issue an injunction
should be effectual because it's joining
all the litigation from across the country in one court
with an agreement that it all should be in that one court.
Now that's a good example of a court
that should have the authority, whatever the ruling is.
- Let's talk about the Supreme Court.
Of course it's on nobody's minds today.
Why don't we just start with the elephant in the room.
Do you think that there is a greater than 50% chance
that Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed
to the Supreme Court of the United States?
- I think that the confirmation process is not over yet.
And obviously we've all become aware of allegations
that have been made against him
from a woman during the period that he was in high school.
And I think that there's going to be a hearing.
She's agreed to testify and there will be a hearing
before the Judiciary Committee where I'm sure
she will testify, Judge Kavanaugh will testify
and I'm guessing anyone who was a witness
or has information about this may also testify.
Whether that will stop his nomination I don't.
You know, I don't know the facts yet
so it's hard for me to conclude that.
I think people will also, you've heard a lot of Republicans
talk about the timing of these allegations.
They'll take a look at that and make sure
that politics aren't at play with what's happening.
But the reality is that this woman's come forward
and it's important that people hear from her
and then judge what she has to say in light of someone
who's going to have a lifetime appointment.
There's no doubt in my view that he's eminently qualified
in terms of his experience, his education,
his background to serve on the court.
You may not agree with his judicial philosophy,
but like Justice Gorsuch, his education
and experience qualifications are really impeccable.
- [Herschel] Two quick followups on that.
If there were 50 women in the United States Senate today.
- Well that would be news. - Yeah.
There are currently 21. - Big news.
- That would be big news. - 21 is the most
in the history of the country right now
that Woman that have ever served in the Senate, yeah.
- So suppose there were 50 evenly divided
across the two parties. - 25 Republicans, 25, OK.
Would Brett Kavanaugh,
would your estimation-- - No, but who's in charge?
Republicans or Democrats?
So do we have the-- - So let's say
that the Republicans are still in charge
for the purposes of this question.
- So the vice president could break the tie.
- Yes, vice president could break the tie.
Lotta hypotheticals here. (audience laughing)
- This is pretty important though, like who's in charge.
- So Republicans are still in charge.
They have 51 senators, 25 of them happen to be women.
25 of the Democratic senators are women.
Would your estimation of the probability
of Kavanaugh's confirmation go up, down, or stay the same?
And then the followup to that is,
if Judge Thomas, if Clarence Thomas were nominated
to the Supreme Court today, holding all else equal,
would he be likely to be confirmed
to the Supreme Court today?
- Wow, um. (audience laughing)
Justice Thomas, I don't know.
I mean, but he has a track record now.
Well obviously we knew he was eminently qualified,
but we have had a whole series.
And honestly I was of an age then
during the Justice Thomas hearings
that I didn't watch all those hearings,
so I don't want to pretend to judge
one way or the other, but I think we would be blind
if we didn't think that Me Too Movement
and what's happening hasn't had an impact
on our social consciousness of people
coming forward on issues that maybe they never did before,
but that doesn't mean that if someone comes forward
that we don't afford the person
that comes forward due process,
but also the person accused the full due process
because we would not have a good, it would not be fair
if that did not happen.
So I don't know that I can judge Thomas in hindsight,
but wow, that's a really tough question.
I appreciate it.
- [Herschel] 50 women senators and Kavanaugh probability.
- Oh, the 50 women senators.
I actually think the result would be no different.
I really don't. - Right.
- And the question is going to be, though,
I mean in terms of probability
because I think the real question is,
what is the substance of these allegations?
How credible do people find them?
And that that will drive this process for Judge Kavanaugh
where we are regardless of the configuration
of men or women, I really do.
- So I'd like to return to the Gorsuch nomination.
Everyone in the audience should know
that when judges are nominated to be justices,
or people are nominated to be justices,
a really important and prominent public figure
basically acts as their, it's called a sherpa
for some reason. - Yeah.
- Basically like leading them through Congress,
helping them deal with the media.
And so I'm wondering if you could just tell us a bit
about that process with Justice Gorsuch.
What was the most interesting or impressive part
of being on the other side of that?
And maybe the least impressive part if one existed.
- Yes, so I was asked to be the sherpa
for now Justice Gorsuch pretty much at the end of January
right after I had lost my election, right,
so I thought yeah, I was pretty surprised
when they called me and asked me to do it, truthfully
if you know my history with the president.
But I was really impressed with Justice Gorsuch
and his background so I agreed to be his sherpa.
And the reason, you know the sherpa
basically brings people up mountains
and I don't know, whoever is sherpaing,
I know Jon Kyle was sherpaing for Judge Kavanaugh right now
but I'm sure they're feeling a little bit
like really a sherpa whoever took his place
now that he's been appointed in the Senate.
But being on the other side with a Supreme Court nominee.
First of all, being in the White House, that was different
because I had just served in the Senate.
And I'd served as a state attorney general,
but I was not an elected attorney general
so I didn't have a long political history
where I'd served in the White House or anything like that.
So that was actually a first time
where I was on the inside of a White House issue.
And a new White House where I got there
and they were pretty new.
Obviously the White House, they had just got into office.
Justice Gorsuch had been nominated the night before
and I was with him the next morning.
And so the first thing was like, OK, where's the plan.
And we're looking at it, where's the plan?
Oh, we are the plan, OK.
So let's figure out what we need to do.
Who should we meet with first in the Senate.
And then going over to the Senate
I had just lost an election and being on the other side
of listening to, we had probably I think over 70 meetings
with senators, so one of your jobs is to bring over,
introduce the justice to the senator
and the senator will ask them questions to decide
whether or not they're gonna vote for his confirmation.
And so sitting in a room where I'm not the senator
asking the questions and listening
to other people's questions I thought
was fascinating and frustrating.
And I also figured out who is really good
at asking questions, which I'm not gonna name anyone here,
and who was really annoying.
But so, (audience laughing)
which I'm not naming my former colleagues here.
- Don't even ask. - It's really different
having a job and then being asked
to actually sit and shepherd someone through
to watch the job from that side.
And I learned a lot about it.
And the other thing that was really cool
about being a sherpa that I hadn't even thought about,
but was the best part about it is I now have,
I mean, Justice Gorsuch is my friend.
I mean, we went through so much together
in a confirmation process.
I helped not only the 70 plus meetings
but every good, bad, difficult one,
but also I got to know him very personally
and helped prepare him for, along with many others,
but helped prepare him for the hearings.
And so he became a friend
and I never thought I would know a Supreme Court justice
that well, and so that was a really cool part of it.
The hard part of it sometimes is that, you know,
it's a political process, and so some of the meetings
you go through or you realize are kind of a sham, right,
'cause you know what the result's gonna be.
And there are real meetings that you sit in
and you think people are being earnest
and actually trying to get answers out.
And so that's the hard part about it.
And it was also the part that Justice Gorsuch found hard,
when he could tell that someone wasn't really,
he was never gonna have a shot with 'em
and they weren't really listening.
Those were hard meetings for him, too
'cause he's a really smart guy
and he likes engaging on an intellectual level.
I mean think about it, he didn't get nominated
to the Supreme Court if he's not incredibly bright.
So he likes engaging, and so if someone's
not really genuinely engaging those are harder meetings.
- Yeah, I had a conversation with Justice Alito once
after he was confirmed to the court
and he hated this entire process.
- Well, I haven't met a nominee yet who likes it.
- Right. - I, you know,
the one thing I used to always,
which is when you're doing the Supreme Court
you can at least assure the person you're working with,
you're never gonna have to do this again.
So great, like the rest of us
actually might have to interview for another job. (laughs)
- So I have a question about Merrick Garland.
- Oh, the other thing I used to tell him too,
I was like, you should see what it's like
running for office. (laughs)
This looks like a picnic, no.
- I have a question about Merrick Garland.
- Yes. - So, you spoke in your talk
about the constitutional structure, the role of federalism,
and the importance of federalism
to the original constitutional structure,
and I think it's important to note
that the Republican Party has traditionally
been very strong on this, quite accurately in a way
that the Democratic Party hasn't.
So the Republican Party is sort of fidelity
to that Constitutional norm, I think,
has exceeded the Democratic Party.
But another constitutional norm that's sort of recently
been a source of controversy is the norm
of the Senate giving advise and consent
on judicial nominees, in particular the Garland nomination.
So Garland was nominated seven months
before a presidential election.
And the norm of advise and consent is not advise and concent
sort of after the next election.
It's sort of advise and consent on a reasonable schedule.
And Mitch McConnell, brilliant tactician,
brilliant strategist didn't hold a vote on that nomination,
which many on the other side feel was an abdication
of Constitutional duty,
an abdication of Constitutional structure,
a violation of an important norm.
And so,
I think you weren't in favor of,
you agreed with the leadership in not holding a vote.
- I did, I did, yeah. - On the Garland nomination.
So by way of contrast, suppose the Democrats
were in power today, Judge Kavanaugh was nominated
four months before a midterm election
and the Democrats came along and said, well,
you know, there's an election in four months.
We think that the norm should be to not hold a vote.
- Well, they've actually made that argument.
No, I mean, they've already made that argument.
- Right, right, and so would you find that argument
persuasive given that you were persuaded by it
at a previous time? - I think the reality is
of where we are in the judicial confirmation process
is not exactly a pretty one, but it is where it is.
And that is that we no longer have, in the Senate
unlike the House where a majority passes legislation,
in the Senate typically first of all to pass legislation
usually to have to have first 60 votes
to end debate on something to get a vote on the floor.
It's the same thing with nominations of significance.
It used to be for nominations of the president
to the cabinet and other positions
that there was a 60 vote threshold,
but also for judges at every level.
And now through a series of back and forth,
first starting when I was in the Senate
when Harry Reid changed the rules
and the Democrats were in charge of the Senate
they changed the rules for lower courts,
for district courts, and for circuit courts of appeals
and made it a 50-vote threshold instead of 60.
So essentially they wanted to shut the Republicans out
when they were in the minority.
And then when we were going through the Gorsuch confirmation
this was a big part of what we were focusing on
because we didn't know what was going to happen
and we were trying to get a bipartisan vote
of over 60 votes, that's why we had so many meetings
and we worked hard at it 'cause at that point
we were hoping that that could be the result.
But then the Democrats decided
they were gonna dig their heels and so the Republicans
then changed the rules to 50 for Supreme Court justices.
So now we're very much in a confirmation process
in a pitched battle on the Supreme Court.
And not just the Supreme Court, but all the lower courts.
It's become a very partisan exercise.
Do I think it's necessarily a good place, no.
Are we there, yes.
And so then you're in a position where,
will the confirmation process ever change back
where the other side, where we see a more bipartisan day.
I wish I could tell you yes.
I think the answer at this point is probably no.
I could certainly understand, and I understood at the time
the criticism on the Garland decision.
On the other hand, under the Constitution
I think if it were invalid under the Constitution
the Obama administration actually would have rightly
and correctly won a lawsuit against us
in the Supreme Court on that.
They never brought it because they knew constitutionally
they may not like it, it may not be good for 'em,
it may not be how things are done,
but under the Constitution it was allowed.
And I think we will probably see more of that,
I don't know, from whoever's in charge.
And now that we're in a place where it's a 50 vote threshold
for the nomination of judges on both sides,
what's gonna matter to the executive is
how many Republicans do I have
or how many Democrats do I have
and who's controlling the Senate.
And so that's why these elections
become even more pitched sometimes for the Senate seats.
Can I also commend to you an opening statement
that I thought was really interesting and excellent
and that was from Senator Ben Sasse
and from the Kavanaugh nominations
and he talked at length in a very, very
just very understandable, clear,
I thought an excellent summary of why he thinks
that the Supreme Court, we've put too much
in the expectation of the Supreme Court
and it's become so politicized.
And part of his argument is actually
that Congress has abdicated too much of its role
to the Supreme Court.
- [Herschel] Two very quick final questions.
- I know I'm talking too much, sorry.
- No, no, no, this is great.
This is really interesting.
So one is about Senator McCain
and the other is some parting advice for our students
before we open it up to the audience.
So I think for a long time people thought the future
of the Republican Party was people like Senator McCain,
people like you, people like Jeb Bush,
people like Marco Rubio, people who were strong republicans
but could get things done across the aisle.
People who might appeal to educated suburban voters,
people who might appeal to racial and ethnic groups
who are traditionally not in the Republican wheelhouse.
Senator McCain never did win the presidency.
Donald Trump is now the president of the United States
and the leader of the Republican Party,
so is Trumpism the way forward for the Republican Party?
- Well, I actually think that if you look at,
I touched on it a little bit in my initial comments,
but there's a great dissatisfaction with our government
and how it was serving people.
And we see ourselves sort of swinging
from one side to the other on this issue.
And our political system at the moment
is actually not rewarding compromise or bipartisanship.
It is much more focused on the person
that agrees with me most and meets my checklist
as opposed to who is going to be in a better position
to actually get something done
and will work with other people to do it.
But I think that president, I mean, people didn't expect
President Trump to win, right?
Very unconventional candidate, no political experience,
and he beat a huge field
of traditional Republican candidates.
By the way, even though Bernie Sanders
has a long political history, I mean,
you could have seen something more populist happening
on the Democratic side, too, and it still may yet.
In the very rigorous primary I expect we're gonna have
leading into the 2020 presidential elections
on the Democratic end, but I really think
that it's not necessarily that somehow the Republican Party
is changed, I think it's overall a reflection of,
there was a great dissatisfaction
with the establishment of all forms in the last election.
That people, their government wasn't meeting their needs.
People felt left behind, and he somehow tapped into it.
We can talk about why that was the case.
But you know, the lesson from that in my view
is that OK, what are we not doing
that were meeting people's needs
and why are we so disconnected with some average people
in this country that maybe haven't gotten ahead,
that are feeling left behind or feeling left out
or aren't feeling included.
You know, those I think are the questions
that should be asked rather than,
does this transform one party or the other
because I could argue that perhaps maybe
Bernie Sanders is going to transform, I don't know.
But I think, is this a long-lasting populist movement
on the Republican Party?
I don't know the answer to that.
I think that has not been written yet.
There's obviously clearly as the president
of the United States he's gonna have a long-term impact
on the party and the nation, but really looking back
at the last election, you know,
what is it that people weren't happy with?
And we better serve people better
and understand people's issues
in the so-called establishment or the so-called mainstream
or however you want to describe us, I don't know,
if we're going to be effective
and actually be better at governing,
and better at helping people solve their problems.
- [Herschel] Final question, for the students in the room
both the '22s and those of you who have been here before.
What is the best advice you have ever received
during your political career?
The best advice you ever gave,
the advice you'd most want to communicate to our students.
- The best, I'm not gonna pretend to give the best advice,
but I will, I really had fun talking to the freshmen
in the front row, but I think my advice would be,
number one, first of all, you're all here at Dartmouth
because you're incredibly bright, you've worked hard
or you wouldn't be at this excellent college.
And I think the question you have to ask yourself
is why am I here, what do I want to learn?
And you know, eventually that's gonna lead
to what do I want to do with my life?
What is my avocation?
And I would just say this, is that, find a sense of purpose.
I mean, the thing that I have been blessed with
is that I have had opportunities
to really get up everyday, have a sense of purpose
that even on the most frustrating day
that I felt like I was working on something worthy
and something that made a difference
even if I couldn't get anything done that day
that moved the needle, and it seems to me
that everyone in this room is in a very fortunate position
to be at this education institution
to get the tools to find your sense of purpose.
And the other thing I would say to you is take some chances.
There is no way I would have been
attorney general of our state, or a U.S. senator
if I hadn't taken some chances
and believed in myself and taken some risks
to do the thing that I wanted to do
even though it was definitely not assured.
And the last election it didn't work out for me,
but I wouldn't change putting myself in the arena.
Go read the Teddy Roosevelt poem.
It's a fantastic one, it was John McCain's favorite.
Because if you're not in the arena you can't make it happen.
And if you aren't willing to get in there
and get a little bloodied and take some risks
then you're not gonna make it happen.
And this room has the background and the ability to do it.
So I would just say, have a sense of purpose,
find out what it is, it'll be different for every person,
take some chances, and by the way
there's a lot of really smart people at Dartmouth
and really cool people that once in a while come to visit.
I'm not saying I'm cool, but...
(audience laughing)
Ask them, ask them what experiences have shaped their lives.
Ask them what they did to get where they are.
Ask them what made them successful
or what did they really mess up
that they wish they could do differently?
Those are all things that you have access to people here
that not everyone else does, so make the most of it.
It's a great opportunity, and as I said to the guys up front
have some fun, too, 'cause I mean
college is a great time in your life.
- Please join me in thanking Senator Ayotte.
(audience applauding)
So we've got a lot of time for questions.
- Now we have the hard questions.
- There's a microphone rotating around.
We will start with students as we always do.
So we'll start down here in the front.
- [Kyle] Yeah, do you want me to stand up, or like?
All right, hi, I'm Kyle.
I'm a student from St. Petersburg, Florida, I'm 22.
I have two questions.
One is related to related to the federalism issue.
And then one is related to national politics
because I'm sure you wanna talk more
about national politics.
- I'm happy to talk about either.
- [Kyle] Anyway, federalism issue.
To sort of follow up to the nationwide injunctions issue
that we were discussing earlier,
if district courts and lower level courts were to issue
non-nationwide injunctions, or injunctions
on nationwide policies would that result in a situation
where for example DACA or the travel ban was applying
to certain areas but not others,
and what effect would that have on the legal system?
Would you have a situation where DACA only applied--
- Yeah, it's an absolutely great point and a great question.
You're right, because would DACA only not apply
in New Hampshire but it would apply everywhere else?
And that would create an administration problem.
I think that's a very valid point.
But I also think it's a huge power
to give one district court to issue an injunction
on an important matter for the entire nation.
And that's why the better course would be to wait
before anything is enjoined or not enjoined
to go up to the higher court,
especially on a national policy.
And I hope our courts would allow their expedited procedures
to be used very quickly in these circumstances
when we're involving something
that really impacts the entire nation.
- [Kyle] OK, and then my national politics question.
Do you think that President Trump
will receive a primary challenge in 2020
from the establishment wing of the party?
And if so-- - Or I don't know,
maybe the not so establishment wing of the party.
- That's a fair point, and if so--
- I shouldn't have categorized myself that way
'cause I really haven't been in politics that long,
but we'll call it that.
- [Kyle] Do you think that a challenger,
and obviously this would depend on who it was,
but would that challenger
have a reasonable chance of success given,
I'll say the Trump administration's track record so far?
- Oh, if we were just doing today.
Like let's say I have no other information
We were having the election tomorrow, a Republican primary.
- [Kyle] Sure.
- As opposed to some other issue that may come up
in the future that I don't know about.
Or I may know about or we don't know.
So I think that if there were a Republican primary
challenge today that President Trump would win.
He is quite popular within the Republican Party base
and I think it's hard to mount a challenge, first of all,
against an incumbent of any form in a primary.
It happens and we've seen it happen around the nation,
but an incumbent president has certain infrastructure
in place in terms of the Republican national party
would be behind him and structure that a challenger,
it's hard to meet.
Do I think there will be a primary challenge?
If I were voting today I think unlikely, but I don't know.
There are some people I think out there
who are at least, like a Governor Kasich
who are at least making some, based on their public comments
some noise about it.
I was talking about Senator Ben Sasse.
I mean, he's still serving in the Senate
so I'm not gonna say he's making a primary challenge
but he's had some criticism for the president
so there are people out there presumably
with enough stature that they could certainly
throw their hat in the ring.
And you know, one of the things about being an incumbent
is that within your own party there's no guarantee
that you will get the nomination again,
so you have to not only keep your party support but then
also bridge that support to the middle to be successful.
Like my last election to the Senate
I had a primary challenge heading into the election.
I won it pretty handily, but I still couldn't ignore it,
right. - Right.
- [Herschel] Let's keep the microphone in the front row.
- [Kyle] Hello.
- You can do whatever you want.
- [Ranjan] Hello, I'm Ranjan Sehgal, class of '22.
I know we talked a little bit about the Supreme Court
and you talked a little bit
about solving the partisanship issue.
A little bit more specifically,
it's interesting to look at the Supreme Court
and how like in the late '80s how it was a very resoundingly
the nominee would be confirmed.
And if you take the Neil Gorsuch nomination
and how that was a lot more partisan,
I was wondering if you have any ideas
of how we can get back to the other days, thank you.
- Well, I'll quote Senator Sasse,
but he's not the first person to say this.
But it goes back 31 years to the confirmation
of Judge Robert Bork and that really changed
the nature of that confirmation process.
Really changed how these court seats were viewed
in these confirmation, and his nomination was defeated
in the Senate and it also changed
that the nominees for these positions
decided that it wasn't to their advantage
to answer the questions that were asked.
And of course now each nominee will tell you
I can't prejudge a case, and there's a lot of validity
to that, you really wouldn't want someone
up there telling as a judge saying
how they're gonna rule on a set of facts
if you're the person that's gonna come before them
on those facts, so that's valid.
But you know, it really changed with Judge Bork,
who was quite open in his hearings
about what he thought and how he would treat certain issues
and that of course caused the Democrats
and then got others mobilized against him
and so the whole hearing process
really became much more politicized then.
The other point that, again, I'm not trying
to cite Senator Sasse too much, but the reason
I asked you to listen to his speech
if you have an extra minute is that his theory
is one I find is worth consideration,
which is that because Congress is so dysfunctional
and often Congress doesn't want to make a decision
on important issues 'cause they just want to get reelected,
that when legislation's passed
they leave so much discretion in the administrative state.
So the Affordable Care Act, there were so much
the secretary shall, right?
And certain things weren't spelled out.
Well that happens with veterans legislation.
That happens with all kinds of, I'm not just picking on that
because it happens all the time in Washington.
And his argument is, is that we then put so much
on the Supreme Court in deciding
we want it to be a policy decision maker.
It was never intended to be a policy decision maker
as the third branch.
The legislative branch is the First Article.
It's intended to be first in terms of making policy.
That that abdication has actually made the focus
even more so on the Supreme Court
because some people want the Supreme Court to solve problems
that the legislative branch should solve
under our separation of powers, under our Constitution.
So that's his theory and I thought it was really one
worth considering, and a pretty good one.
- [Ranjan] Thank you.
- [Herschel] Let's take another student question.
Jasmine.
- [Jasmine] Hello, thank you for your talk.
So just speaking about federalism,
when thinking about issues like healthcare,
the Affordable Care Act, Title IX,
I think kind of my understanding of these movements
or initiative is trying to establish who were are
as a nation and what kinds of values that we stand for.
And so my question is, how do we deal as a nation
with the disparity of kinds of programs available
across state lines and kinds of the gaps
of programs available.
- Well first of all, I think for example states,
you're right, states make different choices.
Like New Hampshire doesn't have an income tax
and Massachusetts does have an income tax
and maybe there's certain programs
that New Hampshire chooses not to fund
to be able to do that, that Massachusetts
or another state would choose to fund.
But I also think that we are in a position, two things.
On some of those issues, the inequity
we could even say we're gonna keep
the same amount of resources, just we're not got gonna do it
at the federal level, we're gonna keep them in the state.
Because collectively we're paying the money.
So you could allocate it at the state level, number one,
if you thought there was inequity of an issue
that needed to be much more equal
across the state governments.
But I also think that people have in our federalist system
an ability to be mobile and to leave.
And that that will drive state policy.
If a state is not handling certain issues
or serving certain people or treating certain things,
you know, then there are also are going to be people
who will inevitably decide, I'm not gonna live in that state
and that's gonna drive policy as well.
So you've got two factors there.
I do think though that you could decide
to equalize funding without making the federal government
in charge of it all.
It's a different way of distributing the money
and I actually think states would be more efficient
overall in how they would use it.
Or localities, maybe it's not the state issue.
Maybe it's better dealt at a local government level,
the mayoral level.
- Why don't we open things up.
So the man on the end here.
- [Bill] Hi there, thank you, my name is Bill.
In thinking about maintaining the optimum balance
between national authority and state autonomy
can we learn anything from other democracies,
how they are successfully doing it, or how they do it?
And the problems they may have or not have
because they do it differently than we do.
I'm not saying better or worse.
- No. - So is there any kind
of a best practices study going on around the world
on this subject of local autonomy
versus national government authority?
And they would have maybe provinces instead of states,
but any thoughts about that?
Can we learn from the rest of the democratic world?
- Yeah Bill, I think that's actually a really good question.
And I have to confess I haven't studied it.
I probably should, but to the extent
that we have other democracies.
First of all, I think we can learn from other people.
I mean, I'll give you an example
not on the federalism front,
but Germany has some excellent apprenticeship programs
and work programs that I think we should look
at what they're doing because their education system
has some very good ideas that we could implement here
that would be good for people.
But I can't cite you offhand in the issue of federalism
of how things are operating.
Maybe that research is out there
and I personally have not studied it,
but I think you've raised a really good point.
I always think we can learn from other people
And one of the things that is the beauty of federalism
is that states can learn from each other.
I mean, that was one of the ideas.
Of course we've heard a lot of discussion
about the laboratories of the states.
But learning from each other as opposed
to one unitary approach from a federal top-down level
we're in a better position to know maybe perhaps
what would work and be effective
as opposed to what has not been effective.
- [Bill] If I could maybe just real quickly,
my international experience has caused me to observe
that we tend to be on the extreme side
of the balance more towards the state or local authority
versus the national, and compared to other countries
our life is more complicated.
As this young lady said here, there are many differences
between the different states.
And I just found that maybe life was easier
in other countries because they didn't have
all this local autonomy, not that it was zero,
but I mean, I lived in Germany for a long time
and I remember talking with a group of Germans one time
and they were telling me about capital punishment.
They were not for it, of course,
and why doesn't your president just eliminate it?
That's just a subject that is an example here
to make a point, and I had to tell them
it's not a national decision, it's by state.
And I had to spend the whole evening explaining
our federal system and they still never got it.
- (laughs) So Bill, you actually raise
an important point, I mean, the Framers put this together
but it was by no means simple.
And I think, but in some ways the system that they set up
to bring our states together, you know,
and the mechanism that they set up
to protect individual freedom and somewhat innovation
among the states is not a simple one.
But I personally prefer it to a more unitary system
because I worry about some of the,
not necessarily with the Germany obviously,
but some of the more simplified unitary systems
can end up to places where some of your basic rights
get denied and sometimes it's sort of the benevolent leaders
who even do that, and so that's the challenge
that we face and it's probably why Franklin
left the convention with a Republican if you can keep it.
A republic if you can keep it, I should say.
- [Bill] Thank you.
- Why don't we collect a few questions at once.
So in the back and then in the purple shirt.
- [Blake] Hi, my name is Blake and I'm 22.
You spoke a little bit earlier about your relationship
with Senator John McCain, and I guess my question
is obviously recently we've seen that under the guise
of Trumpism a lot of conservatives, Republicans
have kind of turned their back on Senator McCain.
And he made certain legislative decisions
like his decision to go thumbs down on the ACA,
repealing the ACA in the Senate, but for the most part
he's been one of the staunchest conservatives in the Senate
during his tenure and I was wondering
what this shift in the perception of the senator
says about where the Republican Party is now
and how loyal they are to Donald Trump.
- My friend John, I didn't always agree
with everything he did, he didn't always agree
with everything I did, and I heard about it.
(laughs) But he was not a quiet man.
But where are we.
I think what's emblematic in terms of people's respect
for someone like Senator McCain is what we saw
at his funeral because if you really sat in that cathedral
and looked around you would have seen people
from all different viewpoints including the spectrum
of the Republican Party.
Now are there people who disagree with him
and think that his compromise on certain issues
made him less Republican or more of what people like to call
a RINO, yes, and he faced those arguments
during his lifetime and he faced 'em
with a lot of courage.
I mean, when he did immigration reform with Ted Kennedy,
I mean, he was vilified on talk radio.
So it was nothing new for him in terms of what he faced
unfortunately heading into his passing
is what he faced with courage in his life.
And one of the things I admired most about him
and I think it's what people respect about him
is that he put his shoulders up and was like,
he had a lot of courage and frankly,
he could understand and listen to somebody else's position
but he wasn't gonna let people push him around
in terms of what he believed in.
And that's sort of a rare thing because it's kinda easy
to push some politicians around
in terms of what they believe, but that was never him.
So I don't think that the people who disagreed with him
in the Republican Party, by the way,
existed even before President Trump
and he just tapped into it.
- [Herschel] Why don't we take two or three
lighting round questions in quick succession.
- [Dave] Yeah, so this is just a smaller issue
that might affect us,
but it also kind of relates to federalism.
I'm Dave, by the way, I'm a senior.
And it's about voter regulation and voter requirements
for different states and a law recently changed that
for New Hampshire that will take effect soon
that will probably prohibit a lot of us from voting here
where we spend most of the year.
And I just was curious to see what you might have thought
of that in the scope of being involved
with our local governments and of course
that's where we reap the most benefit
is where we're living, so considering that a college student
might not be able to vote in New Hampshire, for example,
not in this upcoming election, but in future ones.
How does that contrast to our civic responsibility
and things like that?
- So I got this question earlier in the class I was in
about first of all, I have to confess
I haven't fully read the law that the governor signed in.
It's already been reviewed by our New Hampshire
Supreme Court and found to be valid
under our State Constitution and the federal Constitutions
at least by our state Supreme Court.
But my understanding of our laws is first of all,
New Hampshire, every state
has some form of residency requirement.
New Hampshire actually has been somewhat out of line
with some of our neighbors in terms
of what our residency requirement is.
And so I don't know all the ins and out of that law.
But from what I know of it I don't think
that you'll be prohibited from voting.
I mean, as I understand it you have to get a license
or some form of residency here
or if not you vote by absentee in the state that you're from
and that's really not, I think if you look at it closely
not that different from a lot of other states.
And why do I think that it's,
OK, why should you be a resident of this state.
Let's make sure that we have residence, right?
That's important, is because you, when you vote in a state
other than for the presidential election
you're really voting on who's gonna,
the president you're representing
who's gonna vote you, but if you think about
the unique issues in New Hampshire or in Maine
or wherever you're from you wanna make sure
that the people that vote have a stake
in the people that they're voting for
not just for a temporary period,
but they're actually declaring this their residency
or their domicile, so I haven't studied that law
inside and out, but I don't obviously think anyone
should be denied the right to vote.
It's really important, it's fundamental.
And you know, I think that hopefully people
will still be allowed to vote either here
or in the state that they came from.
- [Herschel] Let's take one more down here.
You've been waiting patiently the whole time.
I hope it's a good question. (audience laughing)
- [Audience Member] So I had a bunch
but I'm gonna narrow it down to just one
that I hope will be an interesting one for you to answer
as an ex-senator, so what do you think
about term limits on Congress?
Will that encourage senators to be more active
in their decisions as they will not be afraid
of making controversial choices
that might get them not to be elected.
- There aren't many, I love answering this question
'cause there aren't many people
that are gonna come here that are gonna give the answer
that I'm gonna give, I'm for term limits.
I was for them when I ran for the Senate
and I'm still for them.
And the reason that I am for them,
is I actually think it would be good to have a renewal
and to have, I think our Founders did think
that people would go and they would serve for a period
and then they would go back to whatever profession
or work that they had before they left.
And the one thing though that is a valid argument
against term limits is that the bureaucracy
that I talked to you about, there is really a concern
that if that continues to grow
and we continue to see Congress not legislating
but delegating more to the agencies that aren't elected
that they could then just wait members of Congress out
through their terms and basically have even more power
and make decisions knowing that they could wait you out
when your terms are done, and that is a valid argument.
And so I'm for term limits, but I'd also like to see
some reforms in terms of how much delegation
the Congress is making to these agencies
and also what role we are giving to our federal government
in conjunction with it.
- [Herschel] Thanks again.
(audience applauding)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét