tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN November 15, 2016 6:00am-8:01am EST
it's going to play out on infrastructure. i should add that the advent of the autonomous vehicle will have more to do with change and the environment more than anything our lifetimes it is more around the corner as well. >> my name is stephanie at nrdc. one of the opportunities presented in the infrastructure bill is an opportunity to reimagine local empowerment. we understand that president elect trump isn't necessarily looking at the fed to be the leaders on this there might be a good opportunity for state and local. so 36 governors are going to be up in 2018. as the mayor was talking about,
the relationships that are required and he talks about the opportunity to create in the common ground. how do we have a conversation around the regional investments that can happen that support the kind of smalltime communities in the larger cities and some of these then where is the opportunity for innovation and the shared economy as we think about some of the flexible dollars that we had that could create some species for u spaceo do more? >> one of the things your question raises is the role of state and local government in planning the built environment and been essentially helping to shape national policy in the
local and regional plans. this is something that we in the labor movement very strongly believe is necessary as a way of trying to bridge the divide is deep in washington and maybe less deep and federal washington and more reflective of ways that people kind of live together and come together and the areas we live in. i would just suggest that in addition to this, we have to think as we are doing this and the impact of infrastructure investment on the communities that we have a lot of people in this country that have been left out of the economic growth in the last 30 years in a lot of different ways. in the inner cities, people
indicted the industrialized parts of the country the critical question whether or not infrastructure investment will reach them because it's not they cannot participate in the global economy. and it isn't going to happen by accident. it's also a visit is deeply related to how the workforce policy relates to infrastructu infrastructure. what kind of jobs are we going to create, who will be available to. so in the labor perspective, and this is critical akin to building a common ground. from the labor movement perspective it is absolutely essential that they have the labor protections and provisions for training and inclusiveness that will result in all the good things i just mentioned happening. it will not happen by accident. if there is the belief that somehow the public goods will respond and somehow we will create public goods in the same
way that we create software or chewing gum what will happen is not public goods and we've been doing that for 30 years and it's not an attainable thing to do. >> if you go to any community transportation is one of the top three. when businesses decide, they want to know that there is viable options. when we talk about the divide there's a lot of places around the country and this isn't a partisan ratio and for the communities to succeed, they need to have transportation as
one of the core tactics. they also know a lot of support was in the rural areas. this is a place we can bring everyone together to provide a toolkit option to have the ability to succeed that maybe didn't have that ability six years ago. we are now like ten minutes over so i think you can read that there are a lot of questions about this and we would be happy to do something like this again. i didn't even get to my favorite subject of high-speed rail. we hope that he will give us the feedback and we hope that we can do this again. i would like you to help me thank the panel for being here today. [applause]
that. whether that was always the intent of mitch mcconnell to turn them into a referendum on the appointment or not, it worked out that way so in that sense i think trump's election is great news and at the very least even i, very much a trump skeptic, he will honor his first promise with the first appointment as a conservative. he has to do that was all hell
would break loose if he didn't. on the broader question of whether or not -- it is absolutely true that hillary would be a grave threat to the constitution. it is not the opposite. the opposite is not true about donald trump. his commitment to the constitution, rhetorically, quite good as a matter of campaign boilerplate, also said there were 12 articles in the constitution. don't know if he's deeply enamored with the text. he has views on things like eminent domain a lot of people in this room are nervous about and views on the first amendment a lot of people in this room are nervous about or should be nervous about so i think the question among conservatives and constitutionalists isn't so much what is in donald trump's hard, that remains to be seen. what matters is creating the
incentive structure whereby the information flow, political decisionmaking process point him in the right direction and this brings up the point jim demint was getting at. i agree entirely. it is infuriating to me and maybe 2 lawyers here, i am not a lawyer, but it infuriates me how we come to the point we think the supreme court is the only guardian of the constitution. it is a guardian of the constitution and in certain situations it is a last guardian of the constitution but anyone who swears an oath to uphold the constitution is a guardian of the constitution. the citizens from whom the constitution derives authority are guardians of the constitution was we have gotten to the place where we say
anything goes unless the supreme court like a hockey goalie stops it. that is something the conservative movement, the heritage foundation and "national review" do a better job in terms of creating the incentive structure for politicians lose the point of the conservative movement is not to elect republican politicians but movie zeitgeist in the understanding of these issues so it is an politicians interest to do the right thing. that is a task for donald trump, the conservative movement to make sure the arguments he is hearing push them in the right direction. he is open to it and made promises. >> this is something donald trump did not think about a lot. it is not a big deal in his life.
it was eminent domain, played into his role as a real estate developer. the root of his approach to this goes back to the early days of the republican primary where he is trying to consolidate support of conservatives, got ted cruz who argued a bunch of cases before the supreme court, governors, a lot of people with a lot of experience in government and the law running against him and trump is sensitive to the reaction of audiences, the rallies, he really notices do they go for this? everyone sat on their hands when i talked about this, he saw the interest conservatives in a republican primary, not the general election but the primary
had and the questions conservative organizations like "national review" had. the way you consolidated support was to release the list of justices and judges, appoint one of these people to the supreme court and uniformly well-received because it was a great lift. the objection of never trump was it is a great list but he might not do this. the other thing to remember about trump, not thinking these issues through, the key is senator jeff sessions, being the first senator who comes out in support of trump legitimizes the campaign. sessions, the best revenge stories, a us attorney in
alabama, nominated to the district court position. and in ted kennedy, turned down the senate who accused him of being a racist, goes back to alabama, elected to the senate and takes a seat on the judiciary. and advising, trump also hired stephen miller, top aid to jeff sessions, rick dearborn did informal work, and nominating judges. that is probably very good news for conservatives going in the right direction, the supreme court, all those circuit court
nominations make a huge difference. >> tell me about them. >> i want to thank you and jim demint for putting this together and inviting me. i am surprised there are so many people because i thought everyone was working at transition headquarters. and back to the airport i asked my taxi cab driver to take me to trump transition headquarters. it is nice to participate in a panel, for the consequential in the last 50 years. and byron's point, not just supreme court justices were important, and how the trump administration will interpret and enforce federal law and have more immediate importance about the constitution in the supreme
court. when he was attorney general, gave a famous speech at tulane law school where he called for jurisprudence of original intent, seen as a radical concept in the late 80s, i did a study a few years ago, and there was criticism from my colleagues in the academy, in journalism. and the following five years, 500%, it is just as consequential. i want to recognize that. and the trump administration -- [applause]
>> supreme court nominee is important, and conservative constitutionalists. and pick a supreme court nominee now, and easily confirmed, i know a lot of judges are on the list of the first 10 or 20, it shows what it takes the george w. bush cared about nominees, and lower court judges and if he were paying attention to politics he would nominate a senator. only one senator has ever been turned down for confirmation for any job. if you appoint senator mike lee for example, supreme court now, he is readily confirmed, would not lose his republican seat in the senate and could keep his
promise to the conservative wing of the republican party. the important thing is that won't change anything to keep the status quo on the supreme court. the 5-numfour decision conservatives are losing on gay marriage, abortion, obamacare go on and on and still there as far as justice kennedy providing the vote, so also looked at president trump to the attorney general, white house counsel, in charge of judicial selection, and the next justice retires and if you look at the age ranges. i am a lawyer, not an actuarial scientist. if you look at justice ginsburg, 82, justice kennedy is 80, justice breyer 78, project how old they will be in four years? that is how long, justice
ginsburg will be on the court until she is 86, 84, 82, don't think so. president trump will have another pick. if you care about the constitution you want to see who president trump will put into place to pick that seat and you don't know. >> that leaves an interesting question about the next one. the new york times, flying a coup against the supreme court by scheming to obstruct all nominations the supreme court would have made, can we expect democratic senators to attempt the same sort of coup, to attempt to block all supreme court nominations by president trump? what will senate republicans do
about it? >> i don't -- the democrats retain the filibuster for supreme court nominees, there is that possibility. but although it is not unprecedented for a nominee not to be voted on, when the change of administration comes up, it is unusual to the deck of being unprecedented to try to block any confirmation. that is a political loser, i don't think they would do it. that is the short answer. >> if you were president trump or a new attorney general you would hope the democrats try to filibuster their appointment and you make -- should recognize the
political journal, senator mcconnell said political maneuvers, recent time in the senate by not performing merrick garland, a lot of thought this was a very low probability success of working out and instead he preserved the possibility to have this discussion. >> you have to take into account democratic anger over this because judicial wars had a ratcheting up affect. you kill 5 hours and we will kill 10 of yours and you have a situation where democrats felt republicans insulted the president, scalia died in february i think and the seat is ill open. i would not be surprised if democrats were inclined to try to block something at least for some period of time to get back at this because one thing is
true about the senate, what goes around comes around. >> i would like your point, where i thought you were going to go was appointing ted cruz to the supreme court which first of all had magnanimity, his father having killed kennedy. >> you can get to the supreme court. >> an implied pardon. there is also the fact not only do senators get to the senate that a lot of senators would like to ted - get ted cruz out of the senate and on the same principle the only reason teddy roosevelt became vice president, just won out of new york, you can see how democrats on the one hand he is healthy, conservative scalia and don't see in the
cafeteria anymore. i don't think ted cruz want it but michael you might need it. >> good point. what you are asking is about the filibuster. democrats would think about invoking the filibuster, the supreme court nominees, if i were a republican senator i would say overrule the filibuster for supreme court nominees for the same number of years democrats overruled the filibuster for judicial appointments, the same time otherwise if you say it is just a ratcheting up affect, it will never stop the interrogation of the rules, restore the filibuster to show both sides what happens, the other point, the filibuster to the lower court appointees so trump will be able to fill the batch with not just the supreme court nominee but a lot of other people too, which were also helped the democrats in the
senate were not making it. >> republicans will not want to go back on that and give democrats power to search -- >> the filibusters are not part of the constitution, just the senate rule. when the founders met for there to be a supermajority to make something happen, they specified the supermajority. rules of the confirmation or the nomination or confirmation are simple majority vote so, can a minority of the senate present a simple majority from consenting to a judicial nomination. >> given the agenda the court
set for themselves, the active complicity of the legislature, to preserve them, timewise, confirmation hearings lasted less than an hour. that was a long time ago. it was considered insulting to put substantive questions to a nominee. all of that endeded when the supreme court with the active cooperation of the legislature started expanding the range of cases and the nature of cases it would take to the point where political issues instead of being resolved within the legislature, compromise and back and forth, were handed off to the court, bring is your biggest problems, we sit here to solve everybody's problems, no case too bigger too small and that
trend has continued virtually uninterrupted. so given that, that it is going to be a long time before you hear back the scope of cases and the nature of cases the supreme court takes, it doesn't matter who gets appointed as long as it matters who gets appointed, given how long they set, it comes after obstacles as necessary. >> anyone else? >> it point i make about the filibuster. it is not in the constitution, it is up to the senate and senate rules but what it represents, it is a symbol of the way federalism is hardwired into the constitution. the senate does not represent the population. it is not proportional representation. the filibuster, the symbol of that, taking it a little farther.
important to recognize donald trump would not be president if not for federalism. the other place you see this is the electoral college which hillary clinton will win the popular vote. only reason donald trump is president because the framers original design, the electoral college give states more of a say, if we had a simple majority election simultaneously throughout the country, it has been a liberal project for over 100 years to get rid of everything in the constitution that limits direct democracy so they are against filibusters, attacked the senate, attacking the electoral college. the original design of the constitution was important not to have a direct democracy, a republican form of government to slow the ability of the government to act rationally. it may hurt us temporarily, picking a supreme court nominee or losing through legislation,
conservatives should be in favor of these checks on direct democracy like a filibuster. i would go back to nominees and legislation after the same number of years they raise the filibuster rule these many years. >> anything more? >> i am sure john doesn't disagree but i would frame it differently. in terms of electoral issues, they always wanted more direct democracy but the subset the real approach to government is always to go wherever the field is open so when congress was the best vehicle for achieving progressive ends woodrow wilson talked about how congress, realized -- he assumed the presidency. and if you look, the only reason i bring it up is you look at things that are at stake like the administrative state, nothing democratic about the
administrative state. it is unaccountable, unconstitutional government, violates the fundamental principle that defines conservatism which is opposition to arbitrary power and is completely unaccountable -- progressives have no problem filling that up. their relationship to direct democracy is entirely an argument about expediency, and acquisition of power. direct democracy started working against them they would stop being in favor of direct democracy. >> last thing on this is the judicial issue, the judge's issue for trump politically brings the team together just as it did in the primaries i was talking about earlier tonight every member of the house or senate was that enthusiastic about donald trump but when it turns into a fight with the
judge with a nominee the team is going to be on board and the house doesn't have a role on that but they will be rooting for it as well. this is one area trump said lots of ink but blue up conservative orthodoxy, things like trade, immigration, foreign entanglements. this is one area where the team is together. >> let's move on to other issues. presidential power and the regulatory state. during the campaign donald trump criticized president obama for abusing his executive authority of learning -- ruling by fiat through executive orders. can we expect president trump to overturn many of obama's executive orders to stay in office and if he does does that just he will be more sensitive and self-restraint about using that presidential power? >> those words are used all the time.
>> as a corollary to that. it has instead congress on bended knee has surrendered to presidential authority. you think congress, not in opposition to trump, that congress with a new president, we assert its equal role in divided government but simply to say we have that, we have been suppressed for eight years supporting the president. first the executive authority of the president and what will trump do, you think congress will take this as an opportunity to reassert its role? >> everybody around the president will have a list of executive orders. that is what the transition team is doing now, going through the
executive orders and drying up a list of those that will be written off on day one. that said, i don't have any evidence, don't know of any evidence from people who covered this the donald trump has fought on this issue, the issue of presidential power or issues that are presented. it depends largely on white house counsel is, the attorney general is, what we can expect later on but day one of the executive orders, it is fairly obvious. >> i agree, my proposal would be to reverse the presumption and
not go through the list of executive orders to see which ones are moved, the president could repeal all executive orders from january 1, 2009, and go through and see which ones you might keep. you could go farther and say the president could also say all regulations enacted by federal agencies since january 1, 2009, are no longer in force and we will return all regulations to the states they were in at the end of the bush administration. a lot of people would be upset and say the president is not enforcing the law, overstepping his bounce but president trump has 2 use executive power in the same amount president obama did to restore us to the proper path. if you have someone driving to a ditch, still need a car to get back onto the road. i have no problems with the
president wanting to use executive power to reverse the harm of the last eight years. one thing that would be okay, which a president can to do is terminate on the first day of office, president obama's first mistake was not seeking congressional consent, the majority of the house and senate were against the iran agreement so president trump is doing what congress wanted and with full effect of agreement the president can terminate it and say i'm restoring immigration enforcement, doesn't make a change, i am repealing, restoring immigration enforcement, focused on removing balance and restore normal criminal law enforcement, he should pardon hillary clinton, put the past behind us.
committing crimes. >> it is a thing. if he did partner she would have to accept that to be effective. at the time president ford -- it to essentially acknowledge crimes were committed, enough detail were recited for saving us time and trouble we might otherwise to explore what precisely went on. >> let's hear from you. >> the pardoning business? i think one of the promises donald trump made is not when he actually -- going to do a special prosecutor for hillary clinton. it depends on how bad the crimes hillary clinton committed
actually were and how implicated in barack obama's, but a scenario you can imagine that threat will force obama into pardoning hillary clinton so we can move on. and walking through kings landing, sorry, game of thrones reference. and in terms of the previous part and the idea of trump's commitment to his issues. i'm open to giving donald trump the benefit of the doubt. >> i don't know if it flipped over for him.
>> tell my wife i love her if i suddenly disappear. the issue is you got surround the guy with the right personnel and most of these problems get solved that way. i was deeply troubled during the primaries in that debate when after months of donald trump talking about waterboarding is worse, not for interrogation purposes, we are going to do bad things too which is an act of statesmanship. when talking about his military and war crimes, his instinctive response was to say they will follow my orders. i do not like that, i do not
trust that, this gets us back where i started, all guardians of the constitution when george w. bush, mccain-feingold were unconstitutional. a violation of the oath. the supreme court will work it out and it depends which donald trump shows up, at some point is a guy who thinks over everything else, the commitment to constitutional norms, the most generous i am willing to say, they are notional. that has been required, strong will, people around to stand up for principles they believe and even when they are told something else and a lot of the other stuff through the bureaucracy, staff, donald trump is a hands-on day-to-day guy, there will come the time, this
will be tested. and how that plays out they don't know. >> the nature of campaigning for president is consistent with the idea of limited -- the candidate says i'm going to do this or this or this, usually not talk about if congress lets us do this and if i could get over a filibuster in the senate. with trump that is a particular, another issue because he has been an executive in the business sense executive. there was a group of liberal billionaires during the bush years to try to create a new lebron group to fund money into fighting bush and the newly
hired executive director told a billionaire joke at the first meeting, the joke being what is the difference between being a terrorist and a billionaire, punchline was you can negotiate with a terrorist. so you are a billionaire, you are not used to having people tell you you can't do this or that. on the one hand you have that in trump. on the other a lot of the things he pledged to do, with republican doctrine on these things. he talks about overregulation, and talking about small business. he talks a lot about judges who respect the constitution and obamacare and the burden it
placed on business. when jonah goldberg says what he says a lot of what he says is quite right. we got an idea from him, he realizes he has to work with congress and what we have seen after his win which was a shock, they are going to get on board. and paul ryan coming out yesterday and say the name donald trump repeatedly, something that almost never passed his lips before indicates trump will come to washington as president, a lot of republicans willing to vote for his agenda, to do it the right constitutional way. >> does anyone else wants to
pinpoint the other constitutional issues of interest to you or think we should look out for? >> pardon hillary, terminate iran agreement, the other main issue, with his relationship with congress, it wouldn't be a bad thing for president trump to let congress take the lead on how to repeal and restore the healthcare markets in our country. that is the original constitutional design. it does put the president in the place of the initiative and foreign-policy but in domestic policy the president's real role is whether to have a qualified veto over legislation so the constitution wants congress to be the initiator, the primary weight of gravity in the system
passing domestic law president tom could be magnanimous but restoring constitutional balance by saying let paul ryan's plan be the blueprint which is a national healthcare voucher, and let congress -- allow him to look at the whole thing after the sausage is made on healthcare and welfare reform, education from the infrastructure bill, cutting taxes. it would be wise to let congress do the messy job of making the compromises and towards the end of the process is the president and congress are on the same party, he can intervene. that because it could allow states to restore them to their proper constitutional role especially the ryan plan, the framework they put out in the election were to be followed
looks to turning a lot of federal programs to the states which would allow president trump to get out of the message of saying welfare reform has these five things or next education reforms, let the state decided that the constitution be restored to be a laboratory of democracies where they have different policies to figure out what works. >> when area he won't if congress has to do with our electronic surveillance program and anti-terrorism measures to come from the executive and i'm encouraged a whole lot about what he intends to do. we now have our interrogation programs and the way a good deal of the authority and promise to
strip away more. >> anyone? >> the 30,000 foot approach john was talking about it's trump's approach. he has not thought deeply about reforming health care. the second debate, talked a little about obamacare and the lines between the states, and has not deepened, he was preparing for general election debate, still had not, the inclination once he is finally the president. if you read the art of the deal and his other books, talking about what kind of marble he used here or windows in another so he was quite detail oriented.
i can't tell you what his approach is going to be, he is approaching issues he never dealt with as a private citizen. they haven't dealt with these issues. >> a good point touching on constitutional issues and all the issues. you have to go to markets, really concerning, what first principles, what is in the nature, a few things we know about donald trump is he likes to build things, put his name on them and take credit for them and so he likes to make deals and one of my concerns from the beginning has always been, look at the infrastructure thing, the equivalent, he talked to nancy
pelosi and schumer and bipartisan and all the rest, gets people working, shovel ready and things he can put his name on. i don't think it will happen the first -- i always worry the down the pike chuck schumer says you want another trillion dollars, roads, bridges and airports, name the new airport the trump airport and use the best marble and all you got to do is lead us a little way on that next supreme court justice, doesn't need to be liberal. since he doesn't care about that issue, everything is in negotiation, i worry about his liability on these things and i hope i am proven wrong, a
lifelong democrat from new york, that again requires very good signaling from the right from the deal he could get away with and deal he could not. the conservatives with donald trump, much more reminiscent of the nixon administration, and the silent majority and all that. richard nixon hated the right-wingers. he said so in numerous interviewers but also said he had to deal with them. my view is once the honeymoon is over, set up in a situation, you have to deal and get our approval on the important things. not everything can be a negotiation. >> we will leave it at that because we saved time for
audience questions. if anyone has questions, we have microphones, they will come to you. you must ask a question. if you choose to make a statement i will move to the next person answering the question. >> >> and going forward, that presumes democrats have in place, harry reid saying before the election we will get rid of it, and anyone who has confidence in democrats, what is the value of that? >> the filibuster for supreme
court nominees, the same number of years the democrats repealed lower court nominees, would like to get back to a state where there was a filibuster. the senate has its own internal rules, the only way to get change in the senate is reciprocity, and until you get democrats to see what the world would look like when republicans have a non-filibustered senate they will never be persuaded to go back to where it was. at the end, republicans, they will never go back to it too. that will be fine also. in the long run it is better for our public to have a filibuster rule in the senate. >> those with their own medicine, they won't learn the lesson but if they do and harry reid is gone, and wiser heads
may prevail. >> paul? >> there was some discussion about the electoral college and president-elect trump won't be president elect until the electorates vote on december 19th. petitions going around to get them to change their vote for hillary clinton and the penalty in each state and be glad to pay those. besides the unlikelihood of that happening, what you think of that in terms of the structural place of the electoral college allows that to happen, and >> as a matter of -- more robust
and vigorous republican institutions, happy to get rid of the direct election of senators, as a person of the 21st century, this particular political climate where we had a populist president running on a claim the system is rigged, to have a bunch of rent seeking corrupt machine party hacks bribed into stealing the electoral college from donald trump seems you would hear the safeties on rifles across the country. it seems ill-advised. >> i would like to follow up the
point michael mukasey made about our national security, one of the places in the constitution where the president is in charge of that with or without congress accepting treaties and so forth but my question is our national security, the military is in trouble. and the security of our people. >> i read books no one has read about this.
>> a lot of things, the president has the constitutional initiative, it doesn't stick unless congress agrees. he said i'm closing guantánamo bay. and it will remain open and franchising france. and a lot of these powers in the president's hands to start with but even with surveillance, congress and these amendments in firmer footing. and presidential power on president trump's part. and president's foreign policy, his major legacy is going to be to make peace with iran.
the termination of the iran agreement, president trump could reverse president obama's choice to recognize cuba. that is that a presidential power, but congress's cooperation, the longer-term problems of the obama years saw a dramatic cut in spending on defense and readiness of the military. president trump cannot order the military to get bigger and the constitution gives that power to congress. when president trump wants to restore the defenses for the republican congress to reduce defense spending. >> if you want curiosity it is still up on youto. president obama's first day in office signing the order closing
guantánamo. by the powers vested in me, and signs with a great flourish and it is a reference to greg, we have another order here, and avoid -- this is a voice off camera, says we have procedures. you need to think it through very carefully. >> my question is about regulations and penalties and overcriminalization, a hot topic, you see a trump administration rolling back federal regulations
specifically, epa regulations? >> i would think. that is bound to be at the top of the list of things to do, anyone who has gotten close enough and lots of those are going to go. >> one point jonah made that is quite right is we can talk about restoring republican government and someone but the big aberration in the constitutional system is the administrative state, what we had for the last eight years as a president who doesn't want to control, obama, the administration run wild, even president clinton, the pretender to the throne actually in his electoral interest to keep some limits in control in
the administration so president trump can and i think should do as reagan did is say regulations are choking off economic growth, so -- almost like an emergency measure. i will call a halt to regulations and subject them to rigorous cost-benefit analysis. liberals went nuts, said he was overthrowing constitutional government, that is the key thing, all these regulations halting enforcement to get a handle on what makes sense but i will subject all of them to cost-benefit review and stop -- using criminal penalties goes beyond in terms of what is beyond the pale when administrative agency defined criminal law and penalties as violation of the original constitution and trump's electoral interests. he was elected by people left out by globalization, not
experiencing economic growth, cutting off regulations as a way to jumpstart the economy. >> that is consistent with what you said. that is what he says. >> you want to answer that? >> did i see someone in the back? someone in the very last row over here. going back to the supreme court nominations, wondering if you could comment on the possibility republican senators wouldn't vote the nuclear option to bypass the filibuster and ramifications that come from that? >> got to have a filibuster that works and not clear to me democrats would do it and get 41
senators. it is not clear that we would do that. they are going to want a measure of revenge for the merrick garland thing. not sure what form that would take. getting the trump nominee could take a while, democrats in no hurry. >> is there a probability, and like president bush in 2002, and in 2018, this vacancy is already
there. it has been stewing for a while and the next election is not for two years from now and they can do this. >> someone on the back wall over here, this will be the last question because we are running short on time. >> given the democrats were so apocalyptic about president trump do you think they will work with the republicans in congress, the judiciary committee and the committee's passing legislation, cost-benefit, everything, democrats might work with republicans in congress to pass these things because they are so worried about that? and are we sure president trump would sign a bill to rein in authorities of independent agencies?
>> i don't know. but i think he would sign it if congress put together a serious meaningful thing particularly a democratic buy in for republican leadership. i think at the beginning of the question you raise an important point about the supreme court, we saw in the last 24 hours, >> president at a time, bernie sanders, hillary clinton, barack obama, if donald trump can, i hope i am wrong about everything, i thought his victory speech was a nice start but we should prepare ourselves that the lace -- the left will lose its mind about donald
trump, and in the last 24, 72 hours, everyone in manhattan, we shall overcome, gnashing of teeth, people looking to see blood. so the idea that the left may in fact create incentive structure for democrats to just oppose trump on every single thing including the supreme court justice, there will be a popular fight about donald trump, hollywood and the left trying to make it seem like this is 1932 and he must be stopped at all costs and it is dangerous and
these are hypocritical, amazing for the last eight years any opposition to a newly elected president was racist and i was told in the last two weeks that any talk about saying the results of the election are unfair or to be contested was dysentery the founding fathers, inhibiting them and now we have people openly going on the nightly news saying not my president, he's not president of the united states, hillary clinton won the popular vote. you are allowed to question these things only if it is a republican but otherwise -- get ready for a madhouse, how that plays out, whether he signs bills and all that, whether he moves to the center to placate people. >> it will unite republicans or.
competition by telling us what is the most urgent issue for the next president, donald trump and the incoming congress to address in 2017. our competition is open to all middle school and high school students grades 6 through 12, students can work alone or in a group up to 3 to produce a 5 to 7 minute documentary on the issues selectable is a grand prize of $5000 will go to the student or team with the best entry. $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded and shared from 150 student, 53 -- this deadline january 20, 2017. that is inauguration day. for more information about the competition to our websites cam.org. >> the securities and exchange commission chair mary jo white appears before the house financial services committee, live coverage at 10:00 eastern on c-span2. today are hearing on the impact of self driving cars on roadway
safety and the economy. national highway traffic safety administration chief mark rosekind and other official testified before house energy and commerce subcommittee live at 10:30 a.m. eastern on these been3. with donald trump elected as the next us president milani a trump is the second foreign-born first lady since louisa catherine adams. for more on the information on presidential spouses, c-span's book 1st lady which looks at the lives and influence of every presidential spouses in history but a companion to c-span as well regarded biography tv series and features interviews with 54 of the nation at leading historians, biographies of 45 first ladies and archival photos from each of their life. first ladies published public affairs is available wherever you buy books.
now available in paperback. >> now efforts to combat cyberthreats to self driving cars and gps systems. the inaugural automotive cyber security summit looked at collaboration between the automotive industry and the federal government. it is an hour. >> welcome, everyone. the spirit in the room in the first session, enjoyed the conversation, we will continue that informative session and make this into a learning experience for everyone. we have a panel here, just to set the stage on cybersecurity, as we wrote about 18 months ago, cybersecurity hit our radar, when a driver going 70 miles an hour in downtown st. louis experienced what we felt was the unexplainable despite have
nothing touched a button on the dashboard, started blowing cold air, the radio switched to a st. louis hip-hop station and windshield wipers, wiper fluid, everyone knows about two hackers involved. all of the sudden words like black hackers, ransoms, all of a sudden we are in automotive vernacular. .. with our panel. it's great to have d.c. in detroit.