tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN November 4, 2016 7:18pm-8:01pm EDT
exactly correct here. they are -- and this is all amended fwi 12th amendment and the 20th amendment, which is very important. we can go to the 20th on the institution. essentially, the 20th amendment says, what's the fastest way to get it. i need my constitutional reading glasses on whether i'm going to get it online or the interactive constitution is important. >> we are talking with jeffrey rosen. we are going to look in a minute at a bit of the 2008 pennsylvania electoral college meeting. we are looking to get a sense of timing first about how all that works. >> essentially, it is the wednesday after the second monday in december. the electoral college meets and casts votes.
if there's a dispute, it has to be resolved by december 12th, which is the safe harbor date that the electoral count act of 1876 provides for. and, after that time, a president is chosen. so, essentially it meets in december. all the results are submitted to congress and the congress certifies the final result. >> let's go to 2008, pennsylvania electoral college. a little bit of a flavor of how the process worked in pennsylvania that year. >> with the law becomes our responsibility to certify the results. our chair recognizes the honorable valerie mcdonald roberts of allegheny county for the purpose of offering a resolution. >> thank you, mr. president. resolve that the certificate to
vote for president and vice president of the united states be placed on the table and signed by the electors. >> thank you, valerie mcdonald roberts. those in favor of the resolution will give their consent by saying aye, oppose say no. the ayes have it. the resolution is unanimously adopted. six certificates certifying the vote cast by president and vice president of the united states. the secretary will call the role of the electors and come forward and sign in order and what your name is called. >> just a flavor there. congress picks up the ball later, right? >> it does. it can go to -- generally, they certify the result and if there's a majority, then the president is inaugurated. but, the 20th amendment says if
the house has not been able to elect a president before january 20th, then the vice president-elect serves as the acting president until it is resol resolved. congress can pass a law of who will act as president. if either the chosen before january 20th, it is moved from march 4th to january 20th. there is a great episode in veep, which imagines a split and congress is undecided and the vice presidential candidate from the other party ends up winning. basically, some people think this is a constitutional ticking time bomb. with the fixes of the 12th and 20th amendment, we could have disputes between the house and the senate or the house unable to act in ways that could be troubling. >> jeffrey has been waiting from auburn, new york.
>> caller: good morning, gentlemen. i believe in one man, one vote and we should have a constitutional amendment to change the electoral college. i'm a loyal democrat and, in fact, i believe in undervoting if a republican, say county legislature runs unopposed by a democrat, i choose not to pull that lever and i have never voted for a republican in my life. i have been voting since 1978. i think the choices we have today, i believe that if there were a candidate, none of the above, on the ballot, they may get the majority of votes. i also believe that we should have a system and it might take a institutional amendment to
change the rules so we can have recall elections so that we can vote no confidence like other countries do as well as none of the above. >> thanks for calling. any thoughts? >> an interesting series of suggestions. the idea that it should be easier to elect third party candidates, again, was -- the framers did not expect there would be two parties and they would select the nominees. they thought that independent people with the best ability would rise up and be selected by the electoral college. to make that possible, you need a constitutional amendment and change in the two-party system. right now, it is, again, far more democratic than the founders expected. the direct primaries were adopted by both major parties, not until the 1970s. 1972, the democratic party because it's so upset about what
happened in 1968. chosen by the primaries rather than smoke-filled rooms. some made the case the smoke-filled rooms that selected william howard taft over theodore roosevelt led to good decisions. this broader notion of whether we should have recalled elections, a serious change to the system. unlike europe, we empower a strong president. the tradition is the president can't be recalled or impeached, except for the highest crimes of state and the two impeachment presidents andrew johnson and bill clinton were impeached and acquitted by the senate. it suggests we don't like political impeachments or recalls. they are interesting suggesti s suggestions. >> todd is on the line. you are on with jeffrey rosen from the constitution center. we are learning about the electoral college. >> caller: consider there th
since it's hypothetical at this point about the popular vote. if candidates did spend a lot of time in new york or california taking consideration then northern california does vote, does tend to vote differently than southern california and definitely the case in northern and southern ohio. here is something that you might want to consider, too, as far as the popular vote. it would increase the need and necessity for the states to build more competition amongst one another. not uncommon for somebody to have a couple businesses in the state of ohio near the pennsylvania border and have businesses in pennsylvania near the ohio border. that would help them, if it was more of a popular vote than electoral college. i'm not against the electoral college, but i lean toward the popular vote being more supportive of a democratic society. what do you think about what i said? >> great point.
you have such a distinguished antecedent in making this argument. james wilson, the drafter from pennsylvania who came up with the idea that we the people of the united states as a whole are sovereign rather than we the people of each of the separate state who is change the preamble of the constitution that used to read, we the people of the united states of massachusetts, virginia and so forth. now it says we the people of the united states agreed with you there should be a popular vote. we could achieve some of what you are trying to do by having proportional allocation of electors. california, for example, as you said, allocated electors then maybe democrats would win in the north and republicans in the south and split california's electoral votes. the most direct way to create that is popular election. there's a strong case. i bet, this is my instinct without being absolutely sure.
if you polled america, you would get a majority support of popular election of the president. it's counter intuitive. the bottom line is, to change it takes a constitutional amendment and they are hard to pass. >> vern from greenfield center in new york. hey, vern. >> caller: how you doing? >> good morning. >> caller: my problem is republicans in new york are almost never represented nationally because, you know, all the electoral votes go democrat because all the votes go from new york city down. that's my comment. tell me what you think. >> any thoughts? >> another great comment which kind of supports the previous caller who was a democrat and also said it's frustrating in new york and california. you have these serious splits between republicans and democrats. it doesn't seem fair that your votes are not allocated. i'm hearing, if we are going to keep an electoral college, a
proportional allocation seems to make sense because it seems fair. then you don't feel as a new york republican so disenfranchised. i suppose another more urgent reform, if you are concerned about the anti-democratic electoral college is what leads the states to agree to have them support it. that's the most urgent reform. it's too bad both of these reforms, which were bipartisan don't favor one or the other. it's hard to get the states to agree and pass it. >> explain the process for contesting an electoral college outcome decision. >> so, you can contest the slates that are certified fwi states. we saw this in 2000 and in 1876. in both cases, it's erie how dramatic they were. the state of florida submits two
separate slates, one for the republican candidate and one for the democratic one. bush v. gore, one was proposed by the florida legislature and the other endorsed by the florida supreme court. so, right now, the process for contesting it is set by the electoral count act of 1876. if there's a dispute between the electors, it goes to congress and the house and senate vote and if there's a tie between the house and the senate and there could have been in 2000 with al gore casting a tie breaking vote for himself because they were tied, 50/50. the slate that shall be certified is the one certified by the state executive. governor jeb bush would have certified the final result for his brother, george w. bush and some said there would be a need
for the supreme court to step in. that was a law passed by congress after the election of 1876. 1876, people were so upset with the supreme court casting this tie breaking vote. they set out this procedure. >> janna is in washington, d.c. you are on with jeffrey rosen talking about the electoral college. hi, janna. >> caller: hi, good morning. just a quick comment and quick question. as a democrat, if you are a republican in washington, d.c., probably your vote kind of not sure because we were going to -- we have stateship that we are voting for this year. are we going to convert the district of columbia into a state. saying that, most votes will go democrat, i think, in the electoral college because, you know, it seems to be that the three people we have, that's
pretty much it. when they will change, we don't know. the other thing, the question is, most of the poll that is are out, they have very little electoral college or electoral data. then i see that we are looking at hillary clinton as a very large number and donald trump at a medium, lower number. how that's mixed in to poll is confusing. why is it so, already accessible and ready out there and how are we predicting that? what happens when you have a contested. if trump goes to 270 and hillary 332, it almost seems to me that the republican party will contest. i mean, because i feel once you reach that magic number, then you have a whole new fight there. is that possible or is that going to be squashed because the democrat has more?
how would that be accepted? i just don't see the republicans are going to give this up very calmly. >> thank you. let's hear from jeff. >> a series of good questions. on the electoral question, it's conceivable they could each get 269 votes, one short of the required 270. there are various scenarios where clinton only takes the northern swing states or limited success outside florida. formally the event of tie the election goes to the house. your question, what if it's kind of close? could trump supporters contest the results? they could but not a state by state basis. that's important to remember. states have total discretion for deciding who serves as an elector and how to contest the elections. in bush v. gore, it was florida state election law that determined when a recount could
be held, how quickly you had to contest and so forth. it would be very, very messy and complicated to contest. different laws in every state. with bush v. goran the books, the courts might get involved. looming is the deadline of december 12th, the safe harbor after which electoral votes have to be submitted to congress or else they can't be assured of it being counted. in practice, remember, we never had an election where contests to the election results have happened. this hasn't happened before. doesn't mean it can't happen, but would be the first time. >> republican caller from new port, rhode island. hey, steve. >> caller: hello, how are you doing? >> fine, steve. go ahead, please. >> caller: i was listening to the gentleman before and i'm a
republican and pretty much agreed with, you know, going the old route. you know, the electoral way. but, what i'm really worried about in this election, you know, different things going on, you know, isis and that type of stuff. i'm really worried about is boeing selling iran 100 commercial jets. you know, it sounds a little weird. >> steve, let's get back to the topic at hand here. we are talking about the electoral college. anything specific there? >> caller: um, if it's not broken, don't fix it. you know? pretty much. that's how i'm looking at it. >> simply put. >> very well put. that's good. >> if the u.s. were to change
this process, do you think that would change the nature of presidential campaigning at all? >> yes, it would. the caller that mentioned the flyover states cau s talked the would be less love in ohio and pennsylvania. it is on independence mall across from independence hall. they spent a lot of time in philly. pennsylvania is a swing state. the results are important. if it were a national popular vote, then california and new york would be getting a lot of attention and the swing states less so and the flyover states less so, too. it might mean there's more national advertising. maybe less face time, but it would certainly reduce the attention paid to a handful of states and broaden the focus. >> we have time for a few more
calls. san juan, puerto rico, independent caller, bill. >> caller: good morning. i have a question with a two-part answer. after the electoral college decided the president and the congress has approved that person, in between that time and the time of inauguration, the person selected for president cannot take office. one question is, if the person dies, what happens. the other question is, what happens if the person is unable, for any reason, to take office? what happens? >> great question. the answer is the 20th amendment, which has a complicated series of rules for presidential succession. there have been kond candidates that died before. charles evans hughes.
the 20th amendment sets out a timetable. read it, go to the interactive constitution or check out constitutioncenter.org to read it. it's so complicated. one section says congress may by law provide for the case of death for a person whom the house of representatives can choose a president when it evolves on them. essentially, it also says in section three, if a president is not chosen before the time fixed then the vice president elect will act as president until the president is qualified and congress provide for the case. when neither president-elect or vice president-elect. there is a congressional law that determines the act of successi succession. some think it has holes in it. they have said that this is a constitutional crisis, we have to rethink that law but all those scenarios you signal could
happen and provided for. >> c-span where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. next, a muslim scholar talks about the rise of donald trump's presidential campaign, the war on terror and the plight of muslims around the world. he was one of the speakers at the islamic society of north america annual convention outside of chicago labor day weekend. you know what i love about muhammad ali? this man would look you dead in the eye with a straight face and a smile and tell you that everything that you believed was absolutely wrong. he would challenge every social norm that he thought was unjust.
and yet, by the end of it, you couldn't help but love him nonetheless. very few people have that talent, may allah bless you, muhammad ali. my next speaker is also no stranger to controversy. he's a current resident scholar at memphis' islamic center. he is the associate professor of religious studies at rhode college in memphis. he is the dean of academic affairs. i speak of none other than, of course, sheikh yasir qadhi. he is a prolific commentator on political issues, which is very germane to our time. he started his career as a chemical engineer but then had a change of heart. he went to the islamic university in saudi arabia where he got his bachelors and masters in islamic theology. he then decided he didn't have enough degrees, so he went to yale and got his ph.d in islamic studies. but more important than any of that, more important than
anything that i've just said, yasi qadhi is our own speaker today that has his own barbecue sauce named after him. if you go to tom's barbecue in memphis, tennessee, and ask for yq sauce, they'll bring you this special daisy barbecue sauce. it's kind of on the spicy side, but it is delicious. ladies and gentlemen, sheikh yasir qadhi. [ speaking foreign language ] >> it's such a pleasure and honor to be here at isna. a little while ago, people come up to me to take selfies and take pictures. i pass by in the hallway and i said, people come to take selfies with me, but i need to take a selfie with you, and i took one with them.
years from now, when historians and political analysts are going to analyze the strange rise and eventual fall of donald trump, when they're going to discuss how he lost resoundingly in the november 2016 election, they'll say that the turning point in his popularity, the beginning of the nose-dive that caused him to disappear from public life was the powerful and emotional speech by case kazr khan along with the silence of khan. mr. trump, mr. trump attempted to derive an islamic phobic smear from the silence, but i swear by allah, her dig inside silence on that democratic convention stage and her calm kominor was far more eloquent and powerful and poignant and profound than compared to anything that donald trump has ever uttered with his mouth.
and the message that all of us learned on that day was very clear, america, never underestimate the power of our uncles and aunties. [ speaking foreign language ] and you know, speaking of trump and unfortunately, i have to speak of trump. he's on our minds. he's in our nightmares for the last year. speaking of trump, last month, over 50 senior republicans published a letter in "the new york times" asking their fellow americans not to support their own party's candidate. imagine that! senior republicans are saying don't support trump. but you know, i have to be honest here, the republicans only have themselves to blame. for the last few years, they were the ones campaigning relentlessly against barack obama, against immigration,
against people of other faith, against people of other colors. for years they did everything they could to be racist and xenophobic without actually becoming racist and xenophobic. and the result was that they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. they riled up the masses. they fomented hatred to such an extent that even mainstream republicans seemed too meek and too passive to fulfill the mob-crazed rhetoric that they themselves had spawned. and in that environment entered donald trump, being the shrewd, bombastic businessman that he is, clearly understood he could upend the republican party by playing their own game and bettering it. he rode the republican wave to the max and he verbalized what mainstream republicans could not. quite literally, the republican party and the far right created
the very frankenstein in donald trump that is now destroying them. i have a message for all republicans, and especially the far right. you claim you want to take your country back. you claim you want to make america great again. well, perhaps you should start by taking your own party back from the radicals and bigots like donald trump, who have hijacked it. and yes, while there's a lot that can be said about the sharp right turn that the republicans have taken, let us be fair as allah commands us to be fair, and let us be just even against those who we like or don't like. the fact of the matter is that there's quite a lot of blame to go around, and the democrats as well have their fair share. this is president barack obama's last year in office, and we all remember, i remember the hope
and the excitement that we felt when he was elected to the highest office in the world. it made us feel so, so optimistic, so passionate. and i can't help but recall how excited and happy i was when the very first bill that president obama signed was the executive order to shut down guantanamo bay. well, eight years have gone by, and guantanamo bay remains open as we speak. for many of us, guantanamo has become symbolic of the stalemate of politics, of the fact that names and faces might change, but policies rarely do. you know, i'm appreciative that we have the secretary of the department of homeland security here, but facts are facts. in the last eight years, the patriot act has been renewed, unsupervised wiretaps and government surveillance has
increased, the entrapment of dozens of young, innocent men and women via the fbi's evil entrapment program has increased, the situation in the middle east has spiraled out of control, and worst of all, the immoral, unethical, counterproductive tactic of drone strikes, which has caused untold civilian deaths, has increased more than ten fold. last month's issue of "the atlantic," which was one of the most mainstream magazines in this country -- it's been published for 160 years -- last month's issue of "the atlantic" had a cover story that highlighted the fact that after 15 years after 9/11 we have spent over $1 trillion on this supposed war on terror, and yet, the magazine concluded, far from making our country safe again, we are actually less safe than we were 15 years ago. the fact of the matter is that
the threat of islamic radicals overtaking the country or even of terroristic plots has been highly exaggerated to the point of ludicrousness. statistically speaking, more americans die from furniture accidents than from radical jihadist attacks. and yes, of course, we criticize even one radical jihadist attack, but we don't spend $1 trillion trying to correct furniture. we don't invade sweden demanding that ikea start producing furniture according to our standards. we have to be realistic in our response to the threat. never forget that we here in america are far more likely to be killed by a lone, angry, white christian mass shooter or even by a rogue policeman who pulls us over for a traffic violation than by radical jihadists. mr. president, we elected you on
the promise of hope, on the promise of change. many of us believed in that promise. many of us believed when you said, yes, we can. i'm sorry to tell you, eight years down the line, that instead of hope, many of us feel even more despair. instead of change, the status quo remains, or perhaps, has even gotten worse. but not all hope is lost, mr. president. you still have a few months left in office. and i know that i speak on behalf of millions of people around the world when i say that you can still leave a positive legacy, you can still leave a positive legacy of your presidency. you can still leave a positive legacy in the books of history. but you're going to have to do some very, very simple promises that you yourselves campaigned on. mr. president, close down guantanamo bay! mr. president, scale down and back the drone strikes! mr. president, help the syrian refugees. support the rights of the
palestinian people to live in dignity and freedom like the rest of humanity. our scholars mentioned that when it comes to political power and stability, allah values justice even more than he values faith. and that is why a just society, even if it doesn't have faith, will be blessed in this world with strength and might, and a muslim society that doesn't have justice will not be blessed with that power. and there's no doubt -- and i say this as a critic -- there's no doubt that our country overall has many strengths and freedoms, the freedom to criticize even as i stand on this stage. and we appreciate those freedoms. american muslims, if you ever feel that the situation is too depressing, all you need to do is to look over the pond and see the european scene. we thank allah that we have freedoms far better than our muslim brothers and sisters in europe. i'm still trying to digest the
burkini ban coming from france. this burkini ban, the same country that in its ruling said that the burkini -- and i nonconvictions of some people, end quote. the same country that insisted on the right to offend other religions, that insisted on the right to offend prophets, itself felt offended by the modesty of a muslim woman. and another point must be made here. in any other context, brothers and sisters, if a group of men surrounded a woman and forced her to take her clothes off, they would be labeled as delinquent bullies and rowdy hooligans. i have a message for the french politicians and police. simply because you wield power, simply because you have the law behind you, simply because you're wearing police suits, it makes you no less of a bunch of hooligans and rowdy thugs when you surround a lady and force her to take her own clothes off.
shame on you! shame on you! shame on you and your hypocrisy and your shallow claims of being vanguards of liberty and legality and fraternity. but you know what, enough of grumbling and complaining. that has its time and its place. enough of the islamaphobes. our religious tells us we should be thankful and appreciative for our blessings, and the koran mentions that the two greatest ble blessings any society has -- [ speaking foreign language ] food so that we are not hungry and safety so that we're not worried about civil war and [ speaking foreign language ] american muslims have, by and large, by and large, these two far better than other lands. here we are in the best ten days of the year, as the pilgrims are
gathered in arafat, in mecca, here we are in these blessed ten days, and i remind myself and all of you that let us think of the plight of muslims around the world. look at our brothers and sisters in syria. look at their plight in kashmir. see what is happening in myanmar. in so many muslim lands, our brethren go to sleep at night worrying about bombs and they wake up in the morning worried about where to get their food. so -- [ speaking foreign language ] we thank allah for all the blessings he has given us. and i strongly disagree with the sentiment that some people have that they're always complaining about the times that we live in. recently, i heard somebody moan and say that this is the worst time to be a muslim in america. i disagree. in fact, i believe this is the best time to be a muslim in america. there's never been a better time. do you know why? it goes back to the theme of this convention, navigating challenges and seizing opportunities.
we are facing colossal challenges, unprecedented challenges. and it is a struggle navigating our way through those challenges. it's a struggle to always try to find opportunities in the problems around us. these days, we are constantly having to struggle to maintain our faith, to struggle to express our faith, to struggle to defend our faith. in fact, it is a never-ending struggle to overcome the xenophobia and islamophobia. but in that struggle, we feel a renewed passion for our faith, a renewed commitment to our cause on earth. in that struggle is our continuous attachment to our lord, our prophet, our book, our message, our call. in that struggle, we find meaning and purpose in our life. and you know what, brothers and sisters? i've been using english way too long, because arabic has a word for struggle. and the koran has a word for struggle.
do you know what that word is? do you know what the word for struggle in the koran and in the arabic language is? it's a taboo word. it's a word that has been hijacked by a small minority within our own faith and criminalized and sensationalized by the outsiders of our faith. but i don't care about those two extremes, because the word is a koranic word. it is a noble word. it is a pure word. it is a blessed word, despite the extremism of the radicals and the smear campaigns of the bigots. it is a word that has been praised by our lord and our prophet and our religion. so i, for one, ask allah to make me of those who do not fear the criticism of the critic and who do not care what others speak as i speak the truth, so i will speak my mind. the reason why i love being muslim in this difficult day and
age is because i must constantly engage in jihad. there, i said it! i said it! let me say it again! because i must constantly engage in jihad. in fact -- fox news, where are you? get ready for your ten-second quotation. in fact, i stand before you today -- fox news, are you filming? i stand before you today, and i say in front of the largest gathering of muslims in north america, i openly, brazenly, unabashedly call for a struggle, a jihad! and i ask all of you to join me in an american muslim jihad. but what will our jihad be? well, for sure, it's not going to be the pseudo jihad, the false jihad of violence and bloodshed, of isis and al qaeda. that's not jihad. that's chaos. that's facade. that's evil. that's not jihad.
the jihad that i am calling you to be a part of is a koranic jihad based upon the prophetic methodology, our jihad that i want all of us to join. are you listening, donald trump? sean hannity, take notes! our jihad! are you listening, islamaphobes? will be to respond to your evil with good. our jihad will be to speak the truth even if you lie. our jihad will be to behave with dignity in the face of your crudeness. our jihad will be to counter your ignorance with education. our jihad will be to respond to your bigotry, your hatred, your islamophobia, with love, kindness and compassion. our jihad will be to stand for justice, to fight alongside the oppressed, to preach the truth to power, especially to preach the truth to tyrannical power, because our prophets of allah has said that is the greatest jihad.
our jihad, brothers and sisters, will be in attempting to make america great again by being true witnesses of allah on this earth and by demonstrating to the world who our beloved prophet -- [ speaking foreign language ] are you going to join me in this noble jihad? [ cheers ] let me take it up one level, then i'll conclude. they don't like the word jihad. we have to reclaim it back because it's our word, and it's a noble word. there's another phrase they don't like. there's another phrase that has also been hijacked by the extremists within our own faith and the islamophobes outside, but we mainstream american muslims have to reclaim the phrase because it's a koranic and islamic phrase, and that is the phrase that we say when we're happy, when we're excited. we praise allah and announce to the world that nothing is more
important, more holy, more grandiose, more beloved to me than my creator. and we say from the depths of our hearts allah al akbar. it's supposed to inspire courage, not fear, virtue, not injustice. and so, we have to reclaim that phrase because it is a koranic phrase. so, when i ask you, are you going to join this american jihad, i want you to respond with something that will be heard from shining east to shining west, with a tuqbir that will shake the halls of this convention center, with a tuqbil that will send a loud message to all of the islamophobes and bigots that we are not scared to be who we are, that we are not scared to claim that we have no loyalty and no fear of being muslims who want to worship our lord and be a part of this country. will you join me in this jihad? taqbil!
louder. louder, louder, louder. you can do better than this. taqbil! one last time, and i want the halls to shake. taqbil! [ speaking foreign language ] tonight american history tv in primetime with a look at past presidential debates. first, the 1984 debate between president ronald reagan and walter mondale. that's followed by george h.w. bush and former massachusetts governor michael dukakis in 1988. >> leading up to the 2016 election, "road to the white house rewind" brings you archival coverage of presidential races. next, from 1984, the second and final presidential debate
between incumbent president ronald reagan and his democratic challenger, former vice president walter mondale. the candidates answered questions on defense and foreign policy. cia activities in central america. nuclear arms negotiations with the soviet union. and fighting terrorism in the broader middle east. ronald reagan and george h.w. bush defeated waul eed walter md geraldine ferraro in the general election. this debate from kansas city is just under an hour and a half. [ applause ] >> good evening. good evening from the municipal