tv Chief Justices John Jay John Marshall CSPAN December 2, 2017 9:04pm-9:54pm EST
or download them from itunes. q&a,nday on c-span's u.s. federal on entitlement programs. >> entitlement program stem from a basic human desire to help someone who is in need of assistance. it is just common. all of us have it in us. it is easier of course to do it with someone else's money but they still have that same basic desire that you and i do. they also have this desire to be reelected. so one-sided entitlement is put in place, then the game has changed. interest groups form around protecting that entitlement, pressing for more assistance. money starts flowing to politicians who protect those benefits. it is a desire for reelection --
>> talking about u.s. federal entitlement programs sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> american history tv, u.s. -- university officer's icon for aikrishnaures -- s prakash. he focuses on the separation of powers and argues that the united states constitution does not focus on what he calls "double duty." this is a 45 minute program in the supreme court chamber. >> i would like to express the society's gratitude to our host
this evening, justice clarence thomas. justice thomas has been wonderfully generous and giving of his time to the society when we called upon him. i want to thank him for taking the time away, particularly this first week of october when things are humming here in the court. we are also grateful to the large for allowing us to have this series here in the courtroom. it is my particular pleasure to richard deuce justice thomas this evening -- to introduce justice thomas's evening because in the 11th circuit, referred to him as "our judge." he was born on june 20 3, 1948, and graduated from college at holy cross in 1971 and got his law degree from yale college in 1974. he was promptly appointed after finishing moscow as an attorney assistant general and was
working under then-attorney general john danforth. when danforth was elected senator, our host this evening followed him to washington and .orked for senator danforth he was appointed assistant secretary for civil rights in the u.s. department of education in 1981. in 1982, president reagan named our host the chairman of the eeoc. he served in that capacity until 1990. then-president george h.w. bush appointed justice thomas to the united states court of appeals, district of columbia in 1990. 16 months later, president bush came knocking again and to theed justice thomas supreme court of the united states. his appointment was confirmed on october 15, 1991.
i will simply add to that short that a productive life since joining the supreme court in 1991, justice thomas has been friend ofd generous the supreme court historical society. in addition to edge inducing many of our lecturers, he has hosted our stagers dinners and served as the society's annual lecture in 1977. it is my pleasure to ensure do shoot tonight to my fellow georgian, justice clarence thomas. [applause] justice clarence thomas: thank you. good evening, ladies and gentleman. welcome to the supreme court. i'm delighted so many of you could join us this evening for this, the first lecture in the societies 2017 leon silverman
lecture series. professorlecture by will be about two of our justices prior to their service on the united states supreme court. professor precaution is simply an outstanding scholar. akash is simply an outstanding scholar. i wanted to do should to these society. the society works legitimately to improve our united states constitution. its leader provide the very best of the bar. one such example of this great leaders is the namesake of the lecture series, leon silverman.
late presidents and chairman, leon silverman was legendary. he expanded the journal of threee court history to issues a year of launch many educational outreach efforts including teacher training programs in washington, d.c., and around the country. theowing in his footsteps, society's current leaders continue to grow the society and expand its outreach. as part of those efforts i've been informed that the society is publishing a new cookbook in november. it is titled "table of nine: supreme court food traditions and recipes." this cookbook highlights the way
the court has joined in food and fellowship throughout its history and i look forward to reading it and trying some of the recipes myself. without further do, i have the distinct pleasure of introducing our speaker for this evening, professor sai prakash. he is the james monroe distinguished professor of law g. mahoneyl professor of law where he teaches law. professor precaution cause scholarship focuses on separation of power -- his scholarship focuses on separation of power. book, " includes the
imperial -- fromrned his ba and jd yale law school. following, he clerked for judge lawrence silverman on the u.s. court of appeals for the washington, d.c., circuit and .hen for me here at this court he was a fabulous law clerk and even better person. i can continue with his countless achievements but i want to leave him time to deliver his lecture. suffice it to say he is brilliant, intellectually honest, and wonderfully accomplish. it is truly an honor to introduce him. we stored me in welcoming professor sai prakash. [applause]
professor precaution: i want to hisk professor thomas for guidance. working for him was the best job of my life. coming toabsolute joy court talking about his favorite team at that time, the dallas cowboys. the courtout life and cases, of course. he has been kind to me, kind to my family. i say if you have a chance to work for this man, jump at that chance. on the way appear was thinking, maybe i should of try again to work for the justice. experience.a good the term was quite memorable and had some difficult cases. at some point we were overwhelmed with these cases. jenkins,issouri versus it goes on and on, what were we
going to do? a confidence break now. if the judge minds, he give you a signal. we needed extra help with these cases. papers and could get copies at the convention but those would not be enough. we needed a better medium of consultation and my friend, my office mate, he had a crystal ball. he had a crystal ball and we use this crystal ball to consult the framers. we consulted james madison to talk about term limits. you saw the results if you saw the case. we communed with john marshall to talk about a case and you saw the result of lopez. it gave us the extra help we needed to get over that term. theknow, i found that
constitution is much easier to grasp if you have this crystal ball. it was not clear to me why everyone did not have one. my prediction is that years from now, some credit will quote the speech and say "justice thomas he cited cases using a crystal ball." i am delighted, honored to be her. i thought the only way i could get back in was if i was defendant of some sort, so this is a great honor for me. i would like to thank friends and family who came up. my family came up from charlottesville, other friends came as well. today i'm going to borrow from my book, chapter 11. it is available in the bookstore. i am told the bookstore will be open. also available on amazon, operators are waiting. [laughter] prakash: in that chapter i
discussed john jay and john marshall are and how they had executive functions while they were on the bench. that is the topic of my conversation with you today. points.ot three general first, although the constitution and vest separate power with the three branches, it is never completely established, the separation of personnel. that is to say it does not completely bar members of one branch from serving in another. the framers of the constitution, the people implemented it initially, did not read it as establishing a bar on intermingling of personnel or a complete separation of personnel. my third point, what does is mean? it means, i don't know if justice alito is here but i chose a mop the top of i had comment meets justice alito butd service justice alito
also serve as a messenger to north korea at the same time. laughter] prof. prakash: it might be especially fitting if he likes elton john. by at the same time, one could be a circuit judge at the same time as say he was justice of supreme court. i will get to that in a minute. before i do, some history. patricianas born in a new york family, attended king's, now columbia. himself as ae or lawyer, decided to favor the break with england. he was elected to serve as a delegate to the continental congress, the congress that predated the congress we have today. he was elected to serve as a new york delegate twice. second term, he was veryed president and did a
solid job, so much so he was sent to spain as an emissary of the united states sent by congress. his job was to get a loan from spain and gets trained to recognize the united states. spanish tot get the recognize independence from the united states, but he did get a loan. i suppose congress was so happy they made him secretary of foreign affairs. for a while, congress sort of it affairs in itself. did not have an executive under the articles of federation but congress eventually decided that execution tax were better taken on by single secretaries of the role ofhed the secretary. one was the secretary of foreign affairs, john jay was the secretary of foreign affairs. as secretary of foreign affairs from then on, dealt with the barbary coast tyrus, dealt with spanish
controlling the mississippi, and dealt with the problem of states not honoring our treaty with great britain. we had made peace with great britain in 1783, peace help negotiate by him and the states were not honoring the treaty. he wrote congress about how we get the states to one or that treaty. while he was serving as secretary of foreign affairs come the states called a cost of judicial convention in philadelphia. he did not intend. although he did write part of the papers the dealt with foreign affairs, five or six of those, he talked about why stronger federal government was conducive to our defense is a nation of why we would be better off if we dealt with foreign nations if we had a stronger central government. if you know, the states ratified the constitution in 1788, the continental congress resolved would meet in 1789.
none of the laws that the continental congress passed had continued under the constitution. that is to say, they were not going to be valid laws once the constitution went into effect. that is in contrast to the treaties, if you read the suprme cicadas very carefully, it says all treaties that would be made and have been made would be the supreme law of the land. it does not have the same language with respect to statutes which meant the congress had to start from scratch and anything than done before would no longer be valid once the constitution went into effect. issue.eated a transition george washington was elected president. john jay was secretary of foreign affairs under the controlled congress pursuant to the statute passed by congress. george washington read the constitution at that, i have the executive power. i have interstitial power over foreign affairs and now i am in
charge of the government including all the executive offices. that means john jay reports to me and that means support of treasury reports make on the prez master, etc.. so, john jay continue to report on foreign affairs but he switched his allegiance is so to speak from the continental congress to the president. that all made sense under the constitution. the problem was john jay was just a private citizen at that point, no longer secretary of foreign affairs because the statute that created him was no longer value. they did not seem terribly bothered by this. john jay sort of functioned as a quasi-secretary of foreign affairs for one year under the constitution. in 70's in the nine, the beginning of 1790 until thomas jefferson came back from france and agreed to serve for secretary of foreign affairs and the senate consented to the nomination and present washington appointed him. so, we have this sort of irregular preacher, john jay,
serving as secretary of foreign affairs even though there was no statute authorizing as much. that is the story of john jay. i will return to it. marshallw turn to john . in the early days, under the constitution, john marshall was a distinguished virginia lawyer who favor the constitution and eventually served in the first in congress under the cuts intrusion. george washington hired him as a lawyer, was oppressed, asked for to become u.s. attorney virginia and john marshall turned him down. george washington later offered him the position of attorney general, john marshall turned him down. then george washington said, would you please serve as ambassador to france and john marshall turned him down. instead, he concentrated on his lucrative and successful drive it practice. he argued a case before the
supreme court and lost, but in doing so he impressed all that heard his argument. during the adams administration, after washington had departed the scene, he finally agreed to become an emissary sent to france to handle the troubles we had to france -- with france. france was waging a naval war against the united states. john adams adams try to negotiate his way out of it. he sent three emissaries to france. they met with the french minister of affairs. an animator told them, you will need -- an intermediate or told them they would have to give to. money if they wanted this was the xyz affair. he came back without accepting the bribe. people work upset with france -- were upset with the french. eventually, series of statutes were passed allowing americans to attack certain french naval vessels.
that story of foreign service did not succeed, do not work out so well, but apparently john adams was impressed with john marshall. he offered to make john marshall secretary of war. john marshall said no. john adams sent his name to the senate anyway will stop before the senate can act, the secretary of state position opened up and john marshall finally said yes. finally agreed to serve in the andal executive department not just as an emissary. as secretary of state, john marshall successfully oversaw the negotiate for peace with france. the convention of 1800. he also help rebuild the federalist party, which was in tatters because of factionalism. he had enemies in the cabinet. john adams had enemies in the cap networking and the scenes with alexander hamilton.
that led to a poisonous relationship in the cabinet. john marshall was able to expand those two groups and be susceptible to both. justice oliver ellsworth, adams appointed john jay to his old office without asking john jay first. john jay declined and that is when john adams turned to john marshall, who accepted. what is important for our purposes is that both john marshall and john jay continue to serve as secretaries of state or secretaries of foreign affairs after they were chief justice. after they were made chief justice. john jay was made chief justice in 1789, late 1789. he continued to serve as secretary of foreign affairs,
quasi-secretary of foreign affairs for several months. the same thing happened with john marshall. john marshall was appointed in january of 1801 and served as both chief justice and secretary of state for about three months. the other richer sinking about john marshall as secretary of state for the next president -- the other interesting thing about john marshall is he also served as secretary of state for the next president. days or more precisely, until a new secretary of state was confirmed. john marshall agreed. is deeply why that interesting is because a case hade because john marshall affixed the sealed for certain commissions of justices of the piece on the last of the adams administration. you give notice commissions to his brother to deliver by his brother did not have time to deliver them while john adams was still in office. he could not deliver them all.
the interesting thing is, john marshall was still the secretary two daysfor the first of the john adams administration and he never saw to it that those commissions were delivered. he never saw to it those commissions were delivered. it is the failure to deliver those commissions and thomas jefferson's failure to recognize the appointments that led to the most famous case in the supreme court, marbury versus madison. theyad people claiming were properly appointed as justice of the peace and they just won a copy of their commission. they don't need that copy of the commission of john marshall make sure they get the commission he had affixed the seal to a of john marshall's brother had actually delivered it. so i have explained how there was this overlap between their time as chief justice and their time as secretary of state. the question i am going to be
discussing for the rest of this lecture is, was this constitutional? was this constitutional? to make a long story short, certain forms of what i would call "double duty" are constitutional and certain forms are not. to the four not weighed john jay served as a carryover secretary of foreign affairs and not even when john an actualerved as secretary of state, they actually came to a 41 john jay reentered the -- they actually fore when john jay reentered serving as chief justice. we were leaving a treaty of peace with britain, george washington resolved to send a treaty over to england. he first went to alexander hamilton. alexander hamilton said, i'm not the guy you won't get me through
the senate. he then turned to john jay, the problem was john jay was the nation's first chief justice. washington did not perceive that to be a problem, so he nominated john jay. immediately within the senate there was a fierce set of opposition to this nomination. the debate over john jay's nomination consumed three days. some senators said the judges could not also serve in the executive branch at the same time. one of those senators was ehrenberg. the guy who shot and killed alexander hamilton. johne of those guys was burr. the guy who shot and killed alexander hamilton. introduced was "to permit officers to hold any other office or employment emanating for and hold them to
the executive is contrary to the spirit of the constitution and as tending to expose them to the influence of the executive, it is mischievous and impulsive. so he is saying it is an politic. he got 10 senators to agree. was, 20 seven opposed him. the resolution failed. he was trying to say, we should not be consenting to the appointment of john jay to be emissary to france. why did people like him think it was constitutional opposition. first, they thought serving on both would corrupt judges. it would corrupt them in two senses. danglethe executive my jobs and honors in front of judges and say, why don't you vote in favor of the administration before you and i will give you this job where you
will get extra pay and maybe a fancy title. i guess being a supreme court justice was not enough. the judges themselves might vote in a particular way hoping to catch the eye of the executive even if the executive was not thinking of appointing him to anything. if you saw the justice was letting your way, you might say, this person might -- seems like a very fine chap. it barred people from holding multiple offices. you just can't have two offices at once. some said the chief justice in particular was barred from serving made president as negotiator or otherwise, because who presides over impeachment trials of the present? the chief justice. right? if washington got into trouble, not likely, but if washington had gotten into trouble and then impeached by the house and there was a senate trial, john jay would be presiding over the trial of his boss. that is why you cannot send john
jay is the emissary of george washington. the final reason people gave is, well, treaties under the constitution are the supreme law of the land, pursuant to article six. that means john jay is helping to make laws that he will then have to interpret as a judge on the bench and they thought there was something odd about one person being both legislator and judge. so they gave these multiple reasons, as i indicated to you, the senate thought otherwise because john jay went to negotiate the treaty with france. -- sorry, vote was 28- 18-8. 18-eight. it went through but it took two bit -- days of debate. one said it was contrary to the spirit of the constitution, echoing what john burr said.
also saying it was the most unconstitutional and dangerous measure in the angels of the united states. the handles of the united states were much shorter back then, right? things had happened. one said the constitution had been trampled upon because the government had united executive, legislative, and judicial powers in john jay's hands. he would negotiate the treaty, which was an executive power. you would be making the treaty which would eventually be a law hopefully and then he was certain is a judge and might have a lot come before them. so they had a delicate legal question, they answered it in a particular way. washington thought jay could be appointed. the senate. jay could be appointed. chief justice jay that he could be appointed, right? now i will talk about why i think they were right. after the claim that you cannot hold two offices, think you can
hope to offices. certainly if you are in one branch. nothing in the constitution says each officeholder shall only hold one office. there are questions of the act. if someone is holding two offices at the same time, one question is, if you do not have work enough in one of those jobs maybe we ought to combine the functions in some way, right? people made that point to john jay, if you have so much time as supreme court justice, maybe we do not need a supreme court justice. but that is a effect question, not a constitutional one. i don't think there is a constitutional problem with holding two jobs and want bridge. what about holding offices cross-branch. this is more plausible. but i do not think it holds anyway. let me give you the argument for why you might think it does. why would you bother creating three different branches,
legislative, executive, and judicial, and then create three different mechanisms for their appointment if you then wanted to have the same people in the branches? right? you would not bother with this elaborate sort of scheme. you would just say, you can invest whatever power you want in whomever you want. the very idea you have three branches suggest the personnel in those branches ought to be different. moreover, the celebrated political philosophy had said repeatedly that the very to haveon of purity is legislative, executive, and judicial power vested in one person. he went on to say it would still be to radical if you had any to powers vested in one power or institution. very populard is with the time and is quoted over and over again that the
conventions. this makes sense, why would you bother separating power if you are going to the same personnel exercising that power? some americans favored a separation of powers. one of my intrepid researchers found this for me. i thank them for it. the following,of the three departments of sovereignty should be forever separated and so distributed so as to service checks on each other. they cannot be separated, nor can they service checks on each other at the same people exist in both departments or in all three departments. the patriot who said this was none other than john jay, the chiefo would serve as justice, and treaty negotiator. why would he think this? whatever one thinks about the desirability of separation of
personnel, the constitution simply does not require separation and here is why. in article one, members of congress are specifically prohibited from serving as judicial officers or executive offices. they cannot serve as an officer of the united states. members of congress cannot be another branches, therefore we know executive officers cannot serve and judges cannot serve. there is a specific provision. there is no specific provision that says judges can't serve in the executive branch or vice versa. in, we know that as the goes,elphia convention people i proposed it. it was part of the new jersey plan. there were four major plans presented. virginia, new jersey, the picnic plan, they have a plan. the new jersey plan had a specific prohibition on judges serving in the other two ranches.
charles pinckney of south carolina separately proposed that legislation. it never got voted on or an active. that is when you read the constitution and see the specific inclusion of the provision that says members of congress cannot hold office under the clusters of the united states and you don't see anything in article to article three about the executive branch, one natural conclusion is that they can. this sort of makes sense given what is going on at the time, right? in england, judges were in the executive branch. lord chief justice mansfield was in all three ranches. it is a member the house of lords, i chief justice of the king's bench, and on the crown's privy council. he was straddling all kinds of beer hunches. state constitutions, some also permitted judges to serve in the executive branch. some had specific item saying
you cannot serve and any other position. did not. -- we tend to think of three branches and three powers but others think of it as to branches and to powers. legislative power, executive power, and they thought that judicial branch was really just a sub-part of the executive power. that was true in part. the judges were originally conceived as being part of the executive branch. we do not think that is true --more because english england started giving tenure and we saw judges is being this
ink from the executive for when you think about the principal functions they are both involved in executing the law, just in a different sort of way. on thele of my chapter relationship between presidents and judges is called "executives and judges: two shoots from the tock." if you have an english brands of cross-branch appointments, a state branch of cross-appointments, and you get no prohibition in the constitution it is easy to see why george washington might have thought that he could send john jay to england and the john jay could keep his position. himselfsee why john jay
would think that was permissible. it is easy to see why members of the senate and particular could say that was permissible. there were a couple of the things congress did in the early years that also suggests this that i do not think came up during the senate debate. one of the things congress did was say the chief justice is a man of wisdom, let's put them on executive committees. there were two executive committees created to carry out to particular functions. one was charged with deciding to .uy u.s. debt one of the people on that committee was the chief justice of the united states, basically congress passed a statute saying we're going to place the justice in this position, not asking him just placing them. no separate appointment was made. it was ex officio. the second thing they put him on was the mint committee. the mint committee was in charge
of inspecting points to make sure they satisfied the minting requirements. back then, points had by you because of the metallic content and they had to make sure they had the right metallic content and one of the people that committee was the chief justice on that committee because he was on it because congress had had a statute. so congress itself added to executive functions to the chief justice's tasks. so this practice of chief justices doing extra-judicial things and also statutes. also, washington thought he could get extrajudicial advice from the justices. he wrote to them and said, give me any advice you have about how we ought to write our laws. how we ought to reform them in various ways. they gave him advice. they actually gave him all sorts of legal advice. it would be frowned upon today i to giver justices
extra-legal advice to the president but it did not appear to be impermissible back then in part because i think there was no sense that the cause station a strict separation between the .xecutive and judicial branches so, think that is why, you know, when george washington sent john jay's name to the senate, he did not think there was anything amiss. i frankly, i think a lot of the opposition to john jay that was --e in sort of legal tames terms are constitutional terms might have to do with the fact that john jay might be perceived as pro-british. were using the constitution to try to force a political end, something we see to this day. john jay was not the only one to be appointed as negotiated. when john jay was appointed after the failure of the negotiations, john jay's
negotiations in france, john adams sent chief justice oliver ellsworth to france to negotiate a treaty. he was mark successful. in ending the war with france, so that was another sort of double duty episode under the adams administration. so, let me conclude with a couple comments. me first talk about what happened was john jay's treaty. he came out with the treaty, it was immediately denounced. in my view, john jay was an able negotiator, he just had a bad hand and did the best he could. when he came back, he had effigies burned, effigies hanged , people demonstrated in front of washington's house. they were so upset by the treaty he struck with great britain that one color for critical wrote -- one colorful critic
wrote "dam john jay, dam john dam dam everyone that wrote john jay, dam everyone that will lightsthat will not put in his windows instead of ." -night damming john jay washington had a choice at that point. he did not have to ratify. he considered what transpired in the senate. the senate had consented to ratification with the condition. he thought it over. took advice from his advisers about whether to ratify and decided to ratify with a condition. so john jay's reputation was in tatters. tattered and a real sense that people were talking about him as a successor to washington before washington decided to run again
for a second term. now that would not be a possibility because john jay was vilified by much of the country. fortunately, he had been elected governor of new york while he was in france, so he took that job. he stepped down from being chief justice and took that job. i guess you thought being revenue of new york was a step atin the world and it was that time. interesting question, could he have served as chief justice and governor of new york and the answer was, he could. there is no bar on dual office holding across executive and judicial branches and the states. many state constitutions in many states bars have kind of dual offerings but i was not able to find anything in new york law at the time that would've borrowed it. you was marred and realize, i probably need to be a full-time government. i cannot write circuit, sit in court, and the evidence. so they gave him that job and
that is when they appointed oliver ellsworth. noted earlier, adams offer john jay his job back. in fact, appointed him. first, ask them appointed them. john jay said no, i'm not going to be chief justice again and that is when he went to john marshall. over the course of our history, americans have tended to front upon double duty. the president trump wanted to robert toief justice negotiate a treaty, it would be odd. i mentioned oliver ellsworth. justice robert jackson, pointed by harry truman to serve at the number of trials. he took a leave of absence. he was not here 19 and 5-1946, he was at nuremberg prosecuting nazi. does this is from time to time
justicesn advice -- from time to time have given presidential advice. it can be found upon even if it is not in the constitution. we should not encourage or just because there's nothing in the constitution that speaks to. those of your posts are double duty might be wondering, what can be done? the answer is, something can be done. the senate and block appointments. chief president nominated justice john roberts to negotiate a treaty, the public and say no. you already have a day job, don't try to do anything else. alternatively, it can say, if you want to take the job you have to give up your old one. if they can give conditional consent to a treaty, why can't they give conditional consent to eight nomination. you can take your job, this job, if you give up your old one. justice jackson, told her, was appointed by harry truman.
harry truman did that by executive order. he apparently did not think you do submit justice jackson's name to the senate and of course not all positions the executive can hand out our high offices requiring senate consent. what can be done about that? i think congress can pass oftutes that are double duty various sorts. congress has long had a statute barring some retired military from serving in a civilian of capacity within the department of defense. that bar was lifted so general mattis served as secretary of defense, right? there is a statute that said if you have served in the military for the prior seven or 10 years you cannot service secretary of defense. congress had to wait that statute. congress has the authority to waive that qualification on who could serve as secretary of defense, they can process insert a statute saying if you have one
office you weren't eligible having any other office. if you are a federal judge from a cancer and any other capacity. so they get past that and it would deal with the problem of double duty, assuming you look at it as a problem. i like what we have now, a custom of not allowing double duty but allowing it in situations where it might be useful. right? if the country could really benefit from a judge or justice turn something else for a time, theyhould we require that leave the bench and order to do that and thereby give up their life tenure? if the president really thinks that's necessary in the country presumably agrees with the president, that can happen. there's nothing to prevent it. so this constant thing where we sort of front upon this is probably right at it is a soft custom that can be broken when circumstances warrant. in summing up, let me make a few final remarks. i would like to see justice thomas sent to russia to
negotiate with vladimir putin. great. that would be i think justice breyer can negotiate with the iranians. if anybody could slay them with moderation, justice breyer to do it. justice ginsburg could be an admiral and defeat isis. president trump could become chief justice after chief justice roberts retires, of course. trump andice president trump, i think the first thing he would do is make the supreme court great again. he would build a wall around the court. he would get mexico to pay for it. thank you so much. [applause] announcer: you're watching american history tv, 48 hours of
programming on american history every weekend on c-span3. follow us on twitter for information on our schedule and to keep up with the latest history news. day,nday on c-span skew a hoover institution senior fellow -- and federal title i tiedemann programs. >> and title my program stem from the basic human desire to help someone -- and title -- entitlement programs state from the basic human need to help other people. the basic desire you and i have. also, the desire to be reelected. someone said entitlement is put in place, the game has changed. interest groups form around protecting that entitlement. assistance. more
money starts flowing to politicians to protect those benefits and the game changes. it is that desire for reelection -- 8:00 p.m.night at eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> kansas city, missouri, is known as the city of fountains with over 200 officially registered here in the metropolitan area. , george kessler and the development of the park and boulevards system. >> today park and all of art system is about 130 miles. our system is about 12,000 acres of parkland in the city. about2,000 acres is in 310 square miles of kansas city. in addition to that