tv Washington Journal 02182019 CSPAN February 18, 2019 6:59am-10:01am EST
life in a caravan. we'll talk about the end of the mars rover mission. this week at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, weight will look at the political careers of the for congressional leaders -- we will look at the political careers of the congressional leaders. tonight, we look at senator mcconnell's career. nancyy, it is speaker pelosi. on wednesday, house minority leader kevin mccarthy. on thursday, we wrap up the week with a look at senate minority leader charles schumer. watch this week beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this morning, a university professor and author on the history of presidential relations with congress. laterlater, ivan eland of the independent institute talks about how presidents have used
executive power in the past. we take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ host: good morning. it is monday, president's day in the united states. president trump spend the holiday weekend at his mar-a-lago resort in florida and scheduled to travel to miami for an address aimed at the and as waylon american can -- venezuelan american community. we begin with a discussion on the state of civics education. we wanted to hear how civics is taught in your part of the country and whether you think more civics education is needed. we have a phone line for teachers. 202-748-8000 is that number.
parents can call at 202-748-8001 . all others can call at 202-748-8002. you can also catch up with us on social media. .n twitter it is @cspanwj and on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. first, on the state of civics education, the woodrow wilson national fellowship foundation offered a measure of that in the form of a recent survey of some 41,000 americans from all 50 states. joining us to talk about the resort -- the results, patrick -- patrick rickards. how bad were the results because the press release did not sound great? guest: we are seeing what we have known for decades. despite americans saying they know their history and they like
their history, we are seeing americans don't do well with history. when we provided 41,000 americans with history and civics questions on the citizenship exam, only four in 10 americans were only to pass the test, getting 12 of 20 questions. you see this is true virtually across every state. only vermont was able to pass a passing grade where only 53% of residents were able to pass. we are seeing some pretty dismal numbers. besides vermont, who else fared well on the survey? guest: vermont did well, virginia did well. the badlands -- the dakotas did well. doing well is relative. at the end of the day, when you are saying slightly under half of your citizens can pass the citizenship exam, it is hardly a
badge of honor to be wearing. the resultsu split by older americans and younger americans or any other measure to see what part of the country is doing better on the topics than others? guest: we did and you see what we would assume. older americans, 65 or older tend to do the best. what is the most disturbing is when you look at millenials, those we say will be leading our country soon, those under the , fewer than one in five were able to pass that exam. civics been the victim of an increase in focus on things like stem, math and engineering education, something being pushed out? is that what you found? guest: it is not and that becomes a -- an important point. those who say we need to go owed
school, -- old-school, back to teaching american history, there is a belief we are not doing it today. you are doing is you are quizzing basic facts and figures, what it would take to pass the bar trivia night exam. we did a deeper dive taking a look at how american history is taught and learned in this country. despite what people believe we are seeing, you need to take history in order to earn your diploma. you have those that will be quick to say those teaching social studies are gym teachers who don't understand american history and when you look at the standards in terms of preservice education, that is not the case either. we are seeing those teaching american history to our kids today are well prepared. they are knowledgeable in this field and what it comes down to at a time when we are talking about how important it is to have an informed citizenry and
how important it is that we are active in the representative democracies we are a part of. you might learn american history to pass a test in 10th or 11th grade, but we are not retaining what we are learning. what we are seeing from there is a greater understanding of the american history we may be teaching today is not a history that -- as many americans find relevant, engaging, interesting as they use to. once they memorize the basic facts and figures for a test, it is not something they feel they need to retain or build on. host: what is the woodrow wilson foundation for viewers who may not know it and are you offering specific steps to try to change the results of these numbers in a next survey down the road? lost patrick rickards. you can check out the woodrow wilson foundation online. it is woodrow.org and we will be
using some of the questions they asked from their survey throughout this first segment of the "washington journal" this morning. we will bounce those questions off our viewers and see if you can answer them. they come from a citizenship survey. we will start with your comments on whether more civics education is needed in this country. page on on our facebook this same topic and right now, the yes answer to that question winning 97% to 3%. you can join or call in on phone lines split up by teachers. 202-748-8000. parents, 202-748-8001. all others, 202-748-8002. jeff is first from temple hills, maryland, a teacher. good morning. caller: good morning. interesting topic.
i am in english teacher and i have been teaching for the better part of 18 years and what i have found is what that caller ist mentioned, there streamlined information for kids to pass, but when that is accomplished, there is no real emphasis. having taught some of it in in terms oferature the building blocks of our government -- i think it needs to be taught more. it needs to be input in class as a requirement. there are efforts to do that, toward a streamlined test. whenever that is done, it is about facts and figures and not really about the meat of the information in terms of just making a law. how an idea becomes a law. host: hang on the line for one second. i want to show our viewers some
stats. nine states in d.c. require a year of u.s. government and civics to graduate from high school. 31 states require a half-year of 10ics or u.s. government, states have no specific requirement and only maryland and the district of columbia require community service and civics courses to graduate. that information from the center for american progress. their survey looking at all 50 states. can you speak to that community service aspect in maryland? have you seen that and how it works with students? caller: absolutely. it is a requirement. i have seen where it does do some good. students doing community service at a local day, that is great, but i think what would be better is if they did their community service
working in a government agency, perhaps like a field hand or part of doing a survey. the census bureau is located in maryland. some students volunteer, but that would be great to broaden it so they can use that community service time as a learning experience. not to doubt that volunteering at a daycare is a problem, but it could be broaden. those 20 hours or so they are required to have would be great. volunteer at him the holocaust museum and he ended up spending an entire spring volunteering, he went way past the hours and i thought it was a great experience and he drove -- i drove him there every sunday. that kind of thing thanks -- needs to be implemented more. it would be great if it was. host: john is a teacher, myrtle
beach -- i am sorry, john is apparent. caller: thanks for taking my call. don't we apply a little bit of history and context to what we are looking at? as we are seeing in the united date, we are seeing the the socialist portion of our society coming out as a mainstream in our political discourse. if you look back at the last hundred years, this has been -- using the -- model to take our education and say we need to , et ceterastem instead of civics and government and history. i would differ with your gentleman before. he would rather have a child learn about history working with a government agency. i would prefer then work -- them work with a historical society
and battlefields because the whole premise of what the education system has been doing over the last hundred years is top-down direction instead of allowing teachers to teach. unfortunately, the kids are not learning the history. if they don't know the rights they have, they won't know the rights they have lost. i think all the other subjects are perfect and great, but on the other hand, we should be teaching these kids they are individuals and they are responsible for the freedoms in this country and their -- they are not always social justice warriors. we have to deal with our history, but on the other hand, everything is not always about victimization. sometimes you have to say i am fortunate to live in this country and have the ability to excel and do everything i want because of this country.
if i wanted to open a business and put people to work and send to thens african-american museum so people do not forget history and confederate monuments, people need to understand its history, we need to learn from it. first of all, we are all americans and we can work to build a better country. host: this is kim in tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. hello? host: go ahead. political science major and i have a bachelors in that and i am totally embarrassed i graduated with an a average. people need to learn about our bill of rights because we are losing all of that. when you have the three ranges of government, this is totally not working. people seem apathetic, not
concerned. mey they are tracking because i am not doing anything wrong. i hear nothing about the nsa tracking our phone calls and the internet. need the kids to know -- okay. i am sorry. host: you mentioned you are a political science major, would you be willing to put some of your political science to the test on these questions used in the survey? questions from basic citizenship tests. do you want to take one of the questions? caller: okay, go ahead. i hope i am not embarrassed. host: when was the constitution written. 1776, 1787, 1789.
caller: i think it is 1776. host: it was 1787. thanks for playing along. these are the questions that were included in the citizenship test that was the basis for that survey by the woodrow wilson foundation. you can take the test yourself and check out the results of that survey, breaking it down by individual results in each state, which states perform the best and which did not at woodrow.org and we will have questions throughout this segment for callers who want to join the fun. bobby in virginia, a teacher. go ahead. caller: yes. i him a teacher and i am studying to practice currently and the majority of history in america is fabricated. that is one of the reasons why the children are having such a difficult time grasping it
theuse their parents are ones truly teaching history. if you want children to learn correctly, you have not -- got to stop with the myths and fabrications. the question you posed, 1787 was when the constitution was written and the articles of -- proceeded that. we also know it was plagiarized. it's a difficult thing watching and listening to people teach history when they are not actually teaching history. host: what are the two biggest myths you are concerned about that get past down -- passed down? caller: this country was not founded by any europeans, this country was stolen by europeans. everyone knows that, there were
some indigenous people here that were people of color who you call indians and they were not indians. they were people of color. you know this, but you refused to put the truth in the book, so you have to make it seem as though you have done everything in this country that is good and in actuality, you have not. you know that. am i right or wrong? host: that is bobby in virginia. what do you teach? caller: i teach history, social studies. i have been teaching for 41 years. i have my masters degree and bachelors degree in history and associates degree and i have written one book. host: what was the book about? caller: it was about american history, but the falsehoods and us and by us, i mean african-americans. i actually taught in rocky mount north carolina. myas the first teacher to --
students past the first ever social studies test under me and i was not given a contract and i expected that. why? because i was mixing truth with fabrications. they don't want that in the school system. they prefer they lie to the children. i am telling you how it is. this is the reason why more people are starting to homeschool and teach their children history at home. host: if you want to join the conversation, the russian is is more civics education needed in the united states. teachers, 202-748-8000. parents, 202-748-8001. all others, 202-748-8002. you can also join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ginger writing in this morning, yes, more is needed. people think congress is the president, the supreme court is congress and the president is
king. if ever there was a topic to bring back it is civics and government. my concern is which lobbyist pocket lined company would write the textbook. token writer chosen by the powers. the voting% of public ignore and about our constitution republic and ignorant about government systems. they don't know the difference between socialism and socialism and communism. david james saying it depends on what is taught. phone lines if you want to join the discussion, 202-748-8000 for teachers. 202-748-8001 for parents. 202-748-8002 for all others. denise in southern, -- seven, maryland. severn, maryland.
caller: i was listening to the caller that was a teacher, he is correct. most of the history books have a lot of misinformation. when i was growing up, i was taught columbus discovered america. that is just one fact that wasn't true. there is a lot of myth information put into history books. i know quite a few people who are homeschooling their kids and that is one of the reasons why they are doing so. my husband and i chose not to do that. i think the socialization, they need that to be around other kids. we do supplement their education. for instance, black history month. not learningey are any information about black
history. we teach them that throughout the year. that is just another thing that is happening -- isn't happening. thank you. host: john is next in washington, d.c., a teacher. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, sir. to say i would like this. c-span fishes out of the wrong side of the boat and -- host: in what way, john? put questionse that are sort of like a double shotgun, you are correct in your question do -- when you say to america does america need more civic lessons? i did not hear the guy from the woodrow wilson institute because i don't care for that president, but he was right.
america does need more civics lessons. we don't know that from grade school on, it is not taught. i am over 50 years old and it has not been taught. don't likeay you woodrow wilson. what president do you like? caller: the first one. host: why do you like george washington? caller: he was the best. he knew when to get out and he kind of set the rules for how to go. we do need more civics in america. all i was trying to tell you at c-span on the washington swamp is that you guys have false .uestions the broadcasting networks you are on have all raised the rate and they are forcing them down our throats. this is not good. only turns up the
volume louder. you were going to ask me something? host: i was going to ask if you wanted to join in on the questions we are asking from the citizenship test? ofse are the questions part the survey from the woodrow wilson foundation when they were trying to determine americans' knowledge of u.s. history. caller: i will try. i will give myself a c. host: who wrote the declaration of independence? james madison, thomas jefferson, abraham lincoln, or george washington? i have been to jefferson's house, he was the one that ascribed -- scribed it. he had information from other people from europe. host: the answer to the question, you would have passed on the citizenship test. caller: then i should sign off, you have a good presidents' day
weekend and c-span, good night. host: thanks for the call, john. terrence is next in pennsylvania, a parent. caller: i am not getting your question. i have my volume down. host: go ahead with your comment. caller: thanks for your program. i enjoy it every morning. i am currently at the veterans hospital in pittsburgh. what i would like to say is i and sociale civics studies and all of that is something that has gone by the wayside and i blame government for it. our young people in this country -- my daughter included, she learns what she knows from me and it is just the way it is. it is not that i am special, but i don't understand why young people and some people my own age do not know enough about this country's history and what
rights and values we should be covering. host: how do you feel about your knowledge of world war i? caller: fair. host: who was president during world war i? this is one of the questions. was it woodrow wilson. caller: woodrow wilson. host: woodrow wilson is the correct answer. thank you so much for calling in. more questions for viewers as we go along and we want to hear your thoughts on whether more civics education is needed. parents, 202-748-8001. teachers, 202-748-8000. all others, 202-748-8002. john in west palm beach, florida. a parent. go ahead. caller: am i on? host: yes, sir. 1960's i grew up in the before they started fabricating history, rewriting history. those callers from virginia and maryland, my lord, that is
evidence of what happened in 70's when they wanted to rewrite everything. iroquois nation, that was considered, but it was not based on the iroquois nation, it was based on english common law. this is so ridiculous how people want to rewrite history. columbus did not discover america. america was named after amerigo vespucci. the indians came from asia, the mongoloid nation and white is a color. when you say people of color, you have to include white people. look it up. white is a color. i am just amazed. thank god i had a basis in history because my father gave it to me. we used to go to all the historical sites in england and then even into washington, virginia, gettysburg. it is so sad how kids today have
for theirbbledygook history. parents need to get more involved because teachers today have been educated by liberal professors and the woodrow wilson institute is just another example of liberalism. callere had a color -- from maryland and talk about the community service requirement to ,raduate in maryland and d.c. how would you feel about that in sort of? do you think -- that in florida? do you think that would be helpful in civics education? caller: i would have to find out what the requirements are, what they are teaching for that particular test. host: it would be a certain number of hours for community service signed off by the school. in maryland it is somewhere between 20 and 24 hours. caller: i am sorry. the children have to go out and do service?
yeah, that is wonderful. what kind of community service. are they going to go into nursing homes? that would be wonderful because they would learn from elders history. host: thanks for the call this morning. this chart from the brookings institute takes a look at 12th graders around this country and what they said they participated in when it comes to civic oriented activities. you can see at the bottom, discussing current events, 8% say they never do it in school. 63% say they do it weekly. other options from the survey, giving a presentation, 17% of 12th graders say they never did that. taking part in debates or panel discussion, 31% of 12th graders said they had never done that. that weekly.ey did going on field trips and having outside speakers, 53% say they
have never done that. 2% saying they do it weekly. 39% say they do that a few times a year. writing a letter to give an opinion or help solve a problem, 70% of 12th graders saying they had not ever done that and 4% saying they do it weekly in their school. brookings.edu is the website to go to to look at their survey of education in america. i am actually a senior in high school taking a civics course. i know some about this topic. i think the main problem is not only needing more civics education, but changing the way it is taught. students aren't really being engaged and when it comes to civics, it is such a fundamentally important subject because these are going to be's the country's next leaders -- be
the country's next voters and leaders and senators and it is imperative they know how to think critically and they know how government works and make informed decisions. host: how do you do that in high school? you are 17, 18 years old? caller: 18 years old. host: how are you doing that and do you think it is enough? goodr: i have quite a civics teacher, i think. we tend to engage a lot in current events and topics. we try and really delve into. we read a constitution line by line, for example. more often than not, students are just told to pay attention in class, take notes, take the test and forget about it. they are not engaged and don't remember anything. they just learn it and forget it. host: can i ask you a question about the constitution since you
led -- read it line by line? one of the questions from the citizenship test, how many amendments does the constitution have? caller: 27. host: is it 27, 26, 30, 34. caller: 27. host: 27 is the correct answer. thank you for the call this morning. caller: thank you. host: tom is a teacher, go ahead. caller: this is interesting. i taught school for 37 years, --6th grade. civics was taken out of the curriculum. we have a test focused on technology, math, science. it took social studies time away from us. we had to cut our social studies time almost in half. the book -- the textbook adoption procedure in indiana at
that time, we had a lot of publishers to choose from. i noticed after reviewing -- we had a chance to look at all the -- choose the book or the text we were going to use as a system. i noticed a lot of times where the curriculum changed. my concern is today, you ask any young person how a law is made or bring up topics like check and balance and they have no clue. they think presidents make laws vote is theress' enemy or adversary that keeps government from moving. i agree with everybody that things are changing.
the same with math and science and we have been accused of teaching a test. what is put on public schools today is unbelievable, the curriculum, how it has grown to just general knowledge of the world and all the social things that have been dumped on teachers is unbelievable. thank you, c-span. host: can i ask you a specific question about indiana? indiana is one of the states where you have to take a half year of civics or government to graduate from high school. npr in their wrap of legislation proposed by various states on civics issues, the indiana house of representatives recently heard a bill that proposed to add a mandatory final exam for the u.s. government class. that bill did not pass. do you think that is something that should be mandatory for indiana students to pass the final exam on u.s. government? caller: certainly. how can you make a really good
choice and you will not. 6th gradersit to and they did not understand the whole voting process and how you can get your opinions across. -- they haveh bundled precincts into one voting center. i have no idea who our precinct committee member is. it moves all the way up to precincts, district, city, county, state. we try to teach all of that break down the government and how if you want to be heard, take interest in the pot hole in the front of your street and go to a city council meeting. indiana is such a conservative state.
would no doubt they reject a civics bill in education. host: alan in new york, a parent. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you very much. thank you for doing this segment. the basic goal should be to enable students to feel they are a part of history and they taught -- if they taught history of the united states in a way that reminds them of the contingent nature of it, not something just given to them as a fact, but something that explains how individual people have the power to make events. i believe children are losing that today. they think of the civic realm as other and that they are spectators and this is the way it is being presented. by the way of species voter suppression effort to make
people feel their vote does not matter because it is out there, happening in another realm and they are not part of it, not in the game and this is the essential fact that has to get across to people. 311 calls, attempts to call into programs like this, their research on questions matter. what happens in history. i think that is lost today. i think government has become so large, especially in the media age, that all the events people are watching seem to be other than themselves. i use the analogy of a baby learning the idea that very small babies don't realize they are hitting themselves in the head, that it is their hand and they know how to control that hand and e.a. cause and effect relationship between the decision and outcome. we have a government kind of like a dinosaur where the brain doesn't understand what the tail
is doing and that it has the ability to control the actions of its own tail. people today do not realize they have the power to control all arms of the government entity and to make it do what they wish it to do and it is not all an act of god or an external being. that is lost today. the larger we get, the more we have to focus on people connecting their actions to the results and seeing there is efficacy in action. in most people, adults and children. host: before you go, a question from the citizenship test. who said give me liberty or give me death? was it george washington, benjamin franklin, thomas jefferson, or patrick henry. caller: patrick henry. host: correct. thank you for the call. you can join the conversation on phone lines split up differently. for teachers, 202-748-8000. for parents, 202-748-8001.
all others, it is 202-748-8002. about a half an hour left in this segment, this discussion on the state of civics education in the united states. had this conversation recently with congressman rob woodall of georgia, republican who proposed a new civics learning act. he was on this program a few weeks back talking about what that program would do. >> we have to talk --[video clip] >> we have to talk about what makes america great. we disagree a lot on individual public policies, what we agree on is there is something special about america. one of those things special about america is the boss doesn't live in the nation's capital, the boss lives in communities all across the country. are we teaching our children what those obligations are? what those responsibilities are as a citizen of the united
states. not just what your rights and privileges are, but what your duties are to your community, your state, your country? we have american history classes, but we don't have those responsibility classes. there are some states doing it better than others and we have proposed pilot programs to make sure we are teaching american exceptionalism. we have opportunities here that nobody else in the world has. there is still more that unites has been divides us and the day we forget that is the day the sun sets on america. rob: that was congressman woodall a few weeks back. there is legislation into senate focused on civics education. it's called the constitution education is valuable in community schools act and it was introduced by senator jim inhofe of oklahoma. angus king from maine and chris coons, democrat from delaware. a recent press release from jim
inhofe on that education quoted legislationis about saying there is an old document nobody reads anymore called the constitution. it established the basis and formation of our nation that we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people. so often, students are not taught about the constitution. by enacting the civics act and emphasizing the importance of the constitution, we can encourage more young americans to be active participants by communicating with elected officials, engaging in advocacy, and voting in state, local, and federal addict -- elections. if you want to look at off -- look it up. damon is next from baltimore, maryland. a parent. civics education needed in the united states? caller: absolutely it is.
the first common thing i notice often is -- one thing people learn is america is a continent and not a country and by introducing civics, it will go into the realm of law, which would deal with a lot of issues in courtrooms because people are negligent on law. there's a saying, ignorance of law is no excuse. when you introduce civics, you understand how policies work, legislation works and it is tied into constitution. we are also dealing with borders, immigration and it would deal with a lot of organizations in illegally locking up a lot of u.s. citizens. host: that is damon and maryland. this is davon in michigan. caller: good morning. i actually have not been in the classroom since 2001, but i did my graduate work at purdue
university and have some perspective on what is recommended at least in the early 1990's. there was a carnegie endowment study that said we need to have a national standard for history and civics education. i think that would go a long way to creating a citizenry that is informed about why it is that every person has a vote. why it is important that when someone important -- prevents you from registering to vote, you need to speak up about it. my experience was a long-term substitute beginning october 1 2001 at a high school. what i saw is there seemed to be the beginning at that time of an effort to damp down questioning authority. out of fear, to teach kids that
everything america ever did was right and let's just memorize these facts. that has always been the concept, memorize facts and dates and wars. what kids need to learn our concepts. why did we found america. who founded america? why was slavery wrong? what was slavery all about. inwasn't evil perpetrated by some cases well-meaning people, but there is a reason there is so much tension in the country today over what we did 300 years ago. by focusing on dates and times and places, i think we miss the opportunity to have students really understand the concepts that made us such a great nation. host: the way to do that, is it best done on the local level? do you think there should be more national programs to help
standardize that across the country? what are your feelings about this debate of national versus local teaching of civics? 1990's it was the early the carnegie institution said we need a national standard. broad, national sense, everyone ought to be able to understand who was it that founded america and why? why did we decide to break off from britain? it is one thing to say no taxation without representation. it's another thing to understand that as a taxpayer, you have a right to expect a certain return on your investment from the federal government so that people understand that association and why voting at a federal, state, and local county level, why voting is important. that is your franchise, that is
your investment in the nation. aboutone thing to talk the civil war. the school i taught at in southwestern virginia, the civil war was supposed to take three weeks of the semester whereas i was told don't worry about teaching the vietnam war because that comes after the standards of learning test and the kids aren't going to be learning anything at that point anyway. that kind of undercuts the whole philosophy of why we are teaching. it should be to teach kids to think critically, to question authority, and to own the concepts that made us a great nation. needs to be more enterprise put into the hands of students. students have far more access to information these days and they are able to think critically, but they are not being asked to
think critically. they are being asked to memorize facts and dates. i think that would make a big difference, more of a student centered education experience where you are telling students by asking them to think about it. why did we have to have a civil rights movement? because it was ingrained from the beginning in our constitution although slavery is never mentioned in the constitution, the institution of slavery and the protection of slavery as a moneymaking enterprise was throughout the document. until students are asked to digest that information, to itnk critically about why was we protected slavery in the united states, what was the impact of banning the importation of slaves after 18 no six? it was to create -- 1806?
it was to create a market of human beings in the united dates. that's not to say america, we are bad, but get people to think about the implications of the policy decision. host: in oak hill, west virginia, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i believe in reinstating civics and possibly combined with know why someids in the civil war were anti-slavery and others were free states and to think and with theink that department of education, a lot of teachers in the schools teach to the test. teaching to the test does not tell you why something happened, as the previous caller said.
occurred.omething what happened in the vietnam war? why are we in afghanistan? why world war i occurred. these are the things they should know. host: if there is a finite number of hours in the school day and you want to increase civics education, what gets decreased in your mind? caller: i hate to say it, but physical education. the kids have enough outdoor activities or extracurricular activities in soccer, football, basketball, volleyball, and these other things. even some schools have bowling. whatnk they need to know their responsibilities are as a citizen and why it is important to learn these things so they can be informed citizens to vote
. i just really feel to this. i will say -- as you can tell from my voice, i am an older individual. civics was taught and she august the and history was kind of taught so that you know why. i live in west virginia. a lot of people still call us western part of virginia, not virginia. they don't know why we separated in the civil war. host: we found out from our interview from the woodrow wilson foundation munication's officer about their survey of some 41,000 americans that older americans did well on these questions about u.s. history that come from the u.s. citizenship test. one of the questions, if you don't mind taking a question, how many justices are on the supreme court? is it 12, is it nine, is it 10,
or is it 11? caller: 9. host: that is the correct answer. dahlia is next from miami, florida. a parent. good morning. caller: i am a parent and a grandparent. --t i want to talk about social studies is shameful -- it is shameful some of our congress people don't know anything. the congresswoman that represents my area is debbie powell. the other day, she was interviewing or questioning the acting attorney general. she kept badgering him about a theylgbt law and why were doing it this way and why and why until he finally answered, congresswoman, we only enforce the laws.
congress makes the laws. she had to shut up after that. it was embarrassing to see someone representing us in congress that doesn't know anything about civics and there are many others which were just elected who are practically in same boat. host: downing orchard park, new york, a teacher. good morning. caller: good morning. they have got me in the wrong category. i told -- the person answered the phone, i am a parent and i would like to make a comment on that basis. host: go ahead. caller: when the program started, you said the wilson theitute in the markings, more senior people that took the survey did better than the younger people, the millennials
today. that kind of bears out the point i am trying to make. if you graphed the educational system over the years, that line down be going down, down, and in my opinion, the reason is thenumber one teachers in the nation for the unionized.re totally number two, they fight like the devil if any school system tries based onte the teacher what the students do in their classroom. they don't want any part of that and they, with a million different excuses why they cannot be evaluated based on the scores and how their students do. host: would it surprise you new york is in the bottom 20 of states in performance on these questions we have been asking from the woodrow wilson
institute survey? the citizenship and u.s. history questions. new york's 20th from the bottom, just 4% of those who responded to the survey in new york got a 90% or better. 11%, 80% to 89%. 60% of new yorkers who took that survey failed that survey. surprising? caller: not a bit. not a bit. if they broke that down between upstate and downstate, i think you would see perhaps somewhat of a larger difference. host: that survey of 40,000 americans, mississippi, 59% failed that survey. alabama, 69% failed.
kentucky, 71% failed. louisiana, 73% failed the survey. robert in alabama, a teacher. go ahead. caller: former teacher. i did not get in on the question asked. and get i try to dial in. i majored in social studies, mass, a couple other as administrator. i know you are talking about civics. the questions written oftentimes are not the right question being asked. i wanted to comment on talk about alabama and mississippi are the lowest. we also have some of the lowest intelligent people running the state of alabama and mississippi. i was born in alabama 80 some years ago. orgot textbooks five years white kids.fter the
i say white kids because -- theeople are white, look at shirts they are wearing and say if it is the same color. i know i am deviating a little bit. host: bring it back -- to bring it back to the survey, let me ask you one of the questions from the survey where somebody of those who responded from your state failed the survey. 69% it was in alabama. which is a u.s. territory of these choices, bermuda, haiti, the cayman islands, or guam? i am not even familiar with the question you asked earlier. i was just commenting on civics. we do need more civics in the country. the civics written were not true in the first place. host: the answer to that
question, guam. a few more left if you want to call in and join on the fun this morning and this question is more civics education needed in the united states? emily is calling from missouri, a parent. go ahead. caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. host: what is your thoughts on civics education? caller: earlier you had said only one state does community service and that is wrong. community -- missouri does do community service for them to graduate. host: is that new this year? on information we were going was from the center for american progress survey for the 2018 school year. is that something that is new? caller: that is not new. host: what is required in missouri? caller: 50.
host: what counts toward that? caller: working at nonprofit organizations. a parent, did your kids do that? caller: my son is a senior and he already completed his, he worked at a church. they have a fish fry every friday. you get out of -- what do you think he gets out of that? caller: you said only one state in the nation and that is wrong. that is incorrect. host: i appreciate that, emily. what do you think he got out of that? caller: working with people, it was great. he loved it. learning blackso history in their district. host: thanks for the call from missouri. josie is next on the call -- the line for all others. caller: good morning and thank
you for taking my call. i am a retired history and physics teacher, 26 years full-time -- we have 500 school districts and each district determines their own curriculum. 6 my district up until about years ago, we did require for graduation, a semester in government and a semester in economics to graduate from our school. that changed as the demand became greater for science and stem. i think it is not a change for the better. i think what we have to understand is that we are preparing citizens. democracies are work. they require a great deal of attention and involvement. i did have,eaching,
in my classes, a requirement for community service. it was not schoolwide. initially it was part of the ninth grade requirement. the graduation projects have fallen aside. one of the things about education is it is usually five years behind the curve. i don't care what state you are in, that is where it is. i think civics is vitally important. we house mock elections. we brought in local elected officials. we did all of that so we could show the kids it was so important to be involved and understand. now i think we have failed them and i think they would find that interesting. i think -- didn't current events every friday and my classes whether i worth -- was teaching geography, history, or government. we did an analysis of what we had.
i think all of this is so important and yet we need to have that requirement. it is amazing the ignorance of individuals toward their history and the government. host: on that community service whereement in your class, did the students get the most out of that experience? what did they do and where do you think it was most worthwhile? caller: they went to nursing homes, the humane society. they went to other nonprofits. we even had a booklet made with the people to contact and we --ked with the community so they worked at the public library, all of that and what they got from it was seeing they have to continue those things or if there is no participation, there will be none of that service to the community. i think they valued it. they did evaluate. host: do you want to take one of
these questions from the citizenship exam? caller: i hope i don't blow it, but yes. host: what is one right or freedom in the first amendment? your choices are land ownership, speech, life, bear arms. caller: speech, of course. host: oil give you the last moment. caller: it's so important because veas requires the citizens to participate. thanks for your time. i appreciate it. host: the fun continues. we'll continue this conversation on presidents' day in the united states. stay tuned. up next we'll be joined by rice university professor and presidential historian doug brinkley to discuss presidents and how their relationships
with congress have fared over their times in the white house. and later a discussion on executive power and national emergencies. we'll be joined by ivan eland of of international institute. stick around. we'll be right back. >> there are nearly 100 new members of the u.s. house this year including congresswoman iona presley who defeated former representative michael capuano in the democratic primary last year for the boston based seventh district. she previously served as the at-large member of the boston city council. it's been her first experience with congress, though. she worked for former representative joseph kennedy and former senator john kerry early in her career. present pitch jori cheevered as marty meehan's chief of staff in the early 2000's.
the congresswoman trahan was previously a consultant of a consulting firm. and he served three terms on the new hampshire executive council which is an elective body that advises the governor and two terms in the statehouse. congress man pappas is owner of a manchester new hampshire restaurant often visited by u.s. candidates. he's the first openly gay member of the u.s. congress by new hampshire voters. and representative johana hayes first came to national attention when president obama named her 2016 national teacher of the year at a white house ceremony. she's only the second african-american to represent connect in congress, the first was congressman gary francs, a republican, who also represented the fifth district in the 1990's. new congress, new leaders. watch it all on c-span.
announcer: washington journal continues. host: on your screen is presidential historian doug brinkley with us on presidents' day for a discussion with presidents. which president had the best relationship with congress during their years in the white house? douglas: there's not a best in recent times, but john f. kennedy had an incredible elationship with congress. i've beenrying about it. may 16, 1961, a president in office, white house the only few months and he's able to go to a joint session of congress and say i want $25 billion to go to the moon. that's about $180 billion in today's money and congress said sure, we'll find it for you if that's your pet program and you started finding republicans and democrats working together on this moon shot idea of jack kennedy's.
he had most of his time a 70% approval rating, kennedy, while president and even when he dipped he was able to get things through congress in that very sport 1,000-day presidency f his. so from a bipartisanship point of view john f. kennedy. but a legislative point of view when you have a rubber stamp for your party, democrat or republican who has both houses of congress, you can push through all sorts of legislation, lyndon johnson, the great society was an example of that when you have medicaid and medicare and npr and pbs and wild and scenic rivers and urban poverty programs. and there were no conservatives to stop l.b.j.'s big government. so when you look at a president in a relationship with congress, i think the question to ask is you look at which presidents were able to create a bipartisan cast to get things
done and which presidents were able to do the most because their party was in charge the both of legislative and executive brafrpbls. host: staying on l.b.j. who came up through the legislative branch before moving to the white house, is it a given presidents who come up in congress and serve in congress always have better relations than presidents who come from another aspect of society? douglas: that's a good and interesting question. yes would be my answer, at least they have a respect for the process on capitol hill, they understand how legislation is made, how bills are the art of compromise. talking about lyndon johnson in the 1950's, for example, when the soviets put sputnik up, johnson went haywire we're losing to the soviets and basically attacked president eisenhower.
what did eisenhower say? he said if you feel that way put together a space committee and come up with something we should do and we'll work with you and johnson and eisenhower created nasa in 1958. the point of that anecdote is simply that there are times when a master of the senate like lyndon johnson was can have it both ways and be a party leader and criticize the president but have so much power that the president is willing to collaborate and it becomes a win in that case creating nasa for the democrat and republicans. host: by the way, we invite our viewers to join in this discussion, doug brinkley again with us on one of these holiday mornings on presidents' day as he often joins us for a look back on history and its real estateship -- and its relationship with the issues, epublicans 202-748-8001,
2 and ndents 202-748-800 democrats, 202-748-8000. c-spans can find it at c-span.org, presidents in different leadership categories and one of those categories was relations with congress. we just were talking about presidents who come up through the legislative branch and i want your thoughts on why barack obama ranks so low in this leadership category, and is fifth from last in the latest historian survey when it comes to how well he worked with congress. doug brinkley? doug: because barack obama was an island on to himself and he came in and inherited the great recession and had to do some big things with stimulus packages that conservatives
didn't like, the bailout of general motors but most importantly the affordable care act or obamacare, when he did it right out of the gate in the first months of office, it triggered the tea party movement and once the tea party movement was born, mitch mcconnell famously said when our republican party is anything that obama puts forward, we're not doing any business on. and you had kind of a stalemate going on, the white house versus congress in the obama years. the president to get higher marks with executive power he started signing executive orders galore particularly the second term but some of them are being undone by donald trump. it's always better if you're president to go through congress because it has a more lasting effect. but if presidents feel plum oxed they look -- flummoxed they look for end runs and you
see president trump doing that with emergency powers on the border wall and saw barack obama do that, for example, with signing national monuments to preserve the nature, like bears ears national monument in utah. host: at the bottom of the list, andrew johnson, the president who had the worst relationship with congress according to that presidential historian survey, the top five, lyndon johnson, george washington, franklin roosevelt, abraham lincoln and thomas jefferson. doug brinkley, quickly on a plug for the presidential historian survey, how many historians are we talking about here and how often do we work with this on you? doug: well, we try periodically to cast a wide net of historians and scholars. we desperately try not to be partisan. we really want the best people in political science and history to weigh in on our surveys. there used to be one by arthur
schlessinger, junior's father, the schlessinger pole but it always was pro democrat liberal kind of bent to it. so we are at c-span committed to trying to be as fair and down the middle and not tilt these polls. of course they're not scientific. somebody's position, they rise and fall depending on different circumstances. andrew jackson used to be much higher than he is now but there's new thoughts about the trail of tears, native american history, first peoples history and jackson takes a hit. but, you know, at the same time jackson is very popular now with conservatives because donald trump has moved his portrait into the white house, es himself as a jacksonian populist. so sometimes we get pulled in the direction of current politics, the job of the historians and we're talking about over a hundred historians
every year, that will weigh in on this and try to come up with a list that we find useful. what you just ralted off the top five with -- rattled off the top five with presidents of legislative background. they also happen to have been five presidents with the exception of johnson because of the vietnam war but the other ones that are wildly popular in general because there are mount rushmore presidents if you'd like. the pom of the list, andrew will cling to that because he came in after the civil war, hard shoes to fill, abraham lincoln from tennessee and there were all sorts of calls for impeachment and he became the first impeached president and yet he got some redemption later after he left the white house, before his death he ran for the senate and
won from tennessee. so he was not a good president but he also caught a bad wave of the circumstances of the time. host: presidents and their relations with congress is our topic with doug brinkley with us until the top of the hour at 9:00 eastern. you can join the conversation like sam did from durwood, maryland. line for democrats. go ahead. sam: do you agree, professor, that donald trump is the biggest liar in american residential history? , one of , you know the problems -- he certainly lies an awful lot. i don't know in the old days we have a way to count them. but today with "the washington post" putting teams of fact checkers on things, it's indisputable he fabricates lies and this lead as part of his political ammo. incidentally, when we're trying to judge presidents, it is a
little hard to judge sitting presidents and where they're going to be seen in history. i just would use donald trump as an example. right now he could be either impeached or resign before his term is out. he could be a one-term president, get the nomination and get knocked off by a democrat or be a two-term president, win yet again, and people will talk about this being the age of trump where perhaps he has three supreme court justices appointed and changes the federal judgeships and has big moments in foreign policy yet to come. you just can't tell when you're in the middle of things but right now on the point of who gets the pinocchios as president, donald trump is in a league of his own. host: brooklyn, new york, next, an independent agustus. next. caller: don't you think that the --
inaudible] for all the presidents to come. host: i'm not sure i got the question, agustus. agustus: was it fair for the senate to declare obama a first come president? [inaudible] host: i think he's referring to mitch mcconnell saying he wanted to make barack obama a one-term president? doug: well, yeah, and that would be normal of mitch mcconnell, he's a republican and wouldn't want two terms of a democrat. what was unusual is mcconnell made a public statement that he wasn't going to agree to anything obama wanted, that he was not going to search for
bipartisanship legislation and in the same way right now, no democrat wants to be in a photo-op. you want to run for a democrat, the single worst thing to do would be in a photo smiling with donald trump. with everybody calling in, one thing we can agree on, whatever line you're calling in on, a democrat or republican or independent, we're in highly partisan times and the figures polarizing are donald trump, barack obama and hillary clinton. they're like lightning rod figures and you say something nice about one of them and you're beat up by people and you criticize one and we seem to be spinning with anger in what's transpired in the last 20 or so years. george w. bush, while not ranked high on our poll as a successful president, although he was a two-termer. but we see him growing in public stature simply by staying out of washington,
d.c., being in dallas and kind of not being engaged in the political warfare of the moment. and i should tell c-span viewers, a lot of presidents do a little better once they're out of office, believe it or not. over time it heals some of the orst wounds and you can see an upward elevation of presidents. eisenhower in recent years has moved very high up. he's a top 10 president automatically now. when he left office, people wouldn't have thought of him as that. same with harry truman. they used to say to err is truman but yet a 20% approval rating and he couldn't run for re-election in 1952 because he was so unpopular. and yet now he's usually ranked number five as one of our great presidents for his handling of the cold war issues like the marshall plan to europe or the creation of nato, establishment of israel. you know, the founding of our homeland security, energies of
the national security council, c.i.a., created the department of air force, on and on. truman is seen as one of the greats and so is eisenhower. we never know. barack obama came in quite well overall for his first time out on one of these polls. we'll have to see how his stock goes up and down in coming years. host: and again, one aspect of that poll, one of those rankings is relations with congress for presidents and that's what we're focusing on this morning in this segment of the "washington journal." coming back to that survey and specific question about who did best when it came to relations with congress. lyndon johnson of course during the vietnam war, george washington number two served as president after the revolutionary war, franklin roosevelt during world war ii, abraham lincoln during the civil war which brings up a question about war presidents and their relations with congress. do they usually do better with those relationships during a war or is the war usually just
overarching everything else so you don't hear as much about the disagreements? doug: i think if you're a wartime president, it's a big perk for your standing in history. now, abraham lincoln comes in and in 1860 he wasn't even on the ballot in seven southern states and he came in in some people's minds as a third party candidate, the first republican president ever. and you know, you can't say that it's a perk to be a wartime president when half the country took down the american flag and put up a confederacy flag during your tenure. lincoln is in a category of his own. certainly for franklin roosevelt being a wartime president, he was a polarized president in the sense of the new deal was big federal government, government at large and angered conservatives mightily and the name roosevelt was almost a curse word in conservative republican
america. but world war ii made him our president. we were all in it together and suddenly everybody got behind f.d.r. for his industrial mobilization efforts, for his wise strategies from everything from d day to the manhattan project. and so, you know, he gets elevated. the big deal with presidents is they have words of necessity. i think we had to fight the war of 1812, mr. madison's war. but yet the mexican-american war with james k. polk was a war of choice and if you're going to be a president with the war of choice, you need to win that war decisively and quickly. polk did that in his one and only term. you see william mckinley winning the spanish american war in six months, woodrow wilson wins world war i. truman we can say won the korean war though it was close. vietnam gets lost by lyndon
johnson and nixon and with more recent wars, bush 41 won his gulf war while bush 43 did not win his war in the middle east. so you know, it helps to be the president that wins. george washington is always going to be ranked high in every category. he's our first. you know, the fact is our country loved military generals as presidents up until recent times. it's not just general washington or general andrew jackson, but there's a whole host of presidents, zachary taylor, william henry harrison. ulysses s. grant, dwight eisenhower and even ones who weren't generals, you had people that made their careers and we judge them from their heroisms in war, theodore roosevelt in the spanish american war with the roughriders and jack kennedy, pto-109. and now they're running a show
on all the presidents leading up to bill clinton. clinton was a unusual entity we had a president with no military service whatsoever who instead had a rhodes scholarship at oxford and was against the vietnam war. now it's not a must credential to run for president but used to be the big thing, it wasn't being a lawyer or senator as much as it was you were proving yourself as a soldier and a leader of men in the military. host: ohio is next. mike, independent, good morning. mike: yes, good morning, gentlemen. honor to speak to mr. brinkley, a great historian. i think noticing barack obama, president obama near the bottom of the list, i think one of the things that should be brought up is on the first -- actually when he was first inaugurated president, that as far as i can
tell or my opinion, the treasonous republicans got together at the caucus room steakhouse, even newt gingrich had met at this where people like former senator jim demint said that even things that we are for that barack obama is r, we have to come out against it. and to believe president obama didn't know they got got together and were going to be against things that even that they liked because he proposed them, that they were automatically going to be against it. host: professor brinkley? doug: i want to make it clear obama is ranked fairly high. i think he's number 12. i don't have the list in front of me. host: i have it in front of me.
overall he's number 12. what we were talking about number four was his ranking on relationships with congress. doug: right. i want to make that distinction. so he's doing well in the annals of history, barack obama. the caller brought up a key point and affirm play find something i was saying -- amplified something i was saying before and there was a movement after the obamacare act and all the capital that used up for obama. remember, any kind of -- the affordable care act was something progressive that never could get done. theodore roosevelt tried it, f.d.r. tried it, truman tried it, lyndon johnson went after it. none of them could do it. obama did but he spent every dime he had on the affordable care act. once he pushed that forward, the vote was very partisan, democrats voting for it, then it left a bitter taste in the mouths of the republican party
and they decided to fight obamaism by basically doing zero cooperation with him. and that's the way that administration played out. obama is still able, why he's ranked number 12, the killing of osama bin laden, the expansions that he did with national monuments using executive orders. his promotion of climate change, the paris accord, the iran deal, the opening up of relations to cuba. so you can see him using his executive power in effective ways but there's a warning label put to that because when you get an adversary, particularly one as fierce as donald trump coming in, in many ways he's defined himself as undoing obamaism, taking the old mitch mcconnell line and seeing obama as the enemy and anything that has his signature or fingerprints on can't be good. and that's where our politics are right now.
and it goes back and forth both ways. it's just very hard for people to govern from the center now because of social media you get attention if you're on the far left or the far right. people want sensational comments to be made. i'm watching democrats right now running for president having to outleft each other, take it one step further. but beto o'rourke, no wall, not even a hunk of wall along the border is supposed to exist which makes elizabeth warren then have to go beyond that. so we're in this sort of period where the parties are being run y a base that tends to be more extreme than the average american voter. most americans are center ight, center left. but they're run largely by the basis. host: a hour left with doug brinkley, prolific author from
rice university. can you talk about "american moon shot?" doug: i wrote about john f. kennedy and the great space race, online and available right now. i did a lot of research with it because i teach at rice in houston. i look at the whole origins of space exploration. i looked at how we brought over the nazi rocketeers of world war ii, 137 former nazis went to fort bliss, texas, el paso, to test missiles in the white sand proving ground and they then moved to huntsville, alabama, imbedded with the u.s. army, in this race we had with the soviets to be the first -- try to be the first to man space and we lost and they put yuri in before space before we put allen shepherd in. but we started jacking things up, poured a lot of money in
the southern zone in the 1960's, meaning technology hubs in texas where i'm at right now and san antonio, houston, but also mississippi, louisiana, alabama, florida, virginia. they were all great beneficiaries of space dollars and we fulfilled kennedy's pledge and got to the moon and the summer will be the 50th anniversary of neil armstrong famously saying one step for man and one giant leap for mankind. we'll all be glued to reliving that this summer, the official moment that's july 20th will be the 50th anniversary coming up. so my book reflects on all of this with a lot of new research, including i got to interview neil armstrong for an oral history hour with him before he died. host: back to the phones. dan is waiting in buoy, maryland, a republican. you're on with professor brinkley. dan: thank you very much. by the way, i read a book years
ago by a guy named david brinkley, called "washington goes to war" and was an excellent book. i have a problem with your current guest, mr. brinkley, because in my view as i've seen this over the years, he definitely has a left-wing bias. and i sort of want to challenge something he said in a way, and historically it's a important way to look at a president, i believe. now, donald trump says things that are exaggerations, i definitely agree. i watched this very carefully. but i would look at the kind of lies, maybe whatever fibs, every politician lies. but i look at l.b.j. and the gulf, got us into the war, 58,000 dead, a pathetic loss. he also said he wasn't going to get into the war and he put us in the war. in terms of the combat. also, i look at obama. obama said you can keep your doctor. he said you can save $2,500
every year, every family, and he said that you could keep your policy. now, the point i'm raising is, i'd like to hear a couple of the lies donald trump has told which in any way has come close to matching those in terms of damage done to this country because those are -- it isn't -- by the way, fact checking by "the washington post," if you're using that as a historical cool, it's absolutely absurd. host: professor brinkley, i'll give you a chance to respond. doug: well, i don't think "the washington post" is absolutely absurd. i think donlt trump's lies are well documented. but the caller makes a good point, even though you don't think i would say that when he was quite nasty toward me. but the gulf of tonkin is a horrendous lie by lyndon johnson and does lead to those 58,000 dead. and i think the caller is making a point, what are the big lies, the ones that really
count, the policy lies that have a larger consequence than donald trump's rhetoric or, you know, inability to be fact-based. that's something that people will debate, you know. we'll have to see all the trump years manifest itself and the same with barack obama. i think the big misleading -- to be able to say what's the -- barack obama ran a very squeaky clean eight years when it comes from not having indictments come flooding out of his administration. but i think the affordable care act was sold in a disingenuous way in the sense of what you would get out of the affordable care act. and so, you know, i think that's an interesting question. one person may tell 5,000 lies but all of those add up to a one gulf of tonkin lie, i think
that can be debated. host: michael, deerfield beach, florida, a democrat. did morning. dan michael: yes, good morning. as much as i'd like to inquire about the space race, we had a shuttle that was a conflict between the military and nasa and i'm calling from broward county, florida, where we have students and the march for our lives and the shooting, the anniversary on the 149. my question is the second opinion is famous historically giving the rights to states to fight each other and bear arms which is exactly what happened in the civil war. so under what president was it all he supreme court and that became misconstrued to giving individual rights, was there a specific president that enabled that? doug: that's a good question and i don't have the answer for you. it's evolved over time.
i think your premise is correct. we tend to go back to our founding documents all the time but as you know when we were dealing with guns in the early republican, it was about having a militia and is misconstrued over the years. we have efforts at gun control, the brady bill being the most famous after ronald reagan was shot in washington, d.c. in march of 1981. but the power of the national ifle association i think has been able to massage the public's view of what the second amendment is in favor of gun ownership. but it is there, the right to bear arms. the question is did the founders envision these kind of bazookas and semiautomatic weapons that exist today? and so i think gun reform is going to be a big issue in
2020. donald trump, if he's the nominee will be saying democrats want to take your guns away and the democratic nomenee assuredly will talk about gun shootings and the like and talk about the need for gun reform. it's very much a problem in our country right now. but hopefully we'll be able to find ways to keep these weapons out of unstable people's hands. host: we started this conversation talking about presidents and their relations with congress. one president we haven't touched on yet is richard nixon. i want your thoughts, professor brinkley, and as we do, a clip from former nixon administrative assistant, tom coralogas talking about president nixon and his relationship with congress when it came to foreign policy. [video clip] >> the china clip, -- the china thing, what's he doing over
there and i remember saying to leadership, see that phone, i can call our advance guys here and now and they'll know everything going on and you in this room will all know what's going on. so when he came back from china, he'd been there how many days, 10 days? >> about 10. >> what did he do? the gentlemen suggested to the tour in china, what time you landing at andrews from china? he landed at 7:00, 8:00 at night. why don't you come straight to the capitol. so they cleared the capitol grounds, the parking lot, the helicopter comes swooping in and lands in the parking lot and nixon goes in and speaks to a joint session of congress what he did in china. i remember roger mud on the television, here's nixon's relations with congress have gone this way and that way and what did he do? he comes back from china and lands on them. tells them what he did.
that was all part of what jeff is discussing on the relationship that he had created personally with the hill. host: professor brinkley on nixon in congress. tug: interesting story. i mean, really, nixon studies are just ripe right now. there are some people arguing nixon was the last of the new dealers. that was the last president lyndon ed to do equal johnson on signing legislation. nixon was for affirmative ction. he put in play the environmental protection agency, clean air and water, one can go on and on with nixon in his legislative accomplishments and foreign affairs is mentioned, the 1972 trip to china is a big deal in history, a major moment. but a lot of it gets overshadowed by watergate and
the fact that he had the tapes that are very incriminating. i edited two volumes of the nixon tapes and some of his language, i know other presidents spoke like that in american history but didn't tape themselves saying things. it's a conundrum to deal with richard nixon. in some ways, you know, you could see the dark side of nixon existing and roger stone and others of today and in other ways you see nixon alive air and with clean water with china. he's a large president. we lived in the age of nixon with a long time. eight years as vice president under eisenhower in addition to two-term president. people forget when he won in 1972, nixon's second term for re-election, when he beat george mcgovern it was the biggest landslide in history.
nixon was popular. but we talked about "the washington post" earlier, "the washington post" and others got nixon during the watergate hearings and he's been tainted as president because of it. host: middle river, maryland, is next, walter, republican, go ahead. walter: good morning. mr. brinkley, i want to challenge you on a couple issues. first you said that "the washington post" was a act checker. i have to say they're a fact checker for the democrats. they're not a true fact checker because we've found them wrong many times the last couple years under the trump administration. especially when mr. trump had found out he'd been surveiled and wiretapped and all the things the f.b.i. was doing to him when the announcement was made a couple months ago, "the washington post" came and said no such thing happened it's a four pinocchio so please don't
get on the high horse about "the washington post." it's driven by a democratic agenda, you know it, i know it, and anything trump says they say is a lie. so please be a little more fair. talking about lying presidents, my insurance went up under the a.c.a. about $4,000 a year. i didn't save $2,500 a year like obama had promised me. i'm 55 years old and retired now. i've gotten through the mess of a.c.a. i implore you, please be fair. and i hope in your classes you let students object to some of your commentary. host: professor brinkley. doug: we talked about the obamacare situation a little bit ago and was very critical of obama and i don't know why the caller has such blinders on that he can't see or hear i just said that, just said with a he said. "the washington post," look,
near times "washington post" and "wall street journal" are still the three standards on fact checking with omni budsman. do they make errors? yes. but to pretend that donald trump doesn't fabricate things on a regular drumbeat basis, that's false. he does. it may not bother you. it might just be his style. you might want to call it something other than a lie, a exaggeration. feel free to do that. but we're looking at a president who is wild with his language. that doesn't mean other presidents weren't. i edited ronald reagan's diaries and done three books on president reagan. all these right-wing people that call in here act like any time you try to be a centerist or try to talk honestly on president's day -- presidents' day that you have an agenda, part of their tree-state
paranoia. reagan would fabricate things and he would read or misremember and say things that took place in a hollywood studio and act like he was there. i don't think it was malicious but just became a rt 5 of his personality and persona. donald trump, i don't mean to criticize him but i don't know who would not say he's been a blow hard a lot of his life and being a blow hard, you have to sell things. you know, you're selling a building and you call it a mansion. and that's what he did as a developer and he's continued that practice into the presidency. but i'm not making a critique on how that plays out in his presidency. and i think there's -- all presidents don't like newspapers and all feel they're getting a raw deal but only donald trump has called the press the enemy of the people. that's what authoritarians do and dictators do. i think some of his attacks on
the press as being fake news is very fair and i think he needs to call it out and does. but he tends to take things to a whole other level and it's part of the partisan warfare that we're in right now. people don't want to find a center zone to communicate with. they want to hunker down hard right or hard left. host: that's your newspaper diet like, how many newspapers you subscribe to? doug: myself? host: yeah. doug: i read "wall street journal," "usa today," "new york times," "washington post," "houston chronicle." then i'll read the weekly standard. i read a lot. i read a lot of the magazines, you know. what i don't do is go on to the web and go to sites that are just spinning hard left or hard ight, you know, junk because
they're aimed at disuniting the country. it's sort of like people firing at each other across the boards. i'm trying like anybody just trying to learn a little. i'm a big believer in local newspapers wherever i go. i love reading them. i grew up around toledo and used to deliver the toledo blade. i'm here in austin, texas right now and read the austin american statesman. and we do true-false meters, too. it's not just "the washington post" doing the lies of trump. you'll find papers all over the country. most of the newspaper journalists in the country have pointed out the number of lies trump tells. it's not exclusive to "the washington post." host: about 15 minutes left with doug brinkley on this president thes presidents' day. john: a caller a few calls back challenged you to come up with any lies that donald trump has
told that compare to the damage done by the gulf of tonkin lie nd the affordable care act misrepresentation and challenged you to come up with lies that caused that much damage. i can think of a few off the top of my head. one, north korea is no longer a threat and therefore we can pull out of our joint military xercises with south korea. and iran is not in compliance with the iran nuclear agreement and we'll pull out of that and call cause all kind of instability in that region. three, the policy zero tolerance of separating children from their parents permanently in some cases to the point they have no idea where their parents are to reunite them with their children or even where the children are. that policy is to protect the children from falling victim to human trafficking. those are three lies off the
top of my head. host: professor brinkley? doug: and the charlottesville lie that there were good people with the neofacists marching with torches through charlottesville saying anti-semitic slogans and what a sick lie that was by president trump. the problem is, guys, it's presidents' day, let's talk about other presidents. we tend to always focus on our own times as if they're so uniquely impressive. we've been focused a lot of my time here on barack obama and donald trump. we don't mention -- so that makes us unable on presidents' day to talk about james monroe and the monroe doctrine of 1823 or to talk about why president polk got involved with the mexican american war and why
ulysses s. grant is having an upswing since a recent biography. we can talk about other presidents. we don't have to be constantly upset with the daily news cycle. a lot of what we're hearing about politics coming out is so shrill coming in from both sides that it's nice to think sometimes on c-span it can be a zone where we can talk actually about history and not just current events. host: one president i wanted to talk about was jimmy carter and the idea of presidential coattails and what that means for relationships with congress. this was an event last year at the wilson center, former carter domestic affair staffer mr. sharp discussed jimmy carter and what he meant for his party in congress. mr. sharp: people ask me in terms of what happened with our domestic program and people say in our relation with congress and jim freeze, and gene gotly,
they're smarter than i am but must have been a failure of leadership on our part but it was a failure of followship in part of our comrades in arms in the house and senate who thought that president carder was too conservative while the country was getting ready to elect ronald reagan. carter wasn't wrong, they were. well, i worked for 10 years in the senate in the previous 10 years and kid tell you united states senators did not believe that their political portions were tied in any way to what happened to presidents of either political party. it se in their experience happened. we had a bloodbath in the senate in 1980 and we lost titans of the senate like gaylord nelson and gail mcgee and frank church and just a ton of people, none of whom until the last minute thought they were in any particular degree
of trouble. and we did every succeeding president the biggest favor that could be done because they all believed that their political fortunes are closely tied to what happened to their president. so ronald reagan had a degree of followership that jimmy carter could only have dreamed that he would have. and that's been true of every succeeding president. and i think -- so maybe students of congress will come to appreciate that contribution we made. [end of video clip] host: doug brinkley on jimmy carter. doug: that was a wonderful and accurate statement. look, jimmy carter ran in 1976 as president as an outsider of washington which meant i have nothing to do with watergate, i have nothing to do with the supreme court appointments, don't blame me for vietnam, don't blame me for unrest in the streets. he was only a one-term governor from georgia and was able to win in a very crowded field. in fact, right now jimmy
carter's peanut brigade strategy is probably who is going to end up winning iowa, klobechar and a supporter from their home state who can go door to door and win. but it was a victory carter had. but on nomination day, he said the democratic party is an albatross around my neck and before long, early on pushed through the panama canal treaties and once that panama, the getting back of the canal if you like to panama, that divided democrats and he barely got that through and it angered conservative democrats in his party and deteriorated from there and lost to scoop jackson, henry m. jackson, conservative democrat from the state of washington and lost that side of the party and lost the ted kennedy more liberal wing of the democratic party
and kennedy after all challenges carter for the democratic nomination in 198 0. so while we can tick off accomplishments of jimmy carter like the camp david accord with lasting peace between egypt and israel, promotion of human recognizing ficial the people's republic of china, we also can see he was a political failure because he couldn't control his own party and it leads to the revolution really of 1980 when ronald reagan didn't just win ndsomely but swept the board and brought down a lot of the titans of titans of liberalism like george mcgovern of kd and -- south dakota and many others. host: doug brinkley of rice university taking your questions on presidents rerelations to congress. scott, independent from
washington. go ahead. scott: i've got a question from you. what are you? are you either republican or a democrat? not the desk but you. the host? host: our job here is to create a conversation, not talk about our views but focus on you, our callers and try to create a discussion here and step away from that as much as we can so you can have that discussion. we'll go to todd in evansville, wisconsin, a republican. todd, good morning. todd: good morning. i appreciate the forum that you provide -- that c-span provides for us to ask these questions, and i also appreciate the work that went into the presidential survey. and when it came out, i think it was right at the end of the obama administration, it's great when you have the panel of several historians to give perspective and i've learned a
lot in that perspective. but one thing that frustrated me from that panel and frustrates me with the survey and even some of this morning's discussion is the focus, as dr. brinkley just said, on current day politics. it seems if you're doing a historical survey, you want to look back in history more. and i might recommend having a moratorium on recent presidents, say, not rating a president until 20 or 24 years has elapsed from the time they left office. host: doug brinkley, what do you think of that suggestion? doug: it's a valuable suggestion to consider. most scholars when we're asked presidential historians, we usually use the 25-year rule in the sense that we're not going to have documentation of president trump until about 25
years after he leaves office when freedom of information act starts providing real documentation so you can do a more balanced and sophisticated look of what took place during a particular presidency. and so it's worth us considering when we do the next poll, should we be -- obviously we're not including the sitting presidents in the poll but should there be some kind of hiatus before you get, you know, judged? and that's something we'll consider. so that was a constructive call from the caller. host: evelyn in fort worth, texas, democrat, good morning. evelyn: good morning. how are you, mr. brinkley? thank you for this opportunity. my question is about president lyndon johnson. i wanted to know, did he get us into the war or did he inherit it? did he inherit the vietnam war? i'm talking specifically about
the vietnam war. doug: that's an excellent question. kennedy, we're not sure. obviously we know the november 22, 1963 death in dallas. at that time there's some signals that he wasn't going to be snookered into a war in vietnam. he did a famous interview with walter cronkite intimating that and there were documents that proved that. however, his an administration was involved with the assassination of d.m. in south vietnam and moving in intelligent personnel of military officers into vietnam. but i don't think we can say it's kennedy's war in a real sense, it's lyndon johnson's. the previous caller touched on the big moment, the gulf of tonkin resolution because lyndon johnson was running for president in 1964 trying -- worried that barry goldwater
was outhawking him on the cold war and gentlemanned through right before the election that gulf of tonkin resolution, only two senators with lyndon johnson and they all bought along with lyndon. wayne morris of oregon and earnest grunning of alaska were the only senators that didn't go along with it. but it gave johnson the war powers act and before you know it, we're in vietnam. most scholars feel the war was a mistake. it does not mean we didn't win battles there. i wrote a book on the battle of interviewing n, our great soldiers who fought there so heroically. the military did not lose the vietnam war but was lost due to politics of washington, instability here at home and there's a lot of blame to go around. i tend to give the blame to lyndon johnson, not jack
kennedy because kennedy never did the full-bore commitment of sending tens of thousands of troops, hundred of thousands of troops into vietnam. so it's lyndon johnson's war. nixon should have gotten us out of it earlier instead of opening the war to cambodia and laos and continuing a war that divided our country for no ostensible return for that much bloodshed. host: you mentioned your book cason. ug: i'm forced to confront dust jackets of old but i have 15 books that are seminole to me and sometimes you do books that are co-authored or you're the editor of it, like i mentioned reagan's writing and
i edited it and depends how you want to count books like that. and i'm always on a new history topic and i like u.s. president topic and i wrote a book called "wheels of the world" on henry ford looking at how the automobile revolution was born and ended up living in dearborn for a while and wrote a biography of rosa parks. i don't always do presidential istory but it is my favorite thing to do and i'm from ohio and we're the mother of presidents and we claim seven presidents and i grew up down the road from rutherford b. hayes' home in fremont, ohio, and i visit the historic sites and if i can get a publisher interested, i'd love to write a
book on why ohio has produced so many presidents. host: the latest book, "american moon shot" john f. kennedy and the greatest space race. you see the cover on your screen there. time for two or more calls with doug brinkley. pat has been waiting in jackson, tennessee, an independent. good morning. pat: good morning. mr. brinkley, i hate to bring this up again about president obama but i'd like to say that when callers call in and say that he told the lie about the american care act, that you could keep your own policy, president obama did not realize that he was making that statement but it's dependent on the insurance companies. in the american care act, it stipulations for
an operable insurance company. and you had a lot of companies out here in america who was authoring insurance but then when the people get sick, they'd say that condition is not covered and all that kind of events was going on. host: thank for your point, pat. professor brinkley? doug: let me just look in the sense of being bipartisan, let me say quickly about george w. bush and barack obama, recent presidents for scholars to try to evaluate. george w. bush, any time you're a two-term president means that you start mattering in history. now it's eight years and people liked you enough to give you a second chance. both bush 43 and obama meet that criteria. then you start looking at what are the real hard-core accomplishments of them. and i think george w. bush, if i were promoting the bush
library, i'd say 9/11, that astute management after we were hit for the first couple weeks in the way the famous bull horn moment of george w. bush, the pitch at yankee stadium, the way he pulled our country together, and in building the homeland security apparatus to make our airports and ports of industry safe from terror attack. there's a legacy for bush but on the other hand he had the great recession and failure under katrina and most importantly the war in iraq when there were no weapons of mass destruction. barack obama has a big accomplishment in the affordable care act but you see donald trump trying and republicans to chip away at it nevertheless is a signature accomplishment not just legislatively but probably will be remembered the most from the obama years because it has helped thousands of people. it's controversial. there are parts of it people don't like. but it's an achievement to have
just gotten it done. and then obama, as i mentioned, the killing of osama bin laden, the working ourselves out of our financial malaise of that era, and in being historically the first african-american you look at presidential and it is a system signal point and it will be a part of him in the tradition of frederick he worked out with the military and promotes the armed forces. stays to -- tends to stay out main fray but wrote a
good book and is rebuilding himself. leave the white house you are still legacy pinning and trying to score points and remind people of the good that you did and scholars point out your failures. we are very rough on presidents they are in office and we if to give them credit for the economy is about good and not if the economy is bad. markets are were more fluid than just presidential leadership. their own. life of presidents have to be lucky. a very lucky was president. he came into power at the time was collapsing and did some astute diplomacy mikhail gorbachev but it glass knost and beneficiary.e
some presidents inherit a good a boost andthey get people say it was good during reign. ost: what is a presidential historian doing on presidents day? -- you have riday three children, 11, 13 and 14, off from school today. on friday i went to middle lectures onave four presidential history to a middle austin.here in today i have to do one interview national public radio about presidents then hopefully take a hike with my son along the river here in austin. host: we appreciate your tarting with us professor doug brinkley of rice university. "washington e journal" we will discuss
presidential emergency powers that will be joined for iscussion by ivan ealand of then institute. stick around. >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. ask not what your country can do you. ask what you can do for your country. and the people who knocked fear buildings down will all of us soon. >> the newest book the noted historianing rank america's best and worst executives provides insight into the 44 american presidents. historians gathered by interviews. explore the life events that our leaders and challenges they faced and the legacies they have left behind.
published by public affairs. 23 ill be on shelves april but you can preorder your copy e-book at over or c-span.org/t -span.org/thepresidents or wherever books are sold. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's television companies and today we continue to bring you congress,d coverage of the white house, the supreme events nd public policy in washington and around the country. your brought to you by cable or satellite provider. >> he studies the relationship
legislativetive and branch and both powers. a n it comes to declaring national emergency from where that he president derive power? guest: that is interesting framers of constitution would frown on any declaration of emergency power. over time as ed the executive has become more powerful than the framers had intended. the framers of the constitution, to give a little background, sort of rejected national paradigms because the setican constitution is not up to be efficient in legislation. congress or ized the government in washington for not being more efficient in system things, but the is designed to slow things up. and ystem of checks balances is to spread power so that you don't have tyranny.
the tyranny ofly the executive because they had he dig george model of britain but legislative tyranny because of the british parcel. they felt was a tyrannical body. thing that resell believes -- resell bes a -- resembles they can habeas corpus during invasions and insurrections. pretty dire circumstances and they don't ention a general emergency because they would be uncomfortable with it. declarations of national mergency have been treufr idealized and -- trivialized and up in early ling 1970's. i think almost 500 at once so emergencies act of somewas designed to sunset of them and rein in the
practice. reined in to some extent because now we have 30 and we 59 since and some have gone away but we have about 31 right now. might ask is this all that serious. there's been abuse by the has tive but congress advocated its authority by allowing this to happen. trivialized of them. >> back to 1976 why did it come a head there? you mentioned the number but why step in?ess decide to guest: this was the watergate era. 1976, after the nixon abuse of power and that era. so congress was trying to control this. that is when the congressional back and we may get congressional push back in the
trump administration. but in is not a trump administration problem. it has been going on for quite time. we have seen executive overreach book is is what my about the rogue presidency and i started under george w. bush and continued nder obama and has now continued with trump. the reason i call it that is use se executives have uper -- usurped even more power. george w. bush said he had the violate power to antitorture law and suspended comp pus for terrorism ucks and created military commissions. then obama had several episodes flagrantly getting money without congressional what we tions which is have here. the libyan war and the
affordable care act. then of course the clean power regulations and other things. is sort of a unique episode can discuss why it is unique, but we have had this amp up. executive power we had the imperial presidency which past which was what the founders intended and we have the rogue presidency. looking at the record. you will be with us until the program ends. the fophone o call usual.are as 02-748-8000, republicans at 202-748-800-1202-748-8002. policy e are a public
think tank headquartered in california and we look at all of public policy and we take a partisan stance. >> you mentioned your kevin declaration rgency friday on the sunday show season aides was on top fox news an defended it. here is what he had to say. the authority refers to the use of military construction fund. emergencies were -- if you ant to talk about military construction do you know how many times that has been mentalated as a national -- invoked as national emergency? once by george h.w. bush during the middle of the gulf war and then by george w. bush 9/11.after that is hardly comparable. >> can you name one foreign in the world today outside of this country's border
that currently kills more than the threats crossing our southern border? to ask f this is i get the questions. >> the answer is no. >> then answer my question. can you name one question where and sident asked for money congress refused and the power to get ked it. >> current situation pertains construction y authority. >> i asked you how much for congress onstruction said no and -- >> the meaning of the statute is terms.on its own if you don't like the statute -- no.the answer is >> the premise is false because the congress has appropriated for border barriers. it is part of a national ecurity -- host: watching that interview your thought. aest: i don't think they made very good defense of the position. it is a unique episode because
trump appropriate, r is going to appropriate the funds himself rather than going through the constitution which money must be drawn from unless appropriated by congress. that won't fulfill that requirement.al the key thing is that the president is doing this against congress's wishes. we had that in the case of the the truman episode with youngstown steel case where that supreme court over ruled truman at the time because going tkpwepagainst in other words, congress hadn't acted, in this case congress has said no, we do this.t during the ragan administration
contra thing is they raise money after the congress directly told them not to. now that was more serious because that was secret. trump is blatantly doing it and that is the key problem here though we don't know how because theill rule courts also have deferred to the president in addition to in ress over time and immigration and national particularly national security they have basically rolled over. hey didn't used to do that so we don't know how the court will rule. if they rule constitutionally overrule d probably there. host: the phone lines are open the u want to join conversation about presidential powers and emergency declarations. is republicans 202-748-8001. 202-748-8000 it is and four independents 202-748-8002. an independent from florida. i have been 6 and
keeping up with politics as much as i can since about 2004 and i know what you a good ly feel is decision and opportunity to use power [inaudible]. a good time to use executive power as a president, a time to step in with emergency declarations? has to be ink it under an extreme circumstance. emergency.o be an i think trump admitted in his rose garden speech he didn't it and i thinkdo that be a problem in court. extreme be an circumstance and i -- we have had a history of this being so he is not -- abused. e is the first to take money over congressional objections you haveis further but
to -- i don't believe in -- i'm ort of a very strict constructionist. i don't think the constitution national emergencies. executive should basically execute the laws that congress thank is why many even republicans are very ncomfortable with this because if you are a conservative, is government these days because 99% of the federal of the government work for the executive branch and you can't government if you are for executive power. it is a contradiction. say we should stay away from this entirely. that probably won't happen but abuse keeps getting worse and i think congress has to do omething but we see the partisanship eroding the checks and balances that madison put
the constitution. the on actually said that biggest power that the congress still money and that is true. but that is eroded over time as well. line for democrats from florida, michael. 1976 the ou mentioned act, i believe it was passed in ford's e to gerald ayaguez the minnesota incident in 1975. guest: that was a triggering problem is e basic nixon had run roughshod over the mergency process and not only nixon but the nixon administration was the triggering event. but you had all of these mentals 470 think there were like declarations of emergency in
this isnd congress said an abuse and we are pushing back. by can say it is triggered any one incident but they felt usurping too much power in vietnam and at home and they wanted to push back and pushed back with the war powers resolution and other hings but the national emergencies act of 1976 was actually trying to reduce the emergencies. but they didn't really define emergencies very carefully. is no definition. so the abuse continues at a lower level. information on what is in the act, the president has discretion to declare an emergency and must specify which powers that he intends to use report to congress every six onths on the emergency related costs of that tkhraeurbgs and the emergencies must be renewed can end and congress an emergency with a joint resolution. of course the president can veto
they can try to override that veto. on that last point has that ever happened? guest: no. congress hasn't even reviewed some of these. talk about executive problem is he indication.abney they wanted to make congress the they were anch but afraid of legislative tyranny so hey provided the executive power and now the executive has more power than the congress and congress power had waned ecause the wars in the 20th century and other crises like the depression. mainly wars. that is what my book focuses on how the presidency has usurped a power. this is old one example. this has been a continuing problem. host: the book, war and the ogue presidency rescoring the
republican after congressional failure out on may 1. phyllis in kansas city a democrat, good morning. caller: what i want to ask is president obama. idn't he do an executive order and take our tax paying money program?aca guest: yes, as i mentioned efore obama did quite a few executive orders and the reason was that he had a divided ongress so congress wasn't giving him what he wanted. daca, the clean and the ulations, libyan war, et cetera. many was just one of things that he did. of course george w. bush did a lot as well. mentioned the torture,
domestic surveillance, military commissions and the suspension habeas corpus. he did a lot of things to usurp power.ive in fact, bush claimed inherent -- he uring warfare to power to go against congression congressionally passed laws such ones on for cher. on f torture. done much to push back that. i think you are seeing more push the first two w years of trump's presidency, and that is in large part the result of the election and the election majority in atic the house. we will see what happens. i think even the republicans are becoming more willing to push back now.
host: what is your thought on push back from noncongressional actors, some this morning ront from the "u.s.a. today" wrap up bout california democratic attorney general said he will definitely and immediately fall trump it against the administration to contest the declaration of national emergency and that wraps up a lawsuits including one filing a c citizen lawsuit friday after president trump's announcement argue being president trump exceeded his authority and disregarded the separation of powers in the another filed d by citizens for responsibility in ethics argues that the white provide the support being documents needed to justify the national emergency declaration. i think that many groups including the attorneys general and maybe more are going to hit this from very directions. the groups are coming at it from
sides and i guess it is at the wall hetti to see what courts shake out. is right e that trump and the lower courts will delay the supreme court will emcome through for him. but we will have to see. a pretty flagrant violation of the congressional will and that is the key item. the other item is whether this is a real emergency which it is not. but over time the courts have all y rolled over on presidents on immigration and especially national security and both issues here. host: kathy is in arkansas a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. is the prises me and dent tries [inaudible] obama did it said
and not much is said and the american people are tired of all of this mess. that is all they do. i believe it is an emergency. that wall. thank you. the : well, i think that people coming across has dramatically 2000 and the e hrlast 15 years and most of the come through the ports of barren stretches the terrain. mountainous so it is costly to build a wall much is happening and the idea people are flooding caravans butve had those are mostly families coming mark.entral so i disagree it is a general mark.
we continue to live in the fantasy world i think we are going down to letting the he wants.do whatever the danger here is that trump or that comes after him is going to just say ongress won't act so i have to and any time a president says that it is unconstitutional. congress is supposed to be the primary legislative body of the united states. the executive should be executing all of his executive out s should be carrying laws that congress also passed. orders doing executive like obama did or as trump is declaring a national emergency, a very questionable constitutional muster and pass muster. i think what needs to happen is this needs to go down by the and is not a partisan thing. to stop from both democratic and republican presidents.
left on ut a half hour this presidents day. f you want to join the conversation republicans is 202-748-8001. democrats is 202-748-8000. is 202-748-8002 or social media like jim did who. s to talk about the history of some of these with the imperial presidency saying f.d.r. gave rise to an overreaching executive branch not be in sole messes if the clock could be a pre-f.d.r. government. but : i agree with that what caused big government was wilson r i and woodrow taking over the economy. this usually starts in war and f.d.r. used the depression as an excuse but that was the after aftereffect of world war i and itself, the u.s. government put its tentacles
new the government so many da deal programs arose from war back es that were brought and the people who ran them so we converted an international debatable also n world war i and moved it toward a domestic crisis and i created theoosevelt office of the executive -- the executive office of the president. o the president has his own bureaucracy and i think that is in part correct. a big did give us government originally and woodrow wilson gave him the do that.to certainationme aou of -- usurpation of the overnment then and also during world war ii. host: since we are going down the helpful road can you talk presidents story of
spending habeas corpus? simple e saw it in the war. lincoln did it illegally and wet has been a precedent and had a hot civil war going and he started doing it in maryland went up the east coast ay away from the theaters of war. and grant also did it in the era.nstruction presidents don't usually do this. it partially did in the war on terror because he suspects. terrorism habeas corpus for viewers who not familiar is just your ability, which this right goes into english law, you get detention.e your if the government throws you in writ of can file a habeas corpus asking why am i in
you can challenge it in court. when it happens it is a bedrock rights.rn that e constitution says nly the congress with suspend habeas corpus and only in times insurrection.d that is a pretty high standard satisfy that, t but bush has done it anyway and in court and ged they built a few more rights for defendants. but they are still not up to speed. tend this and trump has -- obama continued this and still under a suspension of habeas corpus and this does the constitutional standard. host: to hartford, connecticut, an independent. caller: good morning. i have two quick questions.
other think russia and/or anti-allies are having a good with the chaos that is going on here in america? think that you there will be another government trump doesn't get his way? thank you. i appreciate your comments. guest: the first question i t u think we always have chaos in the united states. that is part of our system. people say we don't want so much partisanship. some countries only have one party so i'm willing to take the sometimes.ip of course, people have to come together to pass a law that is that is good when they do that -- or maybe good if the law is good. partisanship back and forth is good because the primary purpose of purpose of institute being the
avoid ution was to tyranny so that is what our system does. we have a lot of chaos in it. russia, certainly during the election, it was illegal to hack d.n.c.ocratic computers, and hillary clinton campaign. buying ads often facebook thomas jefferson said people are saying false things need to do is -- what you need to do is put out the truth. less of a problem of russia doing the latter as pposed to the former which is an illegal act. they were trying to cause chaos n our system and who knows whether they had a demonstrable effect on the election. guess we will never really prove that. they were trying. what you need to do is our chaos we are r system and supposed to have give and take and different opinions and i we need lock step. i can't remember the second
question. it was about russia and -- guest: that was the first one of the we will move on to al in democrat. caller: yes. inaudible] host: which bill are you talking about? caller: [inaudible]. host: he was going in and out. did you get a question from that? guest: no. caller: we can go on to houston, republican. about the talk border wall and now trump is going about it. to the damn southern states and see how [inaudible].
people aren't considering that are not coming in [inaudible] same thing. i don't know if i believe it or not. you have different things not taken care of in other countries being taken care of getting it is [inaudible] i live in texas. is more in spanish than english. claim here they are [inaudible]. hey live here, work, make the same amount of money i do. they have a girl that has baby. welfare and benefits and make more money we do. guest: what you are talking many is the issue of
segregation and that is the basis for this. what we are really talking about to he president's right override congress who said we don't want a border wall and the as well -- said that even trump said that by signing the bill. sign the bill and do whatever he wanted. i think that is the issue rather than up segregation. we do need to solve the immigration problem and there that.ny views on i personally really think we comprehensive solution, both parties getting together. we they have tried that and are just divided as a accountant on the issue -- as a country on issue. but the issue is the republicans didn't go for his wall and we two years of united republican government and didn't and departmentey this time. so the question is does he have what thority to disregard
the congress, the legislative states, has united to see especially when he signed going off d now he's the reservation and tkhraeurbg -- declaring an executive emergency. call a few back was your thought of the potential of nor government of another government shutdown. . yes. think this was done to avoid the shutdown because trump was defeated so he decided to sign this so there shutdown e another because he was defeated on the first one of the he got all and push ad publicity back and didn't want another so he decided to sign the bill but he wants to push it into the court so everybody will forget it and he is hoping the
ourts will give him a good review and they may do that. but i think that this was an to avoid the second shutdown. he wanted a shutdown the , he would have vetoed bill. but he signed it and then went against it. an : to san francisco, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. with the distrust of trump and managing ability i'm certainly worried about following the money. the accountants going to be for an emergency spending this?ge like is trump going to be able cut the budget on the accountants the taxpayers without the ability to monitor their own money? guest: we also have other .versight abilities the government accountability office goes into some of that,
and he funds are spefpt what is -- spent and that is a ongressional entity that works for congress. now that the democrats control they can certainly of that.ntage i think there are other avenues monitor this money as it goes out. nd you have a lot of believe groups like public citizens and other groups and there's a lot ranchers on the border that re suing for this because they don't want their land taken by eminent domain and many of them probably pretty conservative because eminent domain has an issue for conservatives. to here's a variety of ways push back against this. goes through you will have some accountability from likeedia and organizations
the government accountability office, et cetera. host: in the "washington post" from the ote congressman who represents more u. 800 miles of the u.s.-mexico border many of the ranchers was on "face the a republican from texas opposing president trump's declaration of national warning that it sets a dangerous depressants and our -- our government was it and we to operate are in almost uncharted territory territory. we have about 20 minutes left of our conversation as david did in evansville, indiana. go ahead. caller: i would like to know opinion on why we elected donald trump and what you think s going to happen if a nonelected official such as courts shut little down? guest: well, certainly he feehes
electoral college and he is a legitimate president of the united states. rulings beforert that told presidents that they can't do various things. if they have their role, they stick up for people's rights and the checks and balances to make sure one branch doesn't get out of control. i think the executive branch, not just donald trump but other since harry obably truman search since george w. trump, it hasa and gotten way too powerful from hat the framers of the constitution originally wanted. we don't have a system where president makes him an emperor and that is the system, we get push back. the supreme 1952 court blocked harry truman's of the steel n industry or confess indication he -- confiscation and the
truman used ause powerote unquote inherent to go against congressional wishes and that is what we are seeing here. relationship between those two events, the of 1952 n steel case and what is happening here. so i think there is a role for monitor the checks and balances that we have in the and also to ensure individual hts, rights. we don't have a complete democracy. so ave a compound republics there is the courts and public pushing back. trump won the e electoral college or any
electoral ins the college doesn't mean he or she she wants.r host: as you note there had are emergencies ional still tiff. here is a -- active. of them. list of a few it has to do with violence in nicaragua. president trump declared that and foreign interference in the and others 2015 chinese cyber attacks, response administration. response to the russian invasion of ukraine in 2014. somali pirates in 2010. hreat of nuclear weapons in north korea in 2008 and 2001 in esponse to the september 11 terrorist attacks. what do you think should happen thate national emergencies are still active? guest: i think we need to review some of thing because them may seem like emergencies but are they really. emergency ional
somebody something like 9/11. i think you could make a case legitimate s a national emergency. did decla se, bush declare, as you mentioned. should ink congress rewrite the national emergencies and either abolish ational emergencies -- they probably won't do that but can get into w you k one. e -- it it has to b should probably be the president three or e for two or four months then it goes out if pass it intodo not law. the founders always believed president should have even during to act the declaration of war which we but really use any more
should, but on then the resident can respond to a national emergency. i think the framers wouldn't want to call it that. that eventually has to be ratified by congress and in a declaration of war and here it would have to be congress saying this is a emergency. most of these 31 that we have against ng sanctions individuals and freezing their assets because they have done don't like overseas and i don't feel that that's a national emergency. host: to andrew in louisville, a republican, good morning. gentlemen.od morning, i have two quick questions for you. y first one is, what is the difference between this national emergency that president trump and the one previously by other presidents? is, other question presidents have respond on the emergency and the crisis at the
has changed and what is different now? well, the first question i have been that making all along is the difference between this case is trump has gone against what the congress wants in the bill he just signed and they didn't money, the republicans haven't provided money for his all in the last two years when they had control of congress. i think that is the praugt factor. factor. operating in 1952 we had the youngstown truman and judge jackson on the supreme court ame up with his famous way of defining boundary between the executive and legislative power he said the president is strongest when the congress a law and he is executing it. in the middle ground is when the
congress hasn't spoken and the orst case is when the congress speaks on something and the president goes against that to use you are not supposed be able to do that. that is what trump is doing.ially he signed the bill that the congress didn't give him his for the wall and he says i'm going to do it anyway. to a president says i have act because, whether democrat or republican and obama did this as say no.u have to the congress is supposed to laws and and make the the president has a veto. cane doesn't veto it and it be overridden by the congress you n he signs the bill can't just don't executive orders or national emergencies or whatever. hasn't been a problem. he second question was -- host: how or presidents have spoken about border crisis and
now when it rent comes to this border crisis? really have tphenever believed we have had any bother crisis. an immigration crisis. many of the people here visa lly overstayed their or came through ports of entry. i think what we need to do is the factual problem that we have. has is right, the fencing made a difference in people getting across because that is down and also the price of them them, they pay coyotes has increased.y that tells you it is working so why do we need a concrete barrier. it is more of a political symbol. prices are going down so the war on drugs have never a separate hat is issue and do we need this war on drugs because whenever the
declares war on poverty or whatever it doesn't worked with asn't the drugs so they are a different problem but it relates i think that but other presidents have respond spoken is and -- have about this but the crisis is in the drug area rather than immigration. 15 minutes left if you want to join the conversation. is 202-748-8001. for democrats it is democrat tkpl. is for independents it 202-748-8002. democrats regina is waiting in chicago. go ahead. with us? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: i have a question about president trump always quotes that there are
of americans are killed by illegals. tv, i'm 80 t of [inaudible] -- your question, regina. alreadyget the point of question? obviously e are crimes committed by coming into the country. statistics though if you xcuse fact that they are here illegally they commit fewer crimes than the people who are from here. both illegal and legal immigrants have lower crime than citizens who have who just for years live here and didn't immigrate. bit of an a overstated problem and i think the president is playing on fear
there. albuquerque, new mexico is next. caller: good morning. i would like to mention that the gangs here in the united states re definitely affiliated with .angs in mexico all nstance, you have thaothese illegal immigrants that are in rincipal and talk bad about america and all they want to do is hurt us. coming across this border i have been to it many a times and i what trump isthat saying is the truth. you should go out there and you know time and what? as a matter of fact, you should go to mexico and see the way you. treat we don't treat them like that.
to come in here i will legally. as soon as you understand the illegally, that means breaking the law. there are issues with immigrationers there's in doubt about it. talking about here is executive power and whether this was the right thing for trump to do as far as an executive order. gangs here ere are and some of them have ties to mexi mexico. s-13 -- the a ties to s-13 gang has central central america but i calculated it is like .01% and stretch.is a certainly we've problems. and immigrants legal illegal and create crimes but it
less than the people who live here. so i'm not sure that is a real problem. buy the drugs, crime and that sort of thing. you can say, well, people are and getting benefits and maybe they shouldn't and aybe that is a legitimate issue. and there may be other legitimate issues. here is what ssue the president should go against of congress and declare a national emergency just because the congress doesn't to do what he wants and that is provide $6 billion for a already ll because we have some border fencing and it seems by the gross figures of coming in that those barriers have worked to some need more wall or in the empty desert rugged mountainous terrain where people come most in and drugs come in through the ports of entry.
mentioned the 470 national emergencies that were of the 1976the time act was emergencies passed. when was the biggest build-up of emergencies before that? who was creating the most national emergency declarations the years before 1976? guest: i would have to go back at that. i'm not sure which presidents really pumped up the number. system was being abused and that is why the a lot s pushed back and of these laws, for instance, passed in 1974 a budget and -- impond.control nd richard nixon of was impounded tpupbs and he said we need to reduce the government laudable hich is a goal but the president doesn't have the power to do that.
pass a new wanted to law. what did gerald ford do immediately after gaining office used the law that was supposed to curtail impoundment them.crease so, this emergency law has been to continue emergencies. now it has cut them down from to 31, and they are sunsetting some because we have 59 emergencies since they and now e law in 1976 we are down to 31 so about half were sun set. law is working. i'm not sure which president is most guilty because it builds up over time over the 470. but they were trying to push he executive just declaring national emergencies things.vial i still think we are declaring national emergencies over treufr things. fortunately -- over trivial
things. onbe there will be push back this and either after trump while he is in office and if that is the case there will be a positive aspect think.s, i caller: council bluffs, iowa. pedro is a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. where: i don't understand anyone don't think this is an emergency and i can't believe said that the president was right about these aws do stop people from coming over. i mean, where is he getting his the from, mexico,government or where? guest: i said the border fencing they have had has had some across n people coming because it has again down. now, that is not the only reason. seeing a mexican economy that is better and the u.s. had a recession in 2008 probably -- i think there
outflow because people go where the jobs are. the key question is do we need a miles e wall over 2,000 and that is what trump originally said he is going to do. hat is more symbolic because you can see some of the border fencing and other factors have reduced the number of people and raised the price to get smugglers to bring people across the border. an occasion that something is working. probably rder fences do in certain places. but i don't think the democrats the border fencing and even adding fencing in places. what they are objecting to -- nd a lot of republicans are objecting to concrete barrier. they may not always be saying it two years to give trump money for this because it the $6 billion that is being talked about.
$23 ill probably will be billion to $25 willing billion. i used to be a congressional and that price tag is going to go up because no overnment program ever came in on budget or on time. cost think that it will much more than that and the question is do we really need a for 2,000 miles. host: we are expecting to hear more from the president later afternoon he will be in miami and the subject of his address to the venezuelan american community. on twitter uestion and you touched on this a little bit when talked about many of declarations y involve being freezing of assets of fortune nationals. wants -- foreign nationals. can you categoryize national the encies to compare reasons why they were declared? the : i would say that is main reason that most of these 3 the books is n
that he is able to declare a emergency and you have to have some sort of legal reason for seizing people's in the united states. the government can't just seize people's assets. but many of the people have -- foreigners who have assets in country because we have a investments so a lot of money from russia and here. countries comes in so, feel of these -- many of these instances are where you to get some sort of legal authority to freeze this assets, maybe a russian saying people in the united states can't do business with these people human they have done rights problems or they are a proliferator or a smuggler of nuclear material.
t is usually a national security thing or a way of disappro someproving the conduct of of these leaders for human rights or otherwise. that is why they do this. and they feel like they need electriclegal reason to seize assets and declare you are noncongratulate that for khers with our citizens and overnment and declare this national emergency. if national emergencies were to this, i guess that would be something -- i choose to call something else. legal authority to freeze assets or something because i think that the national emergency can be taken were too wide and that is what we are seeing here. one or two more calls. muhammad is in reston, virginia, democrat. thanks for waiting. caller: thank you. of the numbersll hrown out the first thing we
know about statistics, numbers higher.ays i think the more important thing have them to be taken care of, not walls. education, healthcare issues.ddress the gun host: do you think there should be a national emergency with gun violence in this country? caller: i think that needs to happen. about ow would you go that? guest: i think that is what the republicans are scared of the president if it is a democrat would say we have a emergency over climate change, we have a national violence so r gun we are going to have more gun cetera.tions, et the real problem with this is that people are scared including
republicans both privately and this ublicly are saying opens a can of world series. -- can of worms. if the president can do whatever don't we have rule by fiat and tyranny and that is the founders wanted to avoid. he point is that this can be bust abused at a new level and it is the primary function of congress and biggest is to provide money and constitution says you won't spend unless congress that is what nd trump is diagnose. we always talk about the border butlem and people coming in there's another problem we don't hear were about and that is the mexico is fueled by ..s. gun shipments here's a huge gun export from
the u.s. to mexico and so that is part of the problem and the mexico.e in host: we will have to end it there. enior fellow at independent institute and the rest storing he presidency. pass that is it for our program but we hope that you come back and morning on the "washington journal." ur guest is the editor of the american conservative. clarence page for the chicago kimball of darrell the arms control association. we will be here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and 4:00 a.m. pacific. presidents day. which is responsible for its
caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] -- [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] announcer: this week, c-span will look at the political career of four congressional leaders. tonight, we will look at senator mcconnell's career. on tuesday, it's speaker nancy pelosi. on wednesday we will look at house minority leader kevin mccarthy. on thursday, we wrap up the week with a look at senate minority leader charles schumer. watch this week, beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. announcer: c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies, and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court