tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 3, 2014 12:30am-2:31am EDT
>> that's right. and other people, like our famous lover and the opposition leader, he says no, the system is good, that putin is bad. so -- >> it would be better. >> let me step in his position and i will identifying the corruption and the system will start working, which i don't believe. >> you said something very interesting you. said that the organizing narrative, the organizing myth of russia today is a identifying against fascism and naziism in world war ii in coalition with the west, i would stress, and everybody knows -- even school children who will learn -- >> don't tell me that. i know. >> i'm telling our audience, the c-span audience, that even the kids that will learn russian history from the unified history book that is publish or being prepare --
>> being prepare -- >> so there will be one narrative of history, know that the british, the french, the americans, the chinese, fought against the nazis nazis and the japanese imperialism in world war ii, and you have people who are part of the establishment, like andre, the political scientist who was planted in new york as a representative of the institute for democracy and something else, the russian government funded operation, says, oh, but hitler was good until 1939. until 1939, that included the nuremberg laws, the austria, czechoslovakia, and the -- so, you have the grandson of your colleague saying, oh, the aryan
slavic tribes -- the narrative is becoming more and more racist, nazi-like, justifying even hitler, which is inconceivable in this myth of fighting german fascism. what's going on with that? >> the people whom you mentioned, they can justify whatever they have been told to justify. >> who is telling them to justify that? >> i think we know their instinct. they just want to please the chief, and they actually -- when the chief says, you're going too much, please relax. >> this is like alexander proponov saying how wonderful
stalin. >> that's his position all the time, well-known imperialist and trying to portray stalin as a -- >> he would not be doing that if he did not expect a pat on the back or maybe a spot on national television, maybe some advisory position -- >> a different story because he was doing this this is the in soviet times, now, his position is firm, dedicated to this idea, and he never switch sides and when he was in the opposition he was fighting in the russian white house when it was shot with the tanks. >> in 19 3. >> in 1993 by yeltsin. so it's now putin's position, who matches the position that
proupon november. >> what worries me is that sympathy, even with caveats toward the third russia is something that was inconceivable in russia until maybe three or five years ago, only people like alexander duggan, and other kremlin ideologists who articulating the idea of eurasian empire where in the 1980s, members of secret pro-nazi societies, secret orders that had ss background. so, are you concerned that the sympathy towards naziism is penetrating from the very margins of the russian political life, the russian march, where people were raising their arms in nazi absolute, to establishment figures like
mr. nikonev and mr. -- >> let me explain here. i really do believe, and i'm very much concerned, about the fascist threat in russia, and that would seem as a -- long period of time, and even without all those public speeches, just by talking to your constituents back in rural areas and remote areas of russia, you would see that this national dignitary which has been opposed during 20 years, plus economic -- associated with the west, and particularly with the actions of the united states in building democracy in russia and privatization campaign and whatever -- >> through prop banda -- propaganda or you think mistakes were made. >> mistakes that were made because the way how was carried
out -- privatization was actually programmed that is -- that those oligarchs exist and their position is highly more competitive than the position of real entrepreneurs, grassroots entrepreneurs-there's very well involved natural resources. that all went from the privatization and privatization was carried out with a political rational behind. that was admitted many times that mostly live in boston. >> but the political intention was, as they said at the time -- i was part of those debates -- was to break at the back of the communist establishment and move on to a whole new elite.
if you compare -- >> you know, russian proverb, with good intentions you go to hell. >> it's an american saying, very good. but. >> but coming back to the issue of fascism. if you look those guerrilla fighters active in the eastern ukraine -- >> pro russian. >> yes, which are seen as military arm of putin's administration, if you just come another their pains on the social network yo would you see the groups they're part of. russia without putin, russia 2.0, they all are opposition groups, and they -- >> nationalist -- >> they are nationalists but against putin. just that -- >> also had people from russian national unity -- >> he is against putin. duggan was always opposition to
putin. >> now he is not. >> now he is not but that's not because they have changed theirs positions. it's because putin has changed its position. it was putin started to match expectations of those -- that is -- they don't want putin at the top of the government. they want -- they want -- >> already getting up there. one last question before we open for discussion. you had a fascinating presentation. i'm sure there are lot of questions here and there's also cameras and people can send questions for -- through the internet. if there is a political change -- always a political change -- when there is a political change, a lot of people thing that in this town, some of them russian democratic
immigrants think it will just be a beautiful, liberal democracy in russia, and all the evil will be punished and they will be the charge. i'll tell you the name of the person i'm quoting after this. and they're saying, next year, next year, next year we're going to have a change. in your estimate, if-when there's a change, just may take longer than we think. but when there's change, is it violent? is it peaceful? is it college revolution like mr. putin is afraid, or something else? and what are the powers that are capable of not just overthrowing the regime children we saw the tragic results in the october 1917 -- what are the powers that can really build
russia that you wish, the russia that is open to the world, that attracts investment, that fosters innovation, and that has entrepreneurs and other people have freedom in such russia? >> i would start from the second part of your question. my russia is russia entrepreneurship. my russia is russia of personal initiative. my russia is a russia with a weak government and very strong grassroots self-governing institutions, with networks of communities, of my russia is the russia of intellect, open, and part of the global christian civilization and i do believe in, like global union, former christian nations of russia,
europe, and the united states. >> sound like tea party. >> you see in russia there is such a concept of -- it was initially referred as first rome is the rome, the second romees biz san teen, -- best san teen and the third is moscow. it should be as europe, u.s., and russia. but this is like a long store. you asked technology include how changes occur. the liberal idea is extremely unpopular because it is associated with -- and with the corruption and i don't expect that in any circumstances, when
the changes would occur, that the liberals, if it would be a fair process, would be able to come to power. but without the participation in the changes because the revolution happening in the capital and russian capital moscow is relatively pro liberal, so without their participation, the changes would not be possible because you cannot win moscow without participation of liberals. but if they are in charge, the rest of the regions would not fall. and we would see more violence scenario than in ukraine, most likely we'll see splits in the country and -- >> geographic splits. >> yes, many regions and way
more violent and disruptive than what is happened in ukraine. the coalition might work as the cools between liftists and liberals, and as the coalition between nationalists and liberals. so far, our liberals, despite the rhetoric that they are -- they are leaning more towards alliance with nations,. because they believe that nations don't have solid economic agenda and they do believe that in case of such coalition it would be somebody like novalny as the political power and then there would be a new liberal people like prokorov as the top of the government.
>> for the sake of the audience, economic liberal in russia, meaning -- >> new liberal jurick not socialist or social democrat u.s. style, left-wick of democratic party for example. that's not that kind of liberalism. >> no. in the u.s. terms it's more like neoconservative. and of course my position and what i'm trying to achieve -- and by the way the coalition between liberals and nations happens in ukraine and that's why you see what is going on there. >> absolutely. >> my position is to achieve the coalition it will let -- and the liberals. >> that isolates nationists. >> isolates nationists and that's what i'm trying to do as much as i can, and by the way, even kremlin thinks it would be safer for them if it simply would be a coalition with
nations. that's why they put to jail all my comradeses from the left front, and my fourth year aides as member of parliament, are under prosecution. and ten are either in jail already or up for political asylum in other countries. >> what about yourself? is there a personal threat to you? >> being an mpi i'm immune, but they're now trying revoke my status, and over such a law which is personally targeting myself, and day before yesterday as i was flying in the airplane, mr. muronov, the leader of my former party, was meeting mr. putin about his permanent personal sanction to put this
law into force. >> as i said in the grinning you're taking tremendous political risks. we respect them, re admire your principle stance on a number of these issues and at this point we have 11 minutes for q & a. maybe i'll extend it a little bit. when you are asking a question, please introduce yourself and keep it to a question and please keep it short so other people can ask questions. who would like to start? >> my name is kahan -- >> what for the mic. your affiliation. >> i am from interning the summer here in washington, dc, and my question is, as you know, we know that the west did some sanctions on russia but still recently russia signed a very big oil deal with china -- >> gas. >> -- gas deal with china and certain my many political
economists are saying this is the dollar -- the petro dollar in particular. do you think the sanction can still sustain itself given that it has a large natural gas and narl oil base and do you think that using this oil, having -- using this natural gas stockpile -- do you think -- can they challenge hegemony and sanctions. >> in the 1990s we have a thing in russia about the u.s. youch pretends you're helping us, we pretend we're doing reforms. so you pretend you're sanctioning us, we pretend we're afraid. not all sanctions. those are sanctions against very narrow circle of people, most of them don't care about them at
all. and with -- even taking their sanctions that has been taken, sanctions about certain personalities, it would be at least meaningful if they would be targeted not to the very people but to the middle layer of management to disrupt that loyalty, and they actually -- russian parliament even voted -- putin wanted to tie everybody, and the russian parliament voted asking for the sanctions to be imposed on the members of russian parliament but this never happened. and i actually think that the sanctions generally are not productive. what is productive is to enforce your own legislation against
money laundering because what is happening is that people are stealing from russian federal budget and then moving these capital into -- invest enemy in western economies, mainly in european, but in u.s. also. so, to enforce that part of legislation againstman laundering, against corruption, that would be very helpful and i was asking many times to put a special prosecutor in europe, special prosecutor in u.s., maybe not exceptionally against russia but generally post soviet states. corruption is an issue for all of them. for kazakhstan, ukraine, belarus, everybody. >> all emerging markets, not just russia or even europe. >> i agree but for a many emerging markets, doesn't
perceive them is a part of the world as in russia. and if you are genuine in trying to help us create a democracy in the country, none of these type of help would be appreciated because that's not a doing harm to russian people, from the west don't make west seem as our enemy, but vice versa, it is positioning the life of our prosecutors. search tor for the soldier money inch regards to -- in regard to -- it was very much advertised. i think that the price that was negotiated is a good price. and as much as the china buys, but the issue is that they're
buying gas from the eastern parts of the country which are infrastructurally disconnected from the western, siberian and central russia. so, that means that you cannot redistribute the production which goes now to europe and direct that to china. it's totally new gas fuels which are being developed in that part of the country, and that's good we're developing them with jobs, taxes, you know, customs, it's okay. the question is, what we are supposed to do with those while working for the western? and i think how we behaved in ukraine, it would result that it would be a political issue for europe to become independent from russian natural resources. during soviet union times, soviet union was an extremely reliable supplier of energy resources, and we never used that as a weapon, as a political tool. right now we are doing that every single year.
and the result is that we'll just lose the market, and that is very bad and that will result in many losses for russian economy. >> thank you. if you want to read more on that i have a blog in the "wall street journal" on this particular issue. you're welcome to google china pipeline russia china gas deal and look it up. i am at bit more pessimistic about it. the price may be a good price today, taking into account dollar inflation -- >> we don't know the conditions -- >> and the chinese paying for the infrastructure, so the price is -- >> also they're giving a long-term loan to build the pipeline. >> but it's complicated and i'm not sure that because the terrain is so rick i'm not sure it will be a good price actually. yes, please.
>> i work with representative sessions, and if i understood you correctly part of the problem with the stuck tour of the russian government is the strong personality in the place of the president being putin right now. i also believe that he has a lot of support from the russian people currently. so what needs to happen for the russian people to see that either the constitution needs to be changed so that the president doesn't have that much power, or someone weaker is put in his place? >> indeed, president putin has a lot of popular support, enjoys the highest approval rating during his whole 15 years in power, but the nature of the regime is very well described by karl marx in his book about the regime in france, 18th
18th premiere of louis bonapart and i highly encourage anybody who wants to understand russia to read that book. and the issue with the bon apart that was that half a year before the collapse and the revolution he enjoyed 70% of popular support and then started prussia campaign which was very unsuccessful for french, and then the revolution happened and he was forced to leave the country and go to -- >> your talking about the war of 1870 where france was destroyed. >> yes. and that exactly the same situation. that's why die believe that the issue of ukraine might turn out to be pro-should campaign for
president putin. >> next question. >> you mentioned the russian militants fighting in eastern ukraine, and some -- i knows' people in russia are suggesting that if or when they are ousted from ukraine, that the guerrilla war they're starring to instigate there will move into russia. >> i agree but wouldn't use the wordspread in russia. they would good directly to moscow. and i'm all the time writing in all my public articles and saying in public that we are criticizing ukraine for
nationalism, but number of nationalists in moscow even percentage-wise, is more than in kiev. i don't know ten times, 100 times. so, you know, it's not even two or three times. and then we will receive several thousands of well-armed, experienced, and dedicated fighters which are coming back from the eastern parts of ukraine and whatever the outcome would be, whether russia would have to enter that part of ukraine military -- i mean use military force there -- they would be encouraged and be seen at victors and will come to moscow and dictate what we think is needed to be done, or russia would not intervene and then they would see putin as a
traitor and come to moscow and start to dictate their position. and a lot of my friends from the new labral front of russian opposition don't really believe that is a big threat because for them, biggest enemy is mr. putin. so, i very much afraid that they would see this as a most capable force which can remove mr. putin , and we have a very great book in russia, wrote in 1960s by our -- a science fiction book, and they wrote that after a period of immediate counticracy always comes a period of fast fascism. >> it's hard to be a god.
okay,. >> okay, burning question. >> okay, forgive me if you already answered this question. >> introduce yourself. >> i'm justin reilly, an intern in washington, dc for the summer. i just like to ask, other than protecting russian citizens in ukraine and also abolishing fascist ideals in ukraine what other interests russia has in ukraine in restoring a legitimate government to the country. >> thank you very much for that question. mentioned that its for the minority of russian population we are protecting russians there. it was initial rhetoric. specifically for crimea, because crimea is predominantly russian,
second leg that was such a big deal to replace them. thirdly that even the application of force with the snipers and whatever was happening in kiev does not stop the rebellious people by removing corrupt from their offices. this of course has to be overshadowed by some very bright groups from the russian government. that is why think the invasion of crimea was a very short living decision. it was taken immediately after what happened.
it was not planned beforehand. it was pretty on the spot and with the eastern parts of ukraine i think putin is interested in instability in the ukraine because that would make ukrainian government either to resign and prove that he was right and more revolutions can be successful or it would force them to negotiate with the russian government which again would help putin to claim victory in that case. >> i would add one particular geopolitical case. one president putin met president george w. bush in bucharest he said two things. we will never agree that georgia or ukraine will be a member of nato and if you try to include ukraine in nato he said we will
dismember it. we will take the crimea so all this chatter about how was the big strategic surprise, there are no black swans. without. >> i just think even in the higher ranks of russian officials -- >> yes on the record. to the president of the united states so by instability in ukraine the chances of ukraine being accepted as a member of nato is zero right now and that is one of the outcomes. i would like to thank everybody including our viewers on c-span and our heritage viewers on the internet. you were an excellent audience that of course think our speaker and wish you all the best personally, personal safety and also it political sex to you.
thank you very much. >> thank you very much. president obama begins a four-day trip this week through europe with stops in poland and in brussels for the annual g7 summit. he will also travel to paris to meet with french president boat launch. >> after the obama administration announced new carbon emissions regulations monday, republican senator john barrasso was critical of those
changes. wyoming senator spoke on the senate floor for 10 minutes. >> mr. president. >> the senator from wyoming. >> mr. president today the obama's administration released its new plan intended to shut down american power plants. instead of celebrating his policies in the rose garden president obama delegated the bad news to the environmental protection agency. make no mistake about it what they are announcing today is another step in the president's plan to make electricity rates quote necessarily skyrocket unquote. you remember mr. president that's what the president promised americans when he was running for president the first time in 2008. of course when he was elected congress said no. even among the democrats controlled the house of representatives nancy pelosi was
speaker of the house and the democratdemocrat s had 60 members in the senate even when the complete democratic domination both houses of congress. congress still said no mr. president, this is a bad idea. so the president decided that he knew better than the american people. he decided to go around congress and go-round the american people. so i turned to the front page of today's wyoming tribune engel and the headline is obama lets epa do his dirty work. it says the sub headlined the president's charge to limit emissions has caused him so much criticism that he is no longer leading the pac. they go on to say on the front page of the wyoming tribune the eagle and the obama administration fails its much-anticipated proposal to curb powerplant emissions this cornerstone in the presence climate change policy the most
significant environmental regulation of his term will not be declared in the sunbathe rose garden news conference reagan from behind the luck turned in a major speech. they go on to say it will not be announced by the president at all. but instead by the head of the epa environmental protection agency while president obama adds his comments in an off-camera conference call. talk about something that's unpopular with the american people it's this. about a year ago the president put out rules limiting carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants ,-com,-com ma power plants were being constructed but today, today his environmental protection agency is applying tight limits on emissions of existing power plants. power plants that are already there.
consuming energy. the administration says it's going to allow states flexibility in how they meet the new limits. i believe any of the flexibility being offered is just an illusion. states will have a severely limited number of options for what they can do to meet standards. everyone of those options are going to raise the cost of energy for american families. that means consumers won't even get the illusion of flexibility. they will get higher energy costs. now businesses are going to have to find ways to pay for their own higher bills but it's not going to be families when they turn on the lights which they will get a higher electric bill. as the presence of electricity rates will necessary guy rocket that businesses will have to find ways to pay for their higher energy costs which will mean laying people off passing on the cost of others. that's why the u.s. chamber of commerce says an aggressive
policy toward the coal-fired power plants will lead to hire less disposable incomes for families. and thousands of jobs lost. families will have less disposable income, thousands of job losses. we just learned last week that our economy shrank to 1% last quarter. the united states economy shrank this is the first time in years the economy actually shrank by 1% in the last quarter. the first time it happened was 2011. our labor force participation rate is that the same level of was when jimmy carter was president of the united states. so now the obama's administration months to put more americans out of work. the action that they are taking today is the height of irresponsibility and really mr. president is tone deaf leadership. the obama administration is going to try to defend their
extreme regulations by saying once again that these changes will help save lives and keep families healthy. the fact is they are totally ignoring the undeniable fact that when americans lose their jobs their health and the health of their children suffers. there is an enormous public health threat from high unemployment specifically chronic high unemployment. it increases the light ahead of 's of -- hospital visits illness and premature death. her children's health and the well-being of families. it influences mental illness and suicide alcohol abuse spouse abuse. it's important risk factor in stroke and high blood pressure and heart disease. the major things that impact the family raise the cost of care. i saw it in my days in medical training and practice. the white house knows too. how does the white house know? "the new york times" ran an
article in november of 2011. november 17 to be exact. the headline of the article was policy and politics collide as obama enters campaign mode. policy and politics collide is obama enters campaign mode. the article says a meeting occurred in the white house between the american lung association and white house chief of staff william daley. in the meeting was about the environmental protection agency's proposed ozone regulations. in that white house meeting white house cheese of staff daily asked a simple question when confronted with the argument that additional clean air act regulations would improve public health. the daily asks what are the health impacts of unemployment? i have just gone over them with you mr. president. those are the health impacts of unemployment. so the white house knows about it. totally aware of it.
when the environmental protection agency announced these new rules today the president himself was reportedly talking off-camera conference call on the phone with the american lung association. someone in that room should be talking about the disastrous public health effects of the unemployment that these rules are causing. the fact is more regulation from washington is not what america needs right now. states already have flexibility in how they approach environmental stewardship and many of them have, with creative solutions. last month the senate and congressional western caucasus issued a report called washington gets along, states get it right. the report showed how regulations imposed by washington are undermined the by the work being done at the state level to manage your lands to manage our natural resources and protect our air and water. success stories, success stories
where the work done by states is more reasonable. it's more effect if and is less heavy-handed than the rules awarded to washington. america doesn't need flexibility while mandating huge price increases of energy. america wants washington to stop the overreaching regulations and mandates and actually allow the states to get it right. thousands of americans have already lost her their job because of washington's expensive and excessive regulations. now the president is putting more jobs on the chopping block. that is why i've written legislation that was president obama's massive increase in the nation's electric bill. i offered this is an amendment last fall to democrats in the senate who blocked it. i plan to offer to get in to keep making the point that the president should not have the
power of the authority to impose these burdens on the american economy and american families. my amendment locks the issuance of new carbon standards on existing power plants and would actually require the approval of congress. imagine that, the approval of congress elected representatives of the people requiring the apartment of congress for regulations that increase america's energy bills like these new rules proposed by the obama administration for today. congress should act on an affordable energy plan. these kinds of decisions could be for congress to make not for the president to make on his own. whether the president is a democrat or a republican. mr. president we all know america's energy used to be as clean as it can as fast as a campaign is critically important we do this without hurting our economy is struggling economy
and economy where people continue to sacrifice and do this in ways that don't cost hundreds of thousands of middle-class families their jobs. we should look to the states and come up with ways to balance our energy needs the health of our economy and our environment. president obama is taking the wrong approach. these new regulations are going to hurt our economy. an economy that is shrinking. it's astonishing our economy is shrinking and it's because of the presence of utter failed policies. the policies introduced today will hurt middle-class families who are struggling to find work or to keep the jobs they have now. they will harm the health of many americans. the president needs to change course and if he won't do it on his own congress must do it for him. so today once again mr. president we see the
headline obama lets the epa do his dirty work. the president's charge to limit emissions has caused him so much criticism that he is no longer leading the pac. the president today is hype. this is something that president was proud of he should've been at the white house at the rose garden in front of the cameras making an announcement not asking his seat dea administrator to make it so he could be on a conference call because he was ashamed to show his face to the american people because of the impact these regulations are going to have on families all across america. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor.
the supreme court ruled that prosecutors could not use an international chemical weapons treaty to convict a woman who attacked her husband's mistress. in a unanimous decision justices threw out the conviction of carol and go bonda pennsylvania. she was prosecuted in their 1999 law. she served a six year prison term after being convicted of using toxic chemicals that caused the thumb burned on a woman who became involved in a relationsrelations hip with her husband. the court heard the case in november of last year. >> we with your arguments first this morning in case 12-point 158 bond v. u.s..
mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice may it please the court. if the statute at issue here really does reach every malicious use of chemicals anywhere in the nation as the government insist that clearly exceeds congress's limited enumerated powers. this courts cases have made clear that it's a bedrock of our federalist system that congress lacks the general police power to criminalize conduct without regard to a jurisdictional element or some nexus to distinctive federal concern. the president's negotiation and the senate ratification of the treaty with the coordination does not change that bedrock visible of our constitutional system. >> mr. clemente said the treaty is valid. and implementing legislation seems to largely copy the words of the treaty without adding anything. so it's a puzzle that the treaty
could be constitutional but the implementing legislation that adds nothing is unconstitunconstit utional. >> justice ginsburg i guess i would quarrel with your premise which is its true the statute use similar terminology but there's one important difference between the convention and the statute and that actually differentiates this case from a missouri v. holland. >> the convention tells the state parties go regulate individual conduct in exactly the way that this convention regulates state parties and then put the legislation does is this justice ginsburg said just mirrored the convention as the convention contemplated. >> justice kagan what the convention says, this is
article vii, section 133a, what is says is that each nationstanationsta te the signs the convention agrees in accordance with its constitutional processes to pass being all laws that make unlawful for individuals conduct that would violate the convention by nation-state that i would respectfurespectfu lly suggest making that translation if you will between what violates the convention if you are a nation-state and comparable individual conduct is not obvious. when the government does that through penal legislation there is no reason why being a legislation shouldn't have to comply as we promised. >> mr. clement why not? meaning there can be no doubt that chemical weapons -- weaponry is at the forefront of our policy efforts right now. look at this serious situation alone. it would be deeply ironic that
we have expended so much energy criticizing syria when if this court were now to declare that are joining or creating legislation to implement the treaty was unconstitutional. putting aside the impact that we could have on foreign relations. why is it, if it's okay to regulate the possession of marijuana for purely local crimt unconstitutional to regulate the use of something that can kill or maim another human being a chemical that can kill or maim another human being? i don't understand where the disconnect is in terms of our federal or state system. >> justice sotomayor i think it gets down to the difference between raache on one hand and lopez on the other. this court is held at six ways
to prohibit items from commerce. >> there's no dispute that these chemicals were transported against along interstate lines. >> that's not even disputed in this case. >> i don't think it was disputed and lopez that the firearm would have had to cross a state lines with the problem is lopez the federal statute was not structured in a way that had jurisdictional nexus that made the statute only applicable as of regulated. >> we didn't take it this case to dig decide the commerce clause. as we took the case the issue was whether the treaty supported the loss. >> that's why justice scalia we do think the government like a private party wave the constitutional argument. on the other hand i would say we are not particularly concerned about the commerce clause argument weeklies we think it has the basic defect.
you think mr. clement and this goes back to justice ginsburg question that this treaty have itself regulated individual conduct? could the treaty have them self-executing? >> i think that's an interesting question and i don't think the court needs to answer. i would take the position that if there really were self-executing treaty that try to impose criminal prohibitions and i don't think there's any treaty like that but if there were one i would say here it violates the constitution for the same basic reasons that this implementing legislation does. >> where would you find that in the constitution because there is clearly a treaty power that does not have subject matter limitations and indeed if you go back to the founding history it's clear that they thought about all kinds of subject matter limitations in james madison and others decided quite consciously not to impose them. food where would you find that
constitution? >> would find that limitation in the structural provisions of the constitution and the enumerated powers of congress and i would say --. >> the enumerated powers the treaty power so you have to find a constraint on the treaty power. where does it come from? >> well where it would come from again as the structural provisions of the constitution. if we had a self-executing treaty that reported at a national level to commandeer state and local police officers there would be an amendment objection -- objection. there might be an objection to that treaty. >> don't you think the word treaty has some meaning? is certainly true that going back to the beginning of the country there have been many treaties that have been implemented in ways that affect matters that otherwise would be within the province of the states. one of the original purposes of the objectives of the
constitution was to deal with the treaty power was to deal with the issue of debts owed to british creditors and there have been cases about the property rights of foreign subjects, but that treatment of foreign subjects here at about things that are moving across international borders and extraditiextraditi on in all of those but in all of those until fairly recently certainly intel after world war ii all of those concerned matters that are of legitimate concern of a foreign state. that was the purpose of the treaty so can't we see something in the meaning of the treaty when it was understood to mean when the constitution was adopted? >> i think that's right justice alito and i didn't mean in answering justice kagan's question to fully except the premise that there's no limit on the treaty power whatsoever but i do think it's important to recognize in the context of nonself-executing treaties are said opportunities to leave for
another day whether the treaty itself is valid because sometimes the treaty is nonself-executing precisely because the senate recognizes it >> if you had been the president's counsel would you have advised him that it was unconstitutional to sign this treaty lacks. >> no, absolutely not justice kennedy because it's a valid nonexecuting treaty by its terms. it doesn't do anything to directly regulate individual conduct. if i were the president's counsel i would have said honestly mr. press and i don't think this requires us to have any law that applies to garden-variety assault with chemicals but if we need that to discharge trudy obligations of states are ready and able to shoulder that task. there's no state in the country that doesn't have a general assault statute that would be covered by this conduct. >> there's irony in what you just said because the victim many times went to the state and said please help me and they
turn her away a dozen times. finally they said go to the post office. this doesn't seem to be -- you're arguing that this trenches on the state's domain and yet in this very case it wasn't until the state referred her to the post office that she got any action. >> justice ginsburg one way to understand that is the state of pennsylvania exercises prosecutorial discretion not to pursue this matter. i don't think the government says that exercise put us in violation of our treaty obligations. our treaty obligation at most is to have a law that prohibits misconduct which the state strictly do. the treaty obligation is not to make sure that every single bullish as yusuf chemicals is prosecuted by state or local officials. >> mr. clement your test is to
say with respect to every prosecution under this treaty that a court has to ask whether the prosecution has a sufficient nexus to national or international concerns. is that your test? >> no that is not my test justice kagan. the one thing i think i know from this court's precedence is the federal government doesn't have police powers so as i look at the statute you can either be saved by essentially creating a jurisdictional element out of the phrase peaceful for the statute has this general character that at least as applied to the chemical sphere which are dual-use chemicals that can't be constitutionally applied. >> i guess i'm still looking at the test and i thought that test i articulated was directly out of your briefs that if you are suggesting that is not the test give me the test that we are supposed to ask with respect to this case or any other as to
whether the prosecution is unconstitutional. >> is whether the federal statute exercises general police power. >> that sounds like a facia challenge. i thought you talk about an applied challenge to this particulaparticula r prosecution. >> that's because he only relief i'm seeking is to have my clients they kate. this is the classic challenge. the reason the court may employ in vindicating my challenge may suggest the statute is unconstitutional in some or all of his friend applications. >> you are saying if the statute extends to things that we have generally thought of as part of the police power that sufficient? >> i would say the federal statute exercises police power by which i mean it criminalizes conduct without regard to jurisdictional element or distinctly federal concern.
that was the case in lopez and i was the case in morrison and i think unless you accept -- >> nexus to a national concern is what i understood you to say in your reef but let me give you a hypothetical and you can tell me. let's say it's the same convention but it relates only to sarin gas and there is a chemist out there and the implementing legislation mayors convention. the chemist out there who manufactures sarin gas and i take it it's pretty easy to manufacture and sense of through the ducts of the house and kills everybody in it. is that have a nexus to national concerns? >> it does your honor and it would be valid legislation precisely because sarin is something that clearly congress could prohibit in all its uses. i understand how the statute applies to sarin gas or schedule one. there are schedule one substance
is in the treaty. those things are unlawful. what is unusual about the statute's application to something like that test him die chromate or vinegar or whatever you have is that in most of its possession and uses its perfectly lawful. what makes it a chemical weapon in the government's theory is wanted to use purely interstate in a malicious way. >> in my hypothetical and you didn't run away from it all and i applaud that. in my hypothetical it's a completely domestic use. a chemist you sarin gas and you are saying the difference as well with the treaty makers did was to find a category of chemicals more broadly. i guess what i want to know is judges day-to-day tried to get inside the head of treaty makers
to think about in this case we understand that there is a national interest in regulating sarin gas. we don't think there's a sufficient national interest in regulating some other chemical or some other chemical somewhere down the line. it seems to me an indeterminate test someone that would have judges take place of treaty makers in terms of deciding what is in the national and international interest. >> justice kagan i would take to differ. i think that our approach to this case avoids judges being put in that position because we distinguish between the validity of the convention and the implementing legislation. we simply asked the courts to do what they do in every other context which is to check and see if that implementing legislation is consistent with their basic chartering document. as the government's position which i don't understand why this would work but their theory is if the nonself-executing treaty is valid than me treaty
is no ballot. it puts an obligation on any arresting official to provide notifications about an arrested foreign national. i suppose it would be a rational way to implement that convention to have a national police force of every arresting officer is a federal officer who is surprised of any responsibility. it would be a rational way to implement the treaty but it wouldn't be remotely consistent with our constitution. on the other hand that same ballot nonself executing treaty would be valid by charting the state department to work with the police officers on the state and local level to understand their obligations. >> do you think it would be difficult for the judge to ask is there any possibility that there is any other country in the world that has the slightest interest in how the united states or any of its
subdivisions deals with the particular situation that's involved in this case? >> justice alito that would be one way of approaching the question. >> that would be beyond the ability of federal judges when a case like this comes before them? >> i don't think it would be beyond the ability of the federal judge to say okay lets hypothetically asked the question in the absence of the self -- nonself-executing treaty. the answer to that is no and i think the burden shifts to figure out why it is that the treaty had something to the powers of the federal government. just to make it clear i think this is a different context from what the court had in missouri v. holland because the treaty prohibited individual action. an individual violated the treaty when they took a migratory bird out of season so the enforcement statute did nothing under the criminal penalty violating conduct prohibited to the individual.
>> is there one way to characterize your argument or is it to unfairly confined to your argument to say what you are suggesting is something like a clear statement rule that if the treaty intends nation-states to have their own constitutional structure superceded at a minimum at has to say something and then we will come to the question. >> i think that would be a fair characterization of the argument of only to add that this would be the anti-clear statement case because the one place it talks about imposing obligations on individuals is a promise by the nation-state to pass legislation that is in accordance with their constitutional systems. so it's very bizarre that article vii, section 1, 33a it's bizarre when the only way we are reaching individual conduct is the united states promised to pass legislation that comports with their constitutional
process to say to the convention allows us to pass legislation that doesn't comport with their constitutional process. >> i don't understand how you distinguish sarin gas. why is sarin gas different? >> because sarin gas is more equivalent to something that the congress would try to deal with like the way it dealt with marijuana. it's a reflection of the idea that when you are talking about things where the federal government is trying to prohibit it then there's a greater federal power to do that and i think with sarin gas you can imagine putting aside the commerce power in the treaty power it may be that the sarin gas is under the war powers. congress could say that's inherently a chemical weapon that we are going to prohibit people from having. that's very different from the situations where if you think about it the only thing that makes these chemicals chemical weapons instead of chemicals is
their internal interstate use in english is way. that's different i think from a hypothetical statute that says there are three schedules in the statute 43 chemicals that are problematic. if the federal government wants to regulate those in prohibit the unauthorized possession of those i don't see why they couldn't do that with or without the treaty. but what is so anomalous here is the idea that these chemicals everything wrapped toys in vinegar whatever it is these things are perfectly lawful and we don't think of them as chemical weapons. unless and until they are used in a malicious way and all of a sudden they become ossified his chemical weapons. it's a very odd statute but it does operate in a way that is inconsistent with the bedrock principle that the congress doesn't have the kind of police power. >> is the chemical used tier 1 of the chemicals that is listed in the annex to the treaty? >> i don't believe so. it's certainly not one that's
listed. there are 43 chemicals and neither of these are on there. i do think there is an important difference because it's a nod what to think about it but this is a statute that is trying to regulate chemical weapons. with respect to something like weaponize chemicals or sarin gas it makes sense to say those are chemical weapons but with respect to otherwise harmless chemicals the only thing under the governments government's theory that turns them from chemical weapons isn't a noun. save bird. it's the malicious use and that puts you in an odd situation. think of congress could come in and say look there are certain chemicals that by their very nature are inherently weaponized i think congress would have a lot more authority to concede. >> we permit that in all sorts of definitional sections of the criminal code. to call a dangerous weapon anything that you use to inflict
serious injury on someone. i don't think of a car is necessarily a dangerous weapon. it is something i used to transport myself. it's only when i'm using it for a prohibited purpose that turns itself into a dangerous weapon. so i'm having a problem with this noun/verb distinction. why is it the intentional burning and killing of another human being using chemicals the essence of what this treaty is trying to stop? i thought that's what it was trying to do. you want to add on the warlike purposes but the treaty permits exceptions for any peaceful purpose. >> justice sotomayor a couple of points. generally you might be right that the criminal laws takes objects that are otherwise innocent and say they can be used in a malicious way and criminalizes it that most of that work is done by state and local criminal law at the
federal level you need something else. you need a jurisdictional element something that has a distinct federal concern. as to the concerns. >> the treaty power. >> when there is this much of a disconnect between what the treaty power does and the statute does which is the treaty again does not direct the regulate at all individual -- is regulated at nation-state condit. with all due respect i don't think nation-states poison romantic rivals attempt to commit suicide or try to get rodents out of their houses so when individuals do those things is hard to draw an analogy between what's forbidden to a nation-state in the individual action. any work that is done in the statute by drawing that analogy is done by the statute and not by the convention. >> so if a terrorist, the tears takes these chemicals and puts
him on every doorknob in boston that wouldn't be regulated by this? they are the exact same chemicals. >> we would understate that that's covered. we would also point out in the record that the same conduct would obviously be covered directly by federal statutes that target terrorism directly. no matter how you decide that case whether you accept our narrowing construction that can be covered by two federal statutes. if you don't accept it then the conduct will be covered. i think when you're trying to think about what the convention is after it's not really after ms. bond's contract. there is thin and deployment of chemical weapons and i sure hope united states steps up to its treaty application prosecutes the horrible deployment of chemical weapons. nobody would say that because no
one speaking normal english would identify this as an employment of chemical weapons. >> mr. clement it's chu that the treaty was after enforcement of individuals. the treaty said go enforce this as to individuals and do it consistent with your constitutional process and then congress passes a law consistent with this constitutional processes and a completely mirrors the treaty. >> two things justice kagan neither of which will surprise you. one is i don't think this is consistent. >> i'm still trying to figure out why. holmes dealt with this in missouri v. holland. it's an enumerated power. there's a necessary and proper clause that functions to allow congress to give effect to the treaty power. this is a situation where there is a prohibition on the states in terms of entering into treaties and in terms of sharing
that power in any way. it's just these invisible radiations that you think come from the structure of the constitution and you specifically rejected the argument that you are making the emanations of the constitution. >> justice kagan i think you have to read missouri v. holland in the context that the treaty that the court had in the argument it had before it. missouri made a strange argument in missouri v. holland one that no modern litigant would make. they went out of their way to identify a conflict in the federal treaty and state law. holmes scratched his head and said no the treaty under article vi is devoted to state law not the other way round. it also said this one sentence which said if the treaty is valid of course the legislation is valid. that makes sense in the context of the treaty he had before him because he had a treaty that
prohibited individual conduct and a statute that enforce individualize prohibition with criminal penalties on that case i suppose it was right that the treaty in the implementing legislation stood together. that's not the case here and case here and if i could reserve my time. >> thank you counsel. general verrilli. >> mr. chief justice and may please the court. to ensure that it could knit the nation together as one and allow it to be fully sovereign in the context of affairs. commissioners ad hoc camp he squared with the judgment the framers made this court precedent or historical practice since the time of the founding and it would compromise foreign affairs and national security interests of the first order. >> general let's suppose there's a multilateral treaty. the international convention to
ensure that national legislatures have full authority to carry out their obligations i.e. the national legislature has police power. congress passes a statute saying we have the authority to prosecute local crimes pursuant to this international convention that the president signed. any problem with that? >> there may well be. let the walk. the analysis you have to go through. first i would make the point mr. chief justice that seems unimaginable that a convention of that kind would be ratified by two-thirds of the senate. >> it seems unimaginable that you would bring this rossi keeshan forward. [laughter] >> just oppressive for the point is it's a transfer of authority from the states to the national legislature. i don't know why you looked at the national legislature. >> the framers thought that two-thirds ratification
requirement was an important structural guarantee to protect the interests of the states at a time when the senate was elected by the state. >> yes mr. chief justice but there's no doubt the framers thought that would be an important protection but beyond that this court has said that there is an increase and has never held that a ratified treaty exceeds the federal government's constitutional authority. never held that a provision implementing a ratified treaty exceeds authority. >> if that unimaginable -- unimaginable thing would happen it would be okay? >> the court has said there is an inquiry as to whether it is a proper subject of the treaty and betting craig could take into account whether it is imposing a fundamental change in the character of the government but that's not a question the court needs to answer here because this treaty, the petitioner
concedes is a valid exercise of treaty power and the legislation implementing this treaty is coextensive with the obligations. >> i don't know why it would not be of valid exercise. the case cause serious conflict with their international obligations because the federal government does not have the authority to tell the sheriff in texas what to do. that caused the great deal of strain in our international relations. i think the united nations could well say we don't want treaty power to deal with someone in the province so every signatory must have the authority. that is in strike me as not reasonably related to international obligations. >> but here mr. chief justice this is a valid exercise of the treaty power and there's no daylight between the implementing legislation and the obligations. and therefore that may be a
question that the court would have to answer different case but this case doesn't present. >> the purpose of my hypothetical was to find out if there's any situation which you believe and erosion or intrusion on the police power could be constrained against the international treaty. >> there may be an out-of-town but this case is nowhere close to it and it can't be it to local exception to the treaty power. >> it seems to me you say there may be an outer bound but this case is that one of them. you are subjecting yourself to the same criticisms that have been leveled against the other side that you are proposing a case-by-case evaluations with the case to each treaty. >> your honor the question here is whether this legislation that little he implements a valid treaty. the treaty is conceivably valid in the legislation is conceivably valid on its face. >> i would like to explore your
proposition that there is no daylight between the treaty itself in the implementing legislation. it seems to me there is a lot of daylight -- and i choose this not because it's controversial but it relates to an area where the federal government has never been thought to have authority namely family law. there are no federal marriage, federal divorce, federal adoption. it's all state law. let's assume an international treaty is approved by two-thirds of the senate and the president which requires states to approve same-sex marriage. now if that were self-executing treaty, same-sex marriage would have to be approved by every state. if it is not self-executing however it will be up to
congress to produce that result and congress would do it or couldn't do it at least by having a federal marriage law. then you would have to have the federal divorce law. i suppose the federal adoption law. i think there's a big difference between just doing it through a self-executing treaty and dragging the congress into areas where it has never been before. i think there is daylight between the treaty and requiring the treaty to be implemented in the fashion that you assert is necessary. >> i would like to make a structural point. the structural point is if it is the case as your honor's hypothetical seems to concede and as i believe the petitioner concedes two-thirds of the
senate to ratify it can impose a ratification of that kind and has to be the case that a nonself-executing treaty that has the same approval of the president of the same two-thirds ratification and the additional structural passage of legislation by the senate in the house and being signed into law can do with the self-executing treaty can do. has to be the case. >> i don't think it has to be the case. there is a great difference between requiring the states by a self-executing treaty to permit same-sex marriage and dragging the federal government or allowing the federal government to enter into this whole field of marriage divorce adoption family law for the federal government has never been. >> with respect to this treaty i don't think with all due respect there is any daylight here with respect to this treaty.
section 229.8 does precisely what the treaty obligates the united states government to do and i think the notion of the treaty obligation can be satisfied by relying on the states to enforce their assault laws which i think is my friend's argument here is directly contrary to the history of the framing. >> that's the part that i can't get get my mind to these dramatic questions whether the local police power or some other case some inherent state party make a treaty beyond the power of the federal government to enter into. it's a very big question. i'm not there yet. the reason i am not there is because there are some words in this treaty called other peaceful purpose and we have to interpret those words in the same words are in the statute. my question to you is what reason is there to think that those matters on this day fall
within that response? 's it's infinitelinfinitel y long. a few things on it. in peasley a great case on attempted murder where he talks about paying a small boy to move a barrel of kerosene with a candle in it lit so that will burn down a barn after a few hours. the kerosene is a chemical. he talks about a case where a person led to a racetrack and gave a course they poisoned potato. he talks about the case involving somebody else trying to light a match which is a chemical and setting fire to a haystack. we can all think sadly of athletes. lance armstrong accused of unlawfully taking drugs. i mean why do we think matters of list a fall within those
words outside the words other peaceful purpose even though they are unlawful and by the way did anyone say to the drafters of the convention i found nothing in this brief on the point or did anyone tell congress that poison potatoes drug enhancing performance-enhancing drugs, page examples of justice alito used last time to get vinegar to a goldfish i mean these are all chemicals not in the act -- an ex-. they're absolutely nothing to do with chemical weapons and why do we think we have to get eon that fact? >> that's a very important point here that gets to the heart of what the national interest is in this case with respect to this implementing legislation. the harm adheres in the process of line drawing. the petitioners asking as a rule under constitutional law statutory construction is that
courts on a case-by-case basis after-the-fact that ad hoc judgments. >> there's an easy way out of that. the chemicals involved in the annex but you are not prepared to say that are you? now we are outside of the annex and once we get outside the annex we have to draw lines or we have to say this encompasses the poisoned potato, the poisoned goldfish, the small boy with the candle the performanperforman ce enhancing drugs. i would say judges are here to draw lines and between during those things into it or drying lines is better to draw a few lines. >> we can talk about hypotheticals but the key point about them is that they are hypothetical. >> these are real cases by the way. >> the vinegar in the gold fish is not a real case. >> they are not real cases because you have not prosecuted them yet.
[laughter] if you told ordinary people that you were going to prosecute ms. bond for using a chemical weapon they would be flabbergasted. it's so far outside of the ordinary meaning of the word. >> the statute has an enormous breadth. anything that can cause death or injury to a person or an animal. would it shock you if i told you that a few days ago my wife and i just jb did toxic chemicals to a great number of children? [laughter] >> your honor. >> on halloween we give them chocolate ours. chop it is poison to dog so it's a talks it chemical. there's chocolate all over the place. >> with all the due respect this
a serious business. the line that the petitioner is asking. >> i would like your answer. my question was a question to get your answer in the answer that i wanted you to address yourself to is the problem of one want to depart from the annexes in defining the chemicals you throw into it a list of thousand miles long and we can tell joke after joke but it's not a joke. it's so easy to make up examples that seem to have nothing to do with the problem of chemical weapons like the syrian problem. >> i understand that your honor. >> so what is your odds -- answer? >> if you permit me to answer the question this way. the line that the petitioners asking the courts to draw is whether the particular use is warlike or constitutes a peaceful purpose under this
convention and implementing statute. >> one of the very things we are trying to sort out right now in syria under the chemical weapons convention is where the line is between peaceful uses and warlike uses in this phrase peaceful usage is not only in the chemical weapons convention it's an the nonproliferation unit and we are engaged in sensitive negotiations right now under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty trying to draw exactly the same line and it would be unfortunate i would submit that the course were to announce in the conduct of this case has petitioners ask the definition of what warlike constitutes that would have an unfortunate airing -- >> can you tell us what the line is? >> the framers of the convention and congress and implementing the convention made a judgment
that there needs to be a comprehensive than and that you can't be drawing these kinds of lines. >> general can i ask why that is i mean because this convention and the implementing legislation is very broad and its broad because it applies to a very large category of weapons and it applies to a large category of uses of conduct. so what were they thinking about about why they wanted these broad categories? why it's not more limited with respect either to the chemicals or to the conduct? >> with respect to the chemicals they made the judgment because you can't predict in advance how chemicals are going to be used and how toxic they will be in combinations of how dangerous they will be so therefore you need a comprehensive definition. >> if you are telling me i'm attempted to draw the line. that is just for is going to do and if you were saying it's against the national security interest which is the first time i've heard that that is the national interest against the
national interest of the united states. for me to attempt to draw such a line that i guess the state department had better file of reef explaining why or why you want to push this case. is that what you're telling me that if i read the opinion that i think they lar requires me to write that i incurred the national security? >> i think there's a real risk in getting involved defining a line between warlike and peaceful purposes. >> and the convention when the convention is purposefully drafted broadly and there are additional risks in terms of the very act of bringing this process of line drawing to bear. case-by-case ad hoc judgments about what constitutes the violation doesn't it is going to undermine the ability of our negotiators and to make treaties in the future. >> but you did not give a line to the chief justices questioned where there was a treaty that
intruded on the federal structure. the treaty where the president is required to set aside any state law that in his view contravenes the national interest. you have given us no principle the other way. >> what i think justice kennedy would suffice in this case for the court to conclude that the two local limits the petitioner has abdicated here as supplied case-by-case two local limit is not one that is inconsistent with the constitutional structure because if you go back to the framers it is clear from the framing that the framers intended to give the national government the power. >> is that the precept and that a treaty kidnapping consistent with the constitutional structure?
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on