tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN September 3, 2013 6:00am-7:01am EDT
leave the window open. that is your problem. he can do that. and he can go up to the front door, too, like any other person, unless you put up a sign saying you do not want them. few people think about putting up that sign. by and large you can go up to the front door if you are policeman like anybody else -- and that is not unreasonable because you have all kinds of people going up to the front door all the time. now, suppose the policeman comes up to the front door with a dog. everyone likes dogs. what is wrong with that? that happens all the time. this dog is trained to sniff marijuana inside the house. does he have to have a warrant or not? people come up with dogs all the time. but not marijuana-sniffing dogs. what are you going to do in an apartment house, by the way? so what are you going to do when the person is your next door neighbor. i found it a difficult case.
i ended up deciding for the dog. >> justice marshall, you have often written about someone who appeared in the first case, a man named clark walker. tell us why he is so significant. >> the oldest constitution in the world is still being the massachusetts constitution to --it starts with all men are born free and equal. it has changed to all people. massachusetts in 1780 had slavery. it is not always the south.
sometimes it is the north as well. five justices had been appointed by the king. they come before the court with a brilliant lawyer, saying, excuse me, it appears all men are created equal. the case involved a slave and his owner bringing him back. they said slavery was unconstitutional, and massachusetts had not had slavery until 1783. there were only two cases i knew about. one was a wonderful case.
the clerk walker case. when governor wells nominated me to the court, it was such an ancredible so incredible. privilege of honor. when you become a judge, my experience is all judges find it very hard to look and see. we know the chief justice was a slave owner. this is pretty close. >> we like judges. >> my husband liked sleeping with the judge.[laughter]
>> we will move onto something else now. [laughter] nelson mandela has been on everyone's mind around the globe, and you obviously knew him well. is there an episode you could share with us? >> i just want to mention nelson mandela was president. there was a case against the african national congress with a brand-new constitutional court
in south africa, and the court ruled against the african national congress, and it was a stunning defeat, and he went out the next day and said, today is a victory for all south africans. it shows even if you are a powerful political party, the rule of law will prevail. for me to be a political leader, that is the fact, and another slightly more personal one, someone told me this anecdote.
it is one thing to talk about i loveline and generosity. that affect out about him. >> on the 10th anniversary a few years ago i had the chance to go there. mr. mbeke was president. i talked to aous. few of the judges. they are nervous because they are making decisions he does not like. a don't know what he is going to do. in the banquet walks mr. mandela. the room lights up. he told that story. he told your first story, and you could just hear an audible sigh of relief from the judges and lawyers.
>> i will say the president sometimesery order. dragging his feet a little. and the new president has obeyed every order. not too many new democracies to this. when people say to me what is happening in south africa, i know mandela made a huge inference.-- a huge difference. i love that anecdote. >> i am going to open up to the this term ended with blockbusters. one case the media seemed to dismiss was the affirmative action case. i do not inc. you view it as insignificant. explain how you view it. >> one view is the 14th
amendment, which says equal protection means the constitution is colorblind. there are a lot of good arguments for that area.you cannot discriminate in favor or against an case of race. the other is that it was put there for people who would be be asleep not either. they had been slaves. they were free. there is a big difference between trying to be inclusive and bring people into society than a law which is exclusive. which was called segregation. those two views in the law are at war. different judges hold a friend views two different degrees. severalrt is divided.
years ago, -- justice powell first the judge wrote an opinion that was simply a concurring opinion, but people have taken it as the law of the united states. they say, don't take this seriously. you can have affirmative action, but be very careful.it's positive and inclusive but be careful. don't do it too much or go too far. his view was picked up in a case called gruder where i was in the majority. ruth ginsburg was dissenting. she thought it should go further. the court held you can take justice powell's view. you can use affirmative action,
but to not go too far. in the end it may not be it may not be necessary in 25 years. it said, the very careful. now the same thing comes out of texas . what will the court do? will they say no affirmative action? i can tell you what the court would there be a change? seven members of the court said gruner was the law. what did i say? i said, that is right. seven members of the court said that.
justice ginsburg did the same position as before, and there we are. i think it's an important case, and sometimes an important case is simply reaffirming. >> you said you do not like what ain the minority. surprise. you don't like dissenting as much as you do. i wonder if there are times where you actually think it might be better, even though you feel passionately about an issue, to join them to be able to influence the way it is written? >> nobody likes to make an unprincipled decision, and i would think about the following.
the constitution is not according to me or any other individual judge. an interpretation is not by an individual judge. we wear black robes to symbolize the anonymity of the law. it is made up of individuals who are serious and hard-working and have different views of what the law is, and every member of the court knows that. you try your best to produce an opinion that will affect the -- that will reflect the views of the course. you cannot sign up for something you think is equally wrong.-- is deeply wrong. in many cases the judges would
agree with this? other people think it is right. what changes need to be made? it's like a negotiation butit is not like the senate very good it is not a political body. it does not work that way. soon you have to face the question of how do you get the majority opinion, and what is it going to say? they might spend two months writing one of the greatest and they will. swallow it in order to get their weight enough to get them to join. that is a common experience, and if you are not prepared to do that -- you will see.
>> will have microphones for you if you can wait for a microphone. >> thank you.mr. justiceour political system has ,many problems, but many people agree that money is hurting our political system. how does the supreme court justify individuals contributing? >> i will tell you how they justify it, but i do not want to i was in dissent in that case. the constitution says congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech. money is not speech, but you try running a political campaign without money. if you tried without money you would have the income been
forever law, so the first amendment does have something to learnedut this. handprobably the greatest judge ,this nation has ever had said, don't get into the position of trying to say this person to speak less so that arson can speak more, because once you-- so that person can speak morestart down that road, you won't know. there's no stopping place, yet that's what campaign laws do. they say this person speaks less with his money paid to support a point of view he believes in so others who have less money will be able to have their voice heard more. do see what they are saying? that is not such a bad argument soyou say, why do i take the other side?
to say that, you say, they did not know what the world was we have to beike. able to draw the line somewhere. we have to let congress draw the line somewhere, so he cannot shut the door on the people who have only five dollars to give, but that requires ringing judgment into the case to decide whether the legislature is actually trying to keep the playing field balanced more evenly or whether they are trying to write the incumbent protection act, so to be consistent, to say no one can contribute over a certain amount, i thought that went too far, but the judge will see the type of decisions i am asked
judges to make in order to further the point of view you stated in your question. not so easy a question. >> let me ask you about state court and its effect. you were an appointed judge, but many state judges are elected. how pernicious is it in state -- is the effect of money in state courts? >> there was a case brought ion elect to judge who said, under the first amendment i should he able to say whatever i want to say. if you vote for me i will never vote in favor of the death penalty, or i will never uphold an abortion law.
the way states dealt with that was by codes of judicial conduct. what the court said, you cannot say these kinds of things.if you are running for election as a judge. the united states essentially said the first amendment says the united states shall make no law, and i think that had a devastating consequence.in state courts --there were 48 million cases . the united states has agreed-- a greatsystem of justice, but it can be in jeopardy. i think what is happening with --e supreme court sucking down
closing down judicial rules of conduct.puts is an identical position. >> i agree with that. i have to be consistent. dissented in that case and the supreme court. i have to take the point of view the states have the power to regulate what these judges will say through codes and conduct, but now the problem is we have to make these distinctions. it is a huge problem, just as campaign finance is a huge problem. there are two points of view. >> we have a question. it is hard for us to see. if we can get a microphone ferried over there.
>>i am curious. i would love to get your perspex -- perspective on the role of state law versus individual rights of immigrants. >> it depends on the rights and so forth. the 14th amendment says no person shall be deprived of -- life, liberty, or property but it does not say no citizen. the fact it says person is important. it says they protect people who are not citizens. that does not mean you can make any distinctions. itere are some protections.
says person. >> states can decide to give immigrants and non-citizens we get lots of. those kinds of cases. it's an area that is heavily regulated. >> over here. >> thank you for your tremendous service to our country. [applause] great lives because of what you do. it wasn't that long ago elliott would be referred to you as the man who writes supreme court
dissentsand things have changed. >> i was in the majority a lot this year which i prefer. >>i wonder if you can talk about what it like being on each side. >> the personal relationship is we all know we will not agree about everything. i've never heard of voice raised in anger. they don't say. mean things. it's professional. you state your point of view. we are notpretty well. necessarily drinking buddies but who might play bridge togetheri would rather be the majority.-- i would rather be in
the majority. winning is better between winning and losing. the dissent performs an important function. the first thing it does is improve the majority. sometimes it switches, but nobody likes to look like idiots. if somebody in the dissent makes a good point and you say, i am andng to change my opinion. they do change. you never see the best points. they have written out the majority so there is no need to make that decision anymore.it's a pretty good system. what you are seeing is a failed dissent. what you are seeing is those who did not change people's minds enough. nobody's going to say it does not make that big of a
difference.in no way it's easier to write a dissent. you hope it would make a difference to the law. maybe people will learn for it in the future and maybe the issue will come back. you've written it, etc. it is a very helpful process having time to think about what you are going to say and revising it again and again. nine is harder to work with than seven.it's true in every court. >> i think one of the problems is the constraints. if the justices on the supreme court of a state, and i run against him to defeat him, not
just to criticize the decision, but to say he is a skunk and a liar, and he is in the pay of it makesness and labor. relationships harder when you are on the court. i am seeing a fracturing of it doessupreme courts. not have to do with elected judges. we have happened since the middle of the 19th century and that worked well. when you begin to change the rules and there are fights that are very public, very nasty individuals, and you just don't be careful.
there's nobody to correct you and you wonder if you do it right. after five or six years you stop wondering. maybe you'll do all right. you're doing your best. he said, you're on duty all the david souter said that. it's different people.it's a different court over time. they bring different attitudes to the table . i bet there are more decisions now then there were. over time you get to know the area. there's nobody to corrects. sandra o'connor used to set your first five or six years, it is like putting footprints in the sand.
you don't want to simply go the opposite direction. you try to follow where you started. there would be no control if you are not consistent. you're going to be not too different.you are learning and developing. you have guidelines. you will not too different than from the beginning. there are probably more 5-4 decisions now. they are doing their job, and i am not going to go beyond that. >> you talk about the danger of and the importance of people accepting the court and its judgment.
when so many of those decisions people who -- 5 were republicans and four who is notmocrats -- >> it as often as you think. groupingnusual andthe unusual threatens to become the usual. my own view, it's not so surprising as you think. the justices and i often disagree. i don't think it's because justice scalia worked for republicans. i think it's because he takes the view that laws should be made up of rules people cannot
sustain. he's uncomfortable when you can't come up with a clear rule. i'm much more comfortable with a i think life is complicated and filled with differences, don't go too far, too fast and you will find situations you never thought of and be careful of saying something in black letters that will live for too long because there is too much that comes along that hits you in the face. it does not bother me so much to not have an absolutely clear rule. i think you can teach by example. a lot of our differences will be if you get into an area like affirmative action, it is hardly surprising thatonce people start a
particular road and think it is the right track, they continued down that road. my father gave me two pieces of advice. one was to stay on the paved road .-- on the payroll which i have managed to do. the second is to do your job. people will see they are serious and trying to earn respect, even if it is 5-4. >> thank you. >> good. i'm not going to jump down. >> i can say hello to you. i> there are a lot of people.
will see you tonight. i want to, and i probably would. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> in a few moments, a preview [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the senate foreign relations committee this afternoon and will consider the use of force in syria and that will include secretary of state john kerry and secretary of defense chuck of the joint head chiefs of staff at 2:30 p.m. eastern. one of those senators is senator john mccain and he and lindsay graham met with president obama at the white house yesterday to talk about syria syria and afterwards they spoke with reporters for about half an hour.
>> good afternoon. senator graham and i just had a very good and productive discussion with the president on the issue of syria and the use of chemical weapons, we emphasized to the president that has now it's been over a year since the president said it would be a game changer if chemical weapons were used. it has been two years since the president said assad must leave. we will emphasize the importance we place to actions that would degrade assad's capabilities, upgrade the opposition, and to
change the momentum on the ground in order that the free syrian army can prevail over time. that does not mean we support boots on the ground. now it is an unfair fight with the thousands of hezbollah fighters who have weapons coming in from russia and iran, and iran basically being a sponsor of bashar al-assad. so we had a productive conversation. both senator graham and i are in agreement, that now that a resolution is going to be before the congress of the united states, we want to work to make that resolution something that a majority of members of both houses can support. a rejection of that, a vote against that resolution by congress, i think would be catastrophic because it would
undermine the credibility of the united states of america and the president of united states. none of us want that. but we do want an articulation of goals that over time will degrade assad's capabilities, increase and upgrade the capabilities of the free syrian army and the free syrian government, so they can reverse the trend. assad has received an abundance of support from his sponsors, russia and iran. finally, this is a regional conflict. this is not a conflict that is confined to just syria. lebanon is destabilized. jordan is badly destabilized. iraq has turned into an aiding
place for al qaeda and islamic terrorists. we have to understand that not only is there a threat, that this conflict spreading, but the iranian issue is one and their pursuit of nuclear weapons that will be directly affected by our actions in syria. i want to -- again, we appreciate the president meeting with us. we had a candid exchange of views. and i think we have found some areas that we can work together. but we have a long way to go. >> the way i would turn the conversation is there is a consensus being formed that we need to degrade assad's capabilities and upgrade the opposition. the first thing i suggested to the president is get the opposition a chance to meet directly to the american people.
-- speak directly to the american people. john and i and the president all believe that -- are not al qaeda sympathizers. they are not trying to replace assad, whose whole family has been brutal for generations, to have al qaeda run syria. that makes no sense. it is time for the syrian opposition to step forward. i want a statement from the opposition that if we get in charge of syria, with your help, we will run out chemical weapons.-- we will renounce chemical weapons. in the new syriathere will be no chemical ,weapons because we will turn them over to the international community.as to the limited military strikewe would like to see a ,more sustained military effort, but understand where the president is at on that issue, but it is my hope even a limited military strike will degrade his capabilities. there seems to be emerging from this administration a solid plan to upgrade the opposition. it is the time to be more overt.
a lot of the gulf arab states have been helping quietly. when it comes to financing, the people in the region need to bear the lion's share. what can i say to people in south carolina? i cannot say a lot about iraq and afghanistan, because i do not want to. i can tell the people of south carolina if we do not get syria right, it will weigh strongly on the president's shoulders. with the chemical weapons being used in syria, what effect would that have on iran in terms of their nuclear program? most south carolinians get that point. i hope we will know more about degrading and upgrading, and when the vote comes we can go to the floor and say the
administration has a plan apart from a limited action that will allow us to get to where we need to get to as a nation, which is to turn around from nuclear weapons. >> if we were to strike soon, the opposition is in any kind of position to take advantage of that? >> they could take advantage of it, but the question is how much? the fact is we have not given the arms and equipment to the resistance, which has been shameful, while huge amounts of arms have flown in from russia and iran, and now thousands of hezbollah on the ground from lebanon. if we have a plan to give them the arms they need, which i believe is part of an upgrade that we could orchestrate and this government could do, it would matter.
we need to do it frankly -- it is shameful that we have not. we should have done it two years ago. >> with a limited strike that you might have -- is that a fair assessment? >> it is a fair assessment to say we still have a significant concerns, but we believe there is in formulation a strategy to upgrade the capabilities of the free syrian army and to degrade the capabilities of assad. before this meeting, we had not had that indication. now it is a question whether that will be put into a concrete strategy that we can sell to our colleagues. >> senator mccain, we have heard republicans and democrats coming out of briefings skeptical about this. how hard is the president going to have to work to get this resolution passed? >> i think he is going to have to work very hard.
americans are very skeptical. americans have to be assured that the plan will not entail weerican boots on the ground. are in agreement with that. we have a selling job to do but at the same timei believe if we can ,formulate this strategy that i just articulated, degrading assad's capability, upgrading resistance, and in the long term i think that we have a chance of succeeding in the vote. >> do you think congressmen will reject this? >> if the congress were to reject a resolution like this after the president of the united states has already committed to action, the consequences would be catastrophic in that the credibility of this country with friends and allies alike would be shredded, and there would be
implications not only for this presidency, but for future presidencies as well. >> the president has no one to blame except himself about the lack of public understanding about what has taken place in syria. two years ago there was an opportunity to get assad out, a year from now there will be tens of thousands of refugees. two years ago, there were no refugees in the jordanian time is not on our side. we urge the president to up his game and inform the american people what does it mean that assad wins and the opposition loses? what does it mean that assad, with backing of iran and russians, wins after we said assad has to go? the russians and the iranians are all in. i see an effort by this
administration to counter. if we do not get syria right, good luck in the hitting the iranians to change their behavior. we let it be known that we do not want to end this war. war is a terrible thing. we do not -- sustainable security. and syria is a cancer that is growing. for two years the president has allowed us to become quite frankly -- and when it comes to selling the american people, what we should do in syria, given the indifference and contradictions, it has to be a tough sell, but is not too late. mr. president. be decisive, be firm about why it matters to us as a nation to get syria right. i will go to south carolina and listen to the people to give them what happens if we do
nothing and what happens if we get syria right. >> a weak response is almost as bad as doing nothing. >> senator mccain, is what you heard from the president's vision for you and senator graham to go out and try to gain support for the president's plan? >> i think it is encouraging, but we have to have concrete plans great we have to have concrete details. and we have to be a short at-- assured thatthis is a dramatic difference from the last two years of a policy of neglect which has led to the deaths of a hundred thousand people, a million children being refugees, and a spreading of this conflict through the region. >> are you satisfied that this timeline is of no consequence? >> i am not satisfied. everyone knows that assad is
moving his assets into civilian populations. it is much harder now than it would have and if we had acted initially. >> is this a heartening aspect of the president in terms of penetrating blows that can be struck? >> those are some of the details that frankly they have not shared with us and probably should not, but we have been given some reason to believe that very serious strikes may take based as opposed to cosmetic. i say that may, because we need to see a lot of the details. >> for the first time i have an understanding that what happens the first day after the smoke clears. israel does not announce their attacks ahead of time for a you read about it when it
is over because that's the best way to affect the outcome militarily. this is bizarre to give the enemy weeks to reconfigure their force, but we are where we are, and a degrading strike, limited in scope, to degrade the chemical weapons delivery system, could have a beneficial effect of the battlefield momentum. there will never be a political settlement in syria as long as assad is winning. i told the president, how do you expect anybody -- as long as assad is winning? and if you believed syria will not accept him, then he has to go. >> the president needs to do a better job selling this. what do you mean, what does he need to do specifically? >> articulate a strategy and a plan, which so far has not been there. this meant was they were going to have some strikes, and specifically categorizing that is not intended to effect regime change. i disagree with that, and i
believe if we can degrade and as i mentioned and upgrade, then i think we have a chance. but we need to see that plan, we need to see that strategy articulated. we have to make it clear that a vote against this would be catastrophic in its consequences, not only as far as this issue is concerned, but in the future. >> the president talks about regime change too often. is this a situation where that is not as important as in other issues? >> it is a tough sell. whenever you commit american forces, even in limited military involvement, and there is a credibility gap because of the last two years where nothing has happened while people have been massacred by the thousands, as much as more than 100,000. there's a credibility gap with some of us who believe we could have ended this war two years
ago, when now there is possibly a change in strategy that could bring successful conclusion to this conflict. >> did he say how he was going to articulate -- >> we can't talk -- would it bernible] catastrophic? >> i think many of my colleagues in congress have yet to be convinced either way. they need to have the hearings that we will have starting tomorrow in the foreign relations committee, and they need to be briefed, and they need to understand, and i am sure they do, the seriousness of this issue. >> from my point of view, the republican point of view, there is a libertarian wing that respects -- fortress america will not work. but having said that, it is not a history that most members are
reluctant to engage when it comes to syria because they do not know what is going to happen. they do not have any idea how this military strike, limited in focus and nature, will change things. what are they going to tell people back home? we shoot missiles, and then what? for the first time i see the development of a strategy that will upgrade the opposition as well as degrade assad, that i think if it becomes a reality we will know in the next couple days that i can believe in my heart will work, and to my colleagues, if you think the outcome in syria does not matter to the united states, then you must really believe the king of jordan is a somebody else in the mideast. if you cannot see the connection between syria and iran, you are blind at a time when history needs us to have good eyesight. the connection between syria and iran is clear, and to disconnect these two would be a huge policy
national security mistake, and i hope the president above all else will make that connection. >> [indiscernible] what senator graham said about the opposition? >> we will use military means to upgrade the opposition. >> the president said it would be a catastrophe -- does that not really mean -- >> a weak response is something that would give us a serious that would be also catastrophic. >> do you think he really would go forward with an attack of congress rejects -- >> it would be harder if congress has rejected it. he had ample precedent in previous republican and democratic presidents in acting without the approval of congress.
>> what do you think this about- face is about? >> i think he found with the british voting the way they did and obviously without the united nations approval, as long as the russians and the chinese are there, that perhaps that a resolution of congress would give him some more sustainability. and by the way, again, these attacks have to be sustainable. sustainable to degrade assad's capability and upgrade the free syrian army's capability to bring this conflict to an end. he will only leave when the tide of battle turns against him. >> how long is sustainable? >> it is harder and harder now with this delay. he is moving his forces around and making it more difficult to target them, despite what the
chairman of the joint chiefs might say. anyone who knows the military in actions, like lindsey said, the israelis and others do not telegraph their intention days, even weeks ahead of time. if the goal is to have a military strike to degrade the capability of the assad regime to develop chemical weapons in the future, that means delivery systems have to be affected. it means the ability to deliver has to be affected. if that is done in a way to keep down chemical weapons delivery systems, that will have a substantial effect the grading the capability of the assad regime. you are to upgrading the capability of the opposition, cohesion, and giving reasonable force behind the opposition. these three things would work, but if the goal is to put it in my lap, i welcome a discussion about what we should do. i have been telling you for two
years what i think. i welcome the discussion with the president and congress. to those who say in the congress syria not our business, then you really honest to god do not understand the world in which we live in. if you do not understand that the american people are not going to follow an uncertain -- now is the time for you to reshape public and world opinion. take advantage of it. tell the president, what does it matter to us as a nation if assad wins? i believe the president is capable of doing that, and is ready to do it, and if he is ready to do that, i am ready to go to my colleagues and say now is the time for us to come together before it is too late. >> are you confident that supporting the opposition would not also support links to al qaeda? >> i am 100% confident that we will know who the free syrian army is, you know what they need, they have a preponderant force fighting against assad,
and some of these al qaeda groups are spending their time trying to impose sharia law. there is a definite geographic division between them. we know who they are. if they have a safe area, we would know exactly how to get those weapons to them. saudis have provided weapons. they have gotten to the right people and those who say that we don't know who the opposition are are either not telling the truth and they know the truth or they are badly mistaken. >> are you reworking republican policy? >> we are going to have hearings in the foreign relation committee.starting tomorrow. >> you personally? >> i am already talking to a lot of my colleagues, but before i can't persuade them to support this, i have to be persuaded. i am saying that the president i think made sense in a lot of things he had to say, but we are
a long way from achieving what i think would be a most effective strategy, and finally for those who say we do not care about syria, it does not matter to us, czechoslovakia did not matter in the 1930's, and china did not matter when atrocities took place in those countries, we paid a horrible price for not paying attention to what happened in those countries, and we paid a heavy price in world war ii. we have to pay attention to this region, and we have to bring assad down. >> isn't what is being contemplated about as risk free as it gets, by the way? isn't that a key selling point? >> absolutely, and the key selling point is no american boots on the ground. they are tired and weary of that, and we have to tell them, no american boots on the ground. you have to show them a way forward, and that so far has not
been articulated to congress or the people. >> [indiscernible] you needed to degrade command and control -- you still believe that? >> i believe it. >> destroying the chemical weapons delivery system -- >> they are one and the same. the delivery systems are the same. they are the scud missiles, that deliver conventional weapons as well as chemical weapons. the grading these capabilities for chemical weapons would degrade his capability. to grant an advantage that assad has is air. he uses it to move his logistics around. air moves his supplies and supplies from iran and russia. he uses it to launch attacks against the free syrian army, which is the deciding factor on the battlefield.
you take out his air, he is at a distinct disadvantage. ok, thanks. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the brookings and stood tuition is hosting a discussion this afternoon on how a free trade negotiation may affect turkey. you can see that live on c-span two beginning at 3 p.m. eastern. -- 2:30 p.m. eastern. in a few moments, today's headlines and your calls and tweets live on " washington journal." then a discussion on developing
global strike weapons. senate aren'tthe relations committee will consider president obama's request for congressional authorization to use military force in syria. members will hear from secretary of state john kerry, defense secretary chuck hagel, and the chair of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. in about 45 minutes, the latest from syria with steve clemons, the washington editor at large for " the atlantic." then we will talk about how this is affecting oil prices. we will also be joined by nathaniel thomas m hill the producer of " the american movie" that looks at the decline of america's manufacturing. " washington journal" is next.
♪ morning. president obama will begin today at the white house for a meeting with key members of congress as he tries to sell his plan for military action in syria. he will conclude the day by departing washington for russia in the start of the g20 summit. on capitol hill this afternoon, the first of what will be a series of congressional hearings will be taking place at the senate foreign relations debates the syrian question. we will have live coverage of that getting underway at 2:30 eastern time live on c-span.