WEBVTT - Constitutional Experts Pen Open Letter to Donald Trump (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:02.559
<v Speaker 1>At noon today, more than forty of the nation's top

0:00:02.600 --> 0:00:06.520
<v Speaker 1>constitutional law scholars released an open letter to present elect

0:00:06.559 --> 0:00:10.400
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump. It outlines seven areas where Trump's statements and

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.880
<v Speaker 1>actions have caused them great concerned about his commitment to

0:00:13.920 --> 0:00:17.439
<v Speaker 1>our constitutional system, from the First Amendment to the rights

0:00:17.480 --> 0:00:20.880
<v Speaker 1>of religious minorities. The letter also calls on Trump to

0:00:20.960 --> 0:00:24.880
<v Speaker 1>withdraw the nominations of Senator Jeff Sessions as U s

0:00:24.880 --> 0:00:29.760
<v Speaker 1>Attorney General and Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor joining

0:00:29.800 --> 0:00:32.559
<v Speaker 1>us as. Neil Siegal, Professor of Law and political Science

0:00:32.640 --> 0:00:37.520
<v Speaker 1>at Duke Law School, one of the writers of this letter, Neil,

0:00:38.040 --> 0:00:40.600
<v Speaker 1>Trump does not seem to be taking advice, and you

0:00:40.720 --> 0:00:43.640
<v Speaker 1>express doubt in the last paragraph of your letter that

0:00:43.720 --> 0:00:47.680
<v Speaker 1>he will take his constitutional oath seriously. So what do

0:00:47.720 --> 0:00:53.080
<v Speaker 1>you hope to accomplish with this letter? Well, me, the

0:00:53.159 --> 0:00:57.160
<v Speaker 1>first hope, which you've already spoken to, is that the

0:00:57.200 --> 0:01:01.520
<v Speaker 1>President elector those around him as close as advisors, will

0:01:01.520 --> 0:01:03.800
<v Speaker 1>take a close look at the letter and seriously and

0:01:03.840 --> 0:01:07.720
<v Speaker 1>soberly consider it. Um. But I think that's not the

0:01:07.760 --> 0:01:10.920
<v Speaker 1>only reason to have done it, and a more UH

0:01:11.360 --> 0:01:14.360
<v Speaker 1>think another important reason and a more likely consequence, is

0:01:14.400 --> 0:01:20.240
<v Speaker 1>to um model uh An important form of resistance. I

0:01:20.280 --> 0:01:22.520
<v Speaker 1>think a lot of people are struggling with how to

0:01:22.640 --> 0:01:28.920
<v Speaker 1>respond to truly extraordinary and disturbing conduct by the president elect.

0:01:29.480 --> 0:01:32.679
<v Speaker 1>Should one, UM, see what happens and hope for the

0:01:32.720 --> 0:01:37.360
<v Speaker 1>best and extend an olive branch. Should one resist more formally?

0:01:37.360 --> 0:01:39.920
<v Speaker 1>And I think this more fortunately, I think this is

0:01:40.000 --> 0:01:45.080
<v Speaker 1>modeling a very strong form of resistance, that that we

0:01:45.160 --> 0:01:51.400
<v Speaker 1>hope various institutions in society that have developed slowly over

0:01:51.520 --> 0:01:55.760
<v Speaker 1>time to push back against power when it's being exercised

0:01:55.800 --> 0:02:00.639
<v Speaker 1>unlawfully or or profoundly unwisely. I'm talking about the media,

0:02:00.720 --> 0:02:02.800
<v Speaker 1>for example. It's going to be important for the media

0:02:02.880 --> 0:02:07.080
<v Speaker 1>not to the normalize or legitimate attacks on the constitutional system.

0:02:07.120 --> 0:02:11.240
<v Speaker 1>To understand the difference between neutrality and objectivity. I'm talking

0:02:11.280 --> 0:02:17.280
<v Speaker 1>about educational institutions, religious institutions. Legal institutions are courts UH,

0:02:17.919 --> 0:02:22.400
<v Speaker 1>which UH makes make good on our nation's commitment to

0:02:23.080 --> 0:02:26.960
<v Speaker 1>the rule of law and which requires judicial independence. UM.

0:02:27.000 --> 0:02:30.760
<v Speaker 1>And so I think that go ahead, Well, have you

0:02:30.919 --> 0:02:33.600
<v Speaker 1>what if you've seen anything since Donald Trump has been

0:02:33.600 --> 0:02:36.200
<v Speaker 1>elected that gives you hope about how he might treat

0:02:36.240 --> 0:02:38.639
<v Speaker 1>the constitution or the rule of law. UM, At least

0:02:38.680 --> 0:02:42.680
<v Speaker 1>some parts of your letter, including you mentioned Jeff Sessions

0:02:42.680 --> 0:02:45.440
<v Speaker 1>his choice for attorney in general, uh, sort of suggests

0:02:45.440 --> 0:02:47.880
<v Speaker 1>that you see him as doubling down on the types

0:02:47.919 --> 0:02:52.520
<v Speaker 1>of the kind of conduct that you're worried about. Yeah,

0:02:51.600 --> 0:02:55.120
<v Speaker 1>I hope is not the kind I mean. I wouldn't

0:02:55.160 --> 0:02:58.880
<v Speaker 1>say I see conduct that gives me hope, given um

0:02:59.000 --> 0:03:02.160
<v Speaker 1>when he's talked, when when he's still I think, undermining

0:03:02.560 --> 0:03:06.680
<v Speaker 1>a free a free press, and um sending tweets talking

0:03:06.720 --> 0:03:10.440
<v Speaker 1>about stripping people of citizenship or putting them in jail

0:03:10.480 --> 0:03:14.160
<v Speaker 1>for burning the American flag. UM. So I'm not really

0:03:14.200 --> 0:03:16.720
<v Speaker 1>seeing much in the way of hope. I think he

0:03:16.800 --> 0:03:21.160
<v Speaker 1>has um backed off of a few of his most

0:03:21.200 --> 0:03:25.320
<v Speaker 1>disturbing statements or what appeared to be promises during the campaign,

0:03:25.360 --> 0:03:29.919
<v Speaker 1>like putting his political opponent in jail if he was elected.

0:03:30.080 --> 0:03:34.440
<v Speaker 1>He had really robustly embraced torture, which raises both constitutional

0:03:34.480 --> 0:03:37.480
<v Speaker 1>problems and problems under international law. And then he had

0:03:37.640 --> 0:03:40.240
<v Speaker 1>what appears to be a single conversation with General Maddis

0:03:40.240 --> 0:03:43.080
<v Speaker 1>and he said, maybe maybe it's not as effective or

0:03:43.080 --> 0:03:47.480
<v Speaker 1>as wise as I had thought. So I I wouldn't

0:03:47.480 --> 0:03:49.640
<v Speaker 1>call it hopeful. I did see a few ways in

0:03:49.680 --> 0:03:52.680
<v Speaker 1>which he's backed off some of his most uh or

0:03:52.840 --> 0:03:56.000
<v Speaker 1>more extreme statements. But then you know, we see a disinterest.

0:03:56.640 --> 0:04:00.320
<v Speaker 1>There are there. The letter illustrates concerns but doesn't exhaust right,

0:04:00.400 --> 0:04:03.640
<v Speaker 1>So there's disinterested intelligence briefings and what he may do

0:04:03.680 --> 0:04:07.600
<v Speaker 1>in the name of national security raises concerns. The multitude

0:04:07.600 --> 0:04:11.160
<v Speaker 1>of financial conflicts of interest, which some of which raise

0:04:11.240 --> 0:04:15.520
<v Speaker 1>constitutional concerns, but all of which raise serious concerns about

0:04:15.520 --> 0:04:19.200
<v Speaker 1>whether he's going to be able to uh simply do

0:04:19.320 --> 0:04:21.160
<v Speaker 1>what he thinks his best of the country as opposed

0:04:21.160 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 1>to best for his business deal. Let's talk about one

0:04:23.920 --> 0:04:27.800
<v Speaker 1>of the concerns you raise, and he ran on overturning

0:04:28.160 --> 0:04:31.599
<v Speaker 1>Row v. Wade and his list of Supreme Court nominees

0:04:31.680 --> 0:04:37.240
<v Speaker 1>reflects that you asked him to reconsider that in light

0:04:37.320 --> 0:04:40.640
<v Speaker 1>of the likelihood that he will not reconsider that, Is

0:04:40.680 --> 0:04:45.400
<v Speaker 1>there anything that anyone can do about that? Well? I

0:04:45.440 --> 0:04:50.520
<v Speaker 1>think it's uh. I think what what those who uh,

0:04:50.640 --> 0:04:53.839
<v Speaker 1>those who who disagree with with his with the stated

0:04:53.880 --> 0:04:56.440
<v Speaker 1>promise which I agree he's gonna he's going to try

0:04:56.440 --> 0:04:58.720
<v Speaker 1>and make good on, I think they could hold him

0:04:58.720 --> 0:05:04.960
<v Speaker 1>to count to at least be completely aware of candid

0:05:05.000 --> 0:05:07.039
<v Speaker 1>about to level with the American people about what the

0:05:07.080 --> 0:05:10.280
<v Speaker 1>consequences are. So the letter doesn't simply say you want

0:05:10.279 --> 0:05:13.400
<v Speaker 1>to over row, don't do it. When he was asked

0:05:13.440 --> 0:05:15.600
<v Speaker 1>what the consequences for women would be, he said they

0:05:15.600 --> 0:05:17.680
<v Speaker 1>would simply have to go to another state. It would

0:05:17.680 --> 0:05:20.359
<v Speaker 1>be sent back to the states. And you know that

0:05:20.360 --> 0:05:23.279
<v Speaker 1>that shows a disturbing lack of awareness of or an

0:05:23.279 --> 0:05:26.000
<v Speaker 1>insensitivity to the reality that for many women in our country,

0:05:26.080 --> 0:05:29.960
<v Speaker 1>that's simply not possible. It's not possible economically in terms

0:05:29.960 --> 0:05:32.520
<v Speaker 1>of their family and work situation. And I think it

0:05:32.640 --> 0:05:35.800
<v Speaker 1>also ignores the fact that there have been many efforts,

0:05:35.800 --> 0:05:37.640
<v Speaker 1>not just at the state level, but at the federal

0:05:37.720 --> 0:05:41.520
<v Speaker 1>level to roll back protections of women's reproductive rights. And

0:05:41.600 --> 0:05:45.120
<v Speaker 1>unless he means to be suggesting that he's going to

0:05:45.240 --> 0:05:47.880
<v Speaker 1>veto any federal law that would restrict divorce, and it's

0:05:47.920 --> 0:05:51.800
<v Speaker 1>it's not just insensitive, it's also um disingenuous to say

0:05:51.800 --> 0:05:54.000
<v Speaker 1>that the issue will be handled at the state level.

0:05:54.080 --> 0:05:56.839
<v Speaker 1>So I don't think it's simply about will your nominees

0:05:56.880 --> 0:05:59.480
<v Speaker 1>vote to overull row? It's are you going to be

0:06:00.000 --> 0:06:02.919
<v Speaker 1>fully aware of the consequences and in candid with the

0:06:02.920 --> 0:06:06.640
<v Speaker 1>American people about um um, where and how this issue

0:06:06.680 --> 0:06:09.400
<v Speaker 1>will be resolved if, if, if the Supreme Court is

0:06:09.400 --> 0:06:10.680
<v Speaker 1>no longer going to be in the business of a

0:06:10.800 --> 0:06:13.600
<v Speaker 1>tempting women's right. You know, I look at your list

0:06:13.600 --> 0:06:16.000
<v Speaker 1>of signatories to this letter, and I don't don't know

0:06:16.040 --> 0:06:18.400
<v Speaker 1>all of them, but the ones I do know I

0:06:18.440 --> 0:06:21.000
<v Speaker 1>tend to think of as being relatively liberal. Was there

0:06:21.040 --> 0:06:25.840
<v Speaker 1>an effort to bring on more conservative legal scholars to

0:06:25.839 --> 0:06:30.039
<v Speaker 1>to join this effort, you know, there was not. I

0:06:30.080 --> 0:06:32.159
<v Speaker 1>think that the sense of of the group is that

0:06:32.200 --> 0:06:35.359
<v Speaker 1>we wanted to do something as a group initially, we

0:06:35.480 --> 0:06:41.520
<v Speaker 1>certainly would would very much appreciate the support of legal conservatives.

0:06:41.520 --> 0:06:44.800
<v Speaker 1>There were a group of legal conservatives, originalists who are

0:06:44.800 --> 0:06:48.159
<v Speaker 1>committed to the original understanding of the Constitution, who wrote

0:06:48.160 --> 0:06:51.000
<v Speaker 1>a letter with some similar themes, although not all the same,

0:06:52.200 --> 0:06:55.560
<v Speaker 1>opposing Trump during the election because they saw him as

0:06:55.560 --> 0:06:58.240
<v Speaker 1>a threat to the constitutional system. And the letter does

0:06:58.320 --> 0:07:02.039
<v Speaker 1>call upon legal conservatives who are committed to basic constitutional

0:07:02.080 --> 0:07:06.400
<v Speaker 1>values too to join us in speaking out. But the

0:07:06.400 --> 0:07:10.240
<v Speaker 1>the instinct of the group was to say something for ourselves,

0:07:11.000 --> 0:07:12.400
<v Speaker 1>which is not going to be the last we have

0:07:12.480 --> 0:07:14.320
<v Speaker 1>to say about it, at least as an initial matter.

0:07:14.400 --> 0:07:18.200
<v Speaker 1>Before we think about working with others of more diverse

0:07:18.520 --> 0:07:23.240
<v Speaker 1>ideological commitments, who many of whom share at least like

0:07:23.400 --> 0:07:25.880
<v Speaker 1>some A is not all of our concerns, Neil, about

0:07:25.880 --> 0:07:30.160
<v Speaker 1>a minute left here, So you have seven different areas.

0:07:30.920 --> 0:07:36.600
<v Speaker 1>Is there one that is of particular concern? Well, there

0:07:36.600 --> 0:07:39.360
<v Speaker 1>are seven areas listed in the letter. There are a

0:07:39.440 --> 0:07:41.760
<v Speaker 1>number of others which I've mentioned so far, and we

0:07:41.760 --> 0:07:45.160
<v Speaker 1>could also talk about his response to the CIA report,

0:07:46.760 --> 0:07:49.440
<v Speaker 1>the CIA finding that Russia interfered in the election, and

0:07:49.800 --> 0:07:53.720
<v Speaker 1>his attack on the CIA without any kind of evidence

0:07:53.880 --> 0:07:57.360
<v Speaker 1>or analysis. Um So again, I think these examples in

0:07:57.400 --> 0:08:01.200
<v Speaker 1>the letter are are illustrations, but stuff is happening in

0:08:01.200 --> 0:08:03.960
<v Speaker 1>real pinea just add to the concerns. You know, if

0:08:03.960 --> 0:08:07.520
<v Speaker 1>I had I would, I would prefer not to pick one. Um,

0:08:07.600 --> 0:08:09.480
<v Speaker 1>but if I you know, if I had to, I

0:08:09.520 --> 0:08:12.640
<v Speaker 1>think we we listed free speech and a free press

0:08:12.680 --> 0:08:16.080
<v Speaker 1>first for a reason because if we if the media

0:08:16.880 --> 0:08:20.960
<v Speaker 1>is not able to fully and fairly discharge its responsibilities

0:08:20.960 --> 0:08:24.000
<v Speaker 1>out of fear that the administration is going to desiret

0:08:24.040 --> 0:08:26.280
<v Speaker 1>access to the White House and not informative where the

0:08:26.320 --> 0:08:31.040
<v Speaker 1>president is. Um. I think that's that's absolutely fundamental, that

0:08:31.040 --> 0:08:36.240
<v Speaker 1>that that this our next president UM, like his predecessors

0:08:36.240 --> 0:08:40.400
<v Speaker 1>in both political parties, UM ensure that the press is

0:08:40.440 --> 0:08:42.680
<v Speaker 1>able to to do its job to report No Pine

0:08:42.800 --> 0:08:47.280
<v Speaker 1>candidly on his activities without fear of reprisals. We will

0:08:47.280 --> 0:08:49.000
<v Speaker 1>have to leave it at that. If you want to

0:08:49.000 --> 0:08:51.000
<v Speaker 1>read the full letter, you can go to the American

0:08:51.080 --> 0:08:55.640
<v Speaker 1>Constitutional Society website. Thank you Neil Single, professor of law

0:08:55.679 --> 0:08:58.679
<v Speaker 1>and political science at Duke Law School, for joining us

0:08:58.720 --> 0:09:02.480
<v Speaker 1>here on Bloomberg Law. Coming up on Bloomberg Law. In

0:09:02.559 --> 0:09:06.640
<v Speaker 1>an unusual opinion, the Sixth Circuit says that finding marijuana

0:09:06.679 --> 0:09:11.640
<v Speaker 1>residue and packaging in trash doesn't justify searching a home

0:09:11.760 --> 0:09:15.320
<v Speaker 1>for drugs. I'm June Grosso with Greg Story. You're listening

0:09:15.320 --> 0:09:18.000
<v Speaker 1>to Bloomberg Law. This is Bloomberg