Speaker 1: At noon today, more than forty of the nation's top
Speaker 1: constitutional law scholars released an open letter to present elect
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. It outlines seven areas where Trump's statements and
Speaker 1: actions have caused them great concerned about his commitment to
Speaker 1: our constitutional system, from the First Amendment to the rights
Speaker 1: of religious minorities. The letter also calls on Trump to
Speaker 1: withdraw the nominations of Senator Jeff Sessions as U s
Speaker 1: Attorney General and Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor joining
Speaker 1: us as. Neil Siegal, Professor of Law and political Science
Speaker 1: at Duke Law School, one of the writers of this letter, Neil,
Speaker 1: Trump does not seem to be taking advice, and you
Speaker 1: express doubt in the last paragraph of your letter that
Speaker 1: he will take his constitutional oath seriously. So what do
Speaker 1: you hope to accomplish with this letter? Well, me, the
Speaker 1: first hope, which you've already spoken to, is that the
Speaker 1: President elector those around him as close as advisors, will
Speaker 1: take a close look at the letter and seriously and
Speaker 1: soberly consider it. Um. But I think that's not the
Speaker 1: only reason to have done it, and a more UH
Speaker 1: think another important reason and a more likely consequence, is
Speaker 1: to um model uh An important form of resistance. I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people are struggling with how to
Speaker 1: respond to truly extraordinary and disturbing conduct by the president elect.
Speaker 1: Should one, UM, see what happens and hope for the
Speaker 1: best and extend an olive branch. Should one resist more formally?
Speaker 1: And I think this more fortunately, I think this is
Speaker 1: modeling a very strong form of resistance, that that we
Speaker 1: hope various institutions in society that have developed slowly over
Speaker 1: time to push back against power when it's being exercised
Speaker 1: unlawfully or or profoundly unwisely. I'm talking about the media,
Speaker 1: for example. It's going to be important for the media
Speaker 1: not to the normalize or legitimate attacks on the constitutional system.
Speaker 1: To understand the difference between neutrality and objectivity. I'm talking
Speaker 1: about educational institutions, religious institutions. Legal institutions are courts UH,
Speaker 1: which UH makes make good on our nation's commitment to
Speaker 1: the rule of law and which requires judicial independence. UM.
Speaker 1: And so I think that go ahead, Well, have you
Speaker 1: what if you've seen anything since Donald Trump has been
Speaker 1: elected that gives you hope about how he might treat
Speaker 1: the constitution or the rule of law. UM, At least
Speaker 1: some parts of your letter, including you mentioned Jeff Sessions
Speaker 1: his choice for attorney in general, uh, sort of suggests
Speaker 1: that you see him as doubling down on the types
Speaker 1: of the kind of conduct that you're worried about. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I hope is not the kind I mean. I wouldn't
Speaker 1: say I see conduct that gives me hope, given um
Speaker 1: when he's talked, when when he's still I think, undermining
Speaker 1: a free a free press, and um sending tweets talking
Speaker 1: about stripping people of citizenship or putting them in jail
Speaker 1: for burning the American flag. UM. So I'm not really
Speaker 1: seeing much in the way of hope. I think he
Speaker 1: has um backed off of a few of his most
Speaker 1: disturbing statements or what appeared to be promises during the campaign,
Speaker 1: like putting his political opponent in jail if he was elected.
Speaker 1: He had really robustly embraced torture, which raises both constitutional
Speaker 1: problems and problems under international law. And then he had
Speaker 1: what appears to be a single conversation with General Maddis
Speaker 1: and he said, maybe maybe it's not as effective or
Speaker 1: as wise as I had thought. So I I wouldn't
Speaker 1: call it hopeful. I did see a few ways in
Speaker 1: which he's backed off some of his most uh or
Speaker 1: more extreme statements. But then you know, we see a disinterest.
Speaker 1: There are there. The letter illustrates concerns but doesn't exhaust right,
Speaker 1: So there's disinterested intelligence briefings and what he may do
Speaker 1: in the name of national security raises concerns. The multitude
Speaker 1: of financial conflicts of interest, which some of which raise
Speaker 1: constitutional concerns, but all of which raise serious concerns about
Speaker 1: whether he's going to be able to uh simply do
Speaker 1: what he thinks his best of the country as opposed
Speaker 1: to best for his business deal. Let's talk about one
Speaker 1: of the concerns you raise, and he ran on overturning
Speaker 1: Row v. Wade and his list of Supreme Court nominees
Speaker 1: reflects that you asked him to reconsider that in light
Speaker 1: of the likelihood that he will not reconsider that, Is
Speaker 1: there anything that anyone can do about that? Well? I
Speaker 1: think it's uh. I think what what those who uh,
Speaker 1: those who who disagree with with his with the stated
Speaker 1: promise which I agree he's gonna he's going to try
Speaker 1: and make good on, I think they could hold him
Speaker 1: to count to at least be completely aware of candid
Speaker 1: about to level with the American people about what the
Speaker 1: consequences are. So the letter doesn't simply say you want
Speaker 1: to over row, don't do it. When he was asked
Speaker 1: what the consequences for women would be, he said they
Speaker 1: would simply have to go to another state. It would
Speaker 1: be sent back to the states. And you know that
Speaker 1: that shows a disturbing lack of awareness of or an
Speaker 1: insensitivity to the reality that for many women in our country,
Speaker 1: that's simply not possible. It's not possible economically in terms
Speaker 1: of their family and work situation. And I think it
Speaker 1: also ignores the fact that there have been many efforts,
Speaker 1: not just at the state level, but at the federal
Speaker 1: level to roll back protections of women's reproductive rights. And
Speaker 1: unless he means to be suggesting that he's going to
Speaker 1: veto any federal law that would restrict divorce, and it's
Speaker 1: it's not just insensitive, it's also um disingenuous to say
Speaker 1: that the issue will be handled at the state level.
Speaker 1: So I don't think it's simply about will your nominees
Speaker 1: vote to overull row? It's are you going to be
Speaker 1: fully aware of the consequences and in candid with the
Speaker 1: American people about um um, where and how this issue
Speaker 1: will be resolved if, if, if the Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: no longer going to be in the business of a
Speaker 1: tempting women's right. You know, I look at your list
Speaker 1: of signatories to this letter, and I don't don't know
Speaker 1: all of them, but the ones I do know I
Speaker 1: tend to think of as being relatively liberal. Was there
Speaker 1: an effort to bring on more conservative legal scholars to
Speaker 1: to join this effort, you know, there was not. I
Speaker 1: think that the sense of of the group is that
Speaker 1: we wanted to do something as a group initially, we
Speaker 1: certainly would would very much appreciate the support of legal conservatives.
Speaker 1: There were a group of legal conservatives, originalists who are
Speaker 1: committed to the original understanding of the Constitution, who wrote
Speaker 1: a letter with some similar themes, although not all the same,
Speaker 1: opposing Trump during the election because they saw him as
Speaker 1: a threat to the constitutional system. And the letter does
Speaker 1: call upon legal conservatives who are committed to basic constitutional
Speaker 1: values too to join us in speaking out. But the
Speaker 1: the instinct of the group was to say something for ourselves,
Speaker 1: which is not going to be the last we have
Speaker 1: to say about it, at least as an initial matter.
Speaker 1: Before we think about working with others of more diverse
Speaker 1: ideological commitments, who many of whom share at least like
Speaker 1: some A is not all of our concerns, Neil, about
Speaker 1: a minute left here, So you have seven different areas.
Speaker 1: Is there one that is of particular concern? Well, there
Speaker 1: are seven areas listed in the letter. There are a
Speaker 1: number of others which I've mentioned so far, and we
Speaker 1: could also talk about his response to the CIA report,
Speaker 1: the CIA finding that Russia interfered in the election, and
Speaker 1: his attack on the CIA without any kind of evidence
Speaker 1: or analysis. Um So again, I think these examples in
Speaker 1: the letter are are illustrations, but stuff is happening in
Speaker 1: real pinea just add to the concerns. You know, if
Speaker 1: I had I would, I would prefer not to pick one. Um,
Speaker 1: but if I you know, if I had to, I
Speaker 1: think we we listed free speech and a free press
Speaker 1: first for a reason because if we if the media
Speaker 1: is not able to fully and fairly discharge its responsibilities
Speaker 1: out of fear that the administration is going to desiret
Speaker 1: access to the White House and not informative where the
Speaker 1: president is. Um. I think that's that's absolutely fundamental, that
Speaker 1: that that this our next president UM, like his predecessors
Speaker 1: in both political parties, UM ensure that the press is
Speaker 1: able to to do its job to report No Pine
Speaker 1: candidly on his activities without fear of reprisals. We will
Speaker 1: have to leave it at that. If you want to
Speaker 1: read the full letter, you can go to the American
Speaker 1: Constitutional Society website. Thank you Neil Single, professor of law
Speaker 1: and political science at Duke Law School, for joining us
Speaker 1: here on Bloomberg Law. Coming up on Bloomberg Law. In
Speaker 1: an unusual opinion, the Sixth Circuit says that finding marijuana
Speaker 1: residue and packaging in trash doesn't justify searching a home
Speaker 1: for drugs. I'm June Grosso with Greg Story. You're listening
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg Law. This is Bloomberg