>> i think it's very ironic that was the data are aggregated their are very large value, commercial buddy, they make a lot of money with those, but nothing trickles down to the o people whose data are concernedr with, or where they originate.

remember, the department of motor vehicles, sales soared, data about what kind of cars people owned. this was before facebook, et cetera. and i thought it was an outrage at that time. so the point isan a really how about the commercial aspect of the ownership of this data? don't these data belong to me instead of the company that that sells it freely? shouldn't they ask? shouldn't they pay me for that? there's a value at my level. there's a company in great britain that allows you to profit from data aggregators. and even though it's like part of the set that you get on each --great brain th [inaudible] pro >> put a damper on this whole thing. because iffiar i say, in order r me to sell certain data about

myself you have to pay me $1000 a year or whatever it is. me then maybe, you know, slow the process down. down. >> one reaction hot is there is a lot of things you get for your data, a free media content, you can use google, i think we give up our data for the great online services that are free but they are not free. there is a cost. >> do you really have a company that makes $2 billion per year or could another group of 20 somethings make a little less with a little more privacy protection in still get the benefit of the service? >> good observation.

those who are not suited to the problem is protection against the information not suppression. a lot of the conversation has been you can protect yourself. you actually can because anybody could put up the information we would not normally considered private. we don't want to suppress freedom of speech in my classmates but that from years way before this has scanned letters and photos from high school and put them on the web. [laughter] >> i am sure you're always a professional. >> with those that go what

could be put up by their friend. >> and i do think facebook and the other services have made important changes in the right direction and one of them includes where people cannot just 10 a year without your permission. >> on the other hand, they have developed facial recognition with automatic taking -- tagging and isn't this great? now i don't have to tag everybody but maybe they wouldn't tag the picture of you kids seeing somebody else's wife or you keep on in the audience floor. you can untie yourself but the technology i have been reading where the patents

are going. i snap your pitcher with my a smart phone it tells me every day being cite your honor will you listen to and the whole idea. >> you will never be able to control what people say about us but now they could say it where they have a huge audience and that is the difference. >> and the people that they tell it don't know things about you that you really are a responsible person to the world audience. >> i had double cut four years but i cannot do now. >> in rural america their reserve release march story of wonder if we could put the link after the talk so you could see the pieces and

articles in issues of the things that work. >> but in small towns across america there's a special network that not many people know about here in new york or boston and washington where it is a nasty in many of the small towns because they don't have the hour real identity. >> o.r. if you are married and want to have an affair one friend went to close his parents' house after his father died in he found all these people that he ran into have the post office advertising to have affairs. more could be happening. >> really like what kashmir

has to say. the benefits of social media are did tremendous the only talk about negative behavior that has psychological limitations but what about the positives aspects? i am also of fraud investigators so i do see both sides. in addition to my personal life are enormous and i would love to have a conversation about the positive benefits. >> good great way to end on that note to this extol the virtue of the social web of whatever format you choose. >> look what happened in the last year 2011. we sought in tunisia, egypt, bahrain, is

not just social networks but social networks and it is the cellphone the ability to take a photo of what was happening to them in the ability to transmit data around the world saved them at some very, very difficult and dark moments. then with what we saw occupy wall street. the horse has left the barn and people document their experience. social media at his here to stay and we're learning how to use it and it is everybody's responsibility. >> i am away eight -- amazed to read my christmas shopping spotted women stuff spelling out on the sidewalk i thought maybe she had a fight with her boyfriend but i spotted a prescription i

am naturally curious i flipped it over and her name was there i google her and her twitter account came up and it said six hours earlier her car was broken into. i said i think i found your staff and she said where is it? her friend went and collected it. my mind was blown buy back. -- buy it before twitter or facebook is a small story but i think there are urban many benefits. >> also the difference it has made with our two our music with that of a and/or a falling but also crowds were saying i started novel you add it to its even the science they find the individual is better out -- better trying to

figure out people are working on a particular project shortly after the revolution there a little baby girl was born and her dad named to her facebook >> booktv is on twitter. follow was for reagan or updates on our programming and views on nonfiction books and authors. twitter.com/booktv. >> now on your screen on booktv is keni thomas, and he has written this book, "get it on!: what it means to lead the way."

keni thomas, tell us about your experience with your connection with "black hawk down." i was part of the 75th ranger regiment and we are part of the guys who went in on that mission. >> ninety-four? >> ninety-three. it was initially a raid. everything changed when the first helicopter got shot down, just like that. the course of our lives changed. so when i get from that is in way that will make it out of some to come you spend the rest of your life thanking the people that were on your left and you're right that day. because i know by the grace of god that's why i'm still here. you will use every opportunity to tell their stories, whether i do it through music or in the book i'm going to tell their story. >> keni thomas, walk us through the day. >> there is documentaries on that, we be her for hours but i can tell you -- >> your experience. >> my experience. we came in on a nation and every thought it was going to be a normal thing. daylight raids are a little

risky. we didn't know is we would lose 18 guys and 70 were wounded. the 130 who went in. do the math, a ton of us got wounded. i'm telling you those numbers would've been significantly higher had not been for the level of the planning and training. but mostly the leadership at every level. and i mean from david who is one private who saved everybody all the way up to the general his leadership at every level status. we know that by the time the morning rolls around, we were there to help the pot in, waited for the pilot to get his body out of the wreckage. we didn't have the equipment. and in the morning, pakistanis came, malaysians came, cooks put on body armor. a single one of those guys volunteered. in the morning we put the wood guys on the trucks, the rest of us ran out. so when you make a comment again you make make it out, you'll spend your life thanking those folks. it's an extraordinary story.

but as good as you've heard the story, nobody can tell it about david lloyd and others, not the way i can because those were my guys. >> when did you leave the ranger? >> i got out of the military at the end of the '90s. picked up the guitar and started doing music folder and that's were i'm at. this whole book thing is a new world for me. >> why are you writing this now at 2011? >> a good question. i get a chance to tell that story to a ton of people. the more people you can reach i feel like the more folks, more chance you have to make a difference. i started doing so many events. why haven't you written this story? so i, it was all he north you said you really need to write this. we wrote it. it was a simpler somebody saying yes. we would love to put it out. really? it was that simple. and all of a sudden of this book, we are on tv, we are in wal-mart.

come on now, when you're in a book in wal-mart know something is happening. it's been a heck of a ride. what is this about music and the guitar? >> i live in national. where the whole audience on that side of the world. it's kind of anything. all of these fans coming through music and now you have these new people you're meeting coming in for the book. they're all coming to keni thomas and they're all starting to figure out what the messages, which set an example, lead the way, your extraordinary, you can do amazing things if you're willing to shoulder the burden. >> who do you play with in country music, anybody -- >> name it. billy people have not opened up yet for his faith hill and tim mcgraw, so if you're watching you guys need to give me a slot. it's the opening act. you can see everybody. i've been doing it for a while now. >> keni thomas, isn't well known you were an army ranger in your new career?

>> it is. folks know what i did. and it will affect the music every now and again. i feel like, you have to entertain folks, especially on stage. then when you write a story, that's how you get people, that's the captivate them. you tell a story. but at the end of it all whether it's the guitar or a microphone or a book, you better have something to say. obviously, what i have to say is lead the way. >> keni thomas is the author of this book, "get it on!: what it means to lead the way." talks about his experiences. >> next, jay wexler examines the more obscure clauses of the u.s. constitution scattered among the better known amendments throughout the 8000 word document. this is about 40 minutes. >> good evening. and thank you for coming out to support your local independent.

my name is evan and i'm the instructor here at the brookline booksmith. i hope you guys will pick up one of our calendars. we have some great readings lined up with john hodgman and larry doyle next week him and michael hawley as well as the night of staff recommendations later in the month. also, you may have noticed we are filming tonight so if you could please make sure to turn off all cell phones and things like that, any drum machine she may have on your person. you can follow all of our events through our website, brookline booksmith.com or you can purchase thousands of e-books for your google edition. as we move into residential election year, you can be sure to hear a lot about our founding fathers, what they believe, what they said, what it meant to say, and certain parts of the constitution will doubtless be quoted again and again. tonight is not about any of that nonsense. it's about the other nonsense.

because tonight we had the pleasure of welcoming back jay wexler, professor of law at boston university. in his first book, "holy hullabaloos," wexler explored church and state with a strange and humorous road trip. in his new book, drank income he examines the foundation of our government, the u.s. constitution, through its strange and rarely cited provisions from the states control of intoxicating liquids to the governments ability to allow private citizens to fight pirates for personal gain. in seeking out the antiquated but strain specific and the just plain odd, wexler sheds new light on the constitution in all its glory, and he is damn funny, too big so please join me in giving a big brookline welcome to professor jay wexler. [applause] >> thank you very much.

welcome everybody. thanks for coming out in the rain to this terrific bookstore. and thank you for hosting me here again. booktv is here filming, so when you have only come if you could keep your swearing to a minimum, that would be great. i was on booktv one of the time, in connection with my "holy hullabaloos" book and it was an event in new mexico which i thought went pretty well. and then a couple weeks later the event was on tv so i turned in, tuned in, and ready nervous because although i've been on television a couple times, not in a sustained way. so i was really concerned, and i turned it on, and about five minutes into it i realized every other sentence i say uh like an idiot. so i'm hiding under the blankets again in 50 minutes, into the talk i got up and i looked at my e-mail and i got this e-mail from somebody in hawaii.

and it said, i wanted very much to hear what you had to say, however your habit of interjecting uh repeatedly is so distracting that even your humor and pleasant voice does not help. [laughter] thanks a lot. that was a nightmare. what i want to do today, tonight is to explain what my book is about, "the odd clauses." and i want to spend most of my time i think explain why i wrote the book and what i think it's important to know about the odd clauses of the constitution. i read a short bit of to, not that much and without questions and answers if you would like. i can sign books if you're interested. "the odd clauses" does make a fantastic stocking stuffer provided that the stocking would talk about is on the larger side and if you don't put anything else in the stocking. because then it won't fit. so, what the book is about, the book is about 10 lesser-known clauses of constitution but i'm going to be the first two

paragraphs and give you a sense of what i was up to, okay? the constitution of the estates contain some of the most powerful and well-known legal provisions in the history of the world. the first amendment, for example, gives us the right to speak our minds without government interference. the equal protection clause of the 14th of them in stops the state from discriminates because of our race and gender. the fourth amendment as our television crime dramas continuing my to prevent the police from searching our homes without a warrant. i would bet that in the past 20 years, several hundred books have been written about these important clauses, and for good reason. this book, however, is not one of them. instead, this book will shining much-deserved light on some of the constitution's lesser-known clauses, and swimmers, it's understood, its unsung heroes, it's crazy uncles. to put it another way, if the constitution were a suit and the first, fourth and 14th amendment were a lion, a giraffe and a panda bear, respectively,

in this book is about the constitutions shrews, wombats, and bat eared foxes. in believe me, if you've never laid eyes on it that aired fox before, you're in for a treat to so i wrote about 10 clauses. i whittled it down. i do think about what i wanted to include certain clauses in which clauses are wanted to do. 9710 clauses to discuss that promote or illustrate key points about our government or our democratic functions and very specific ways and in ways that i thought were interesting to write about and to read about. so want to tell you what those clauses are before turning to why i decided to write the book. there's the incompatibility clause and that's the clause that says every member of congress you can't beat an executive officer and which may very well disqualify scott brown from being in the national guard, but that's a separate issue. second is the weights and measures clause which is the congress has the power to set the weights and measures of the united states with her ever met were to have the metric system you should blame congress.

recess appointment clause is a clause that says the president can use recess of the senate to appoint somebody without senate confirmation. one of the interesting question is what counts as a recess? is at the break in between the two sessions of the congress or is it like in time to go out for a cigarette? the original jurisdiction clause provides that when one state, they go direct to the supreme court of united states which could, although it never does, hold the trial. for example, when missouri wanted to sue illinois because illinois change the direction of the chicago river setting tuberculosis down the st. louis it headed directly to the supreme court the natural born citizen clause is the fifth topic in my book. no, and the very few prerequisites for officers set out in the constitution this is the proverbial third in the bunch will. it said you can be president unless you're a natural born citizen, and you for a lot about

that in the news and it's a real stupid clock. section two of the 21st amendment, the 21st of them is the one that ended prohibition, that is section with the exception to makes it unconstitutional to bring liquor across state lines or it's one of only two places in the constitution where something is made, where individual can break the constitution, which directs the eighth of individuals but the rest is about government. there's two things would go to violate the constitution. you can either engage in slavery or you can bring a beer across the state line and violate the rhode island law. the letters authorizes congress, tells congress it could authorize private ships to fight pirates. the titles of nobility clause says the government can't make you a duke government says the government officials of the united states can't accept a duke shih. the bill prohibits legislative punishment and the third

amendment says the soldiers, the army cannot order their soldiers in private houses without consent. a practice that in 18 centuries led directly to the tea party. the real tea party, not our tea party. i got the idea for this book about 10 years ago. i was working at the office of legal counsel which is a small office in the justice department, which gives constitutional advice to the executive branch. it's the office which made the news when long, long, long after i left the road the torture report. and even though in law school i learned about account the constitution of you study in glasgow, you only study certain parts of the. you study the first of them, the fourth amendment, but as an office of legal council i to deal with lots of these little

odd clauses that nobody really knows anything, i certainly did know a thing about it. one day my friend, ruby, i, ruby, my friend ruby was running around wondering whether president clinton could accept some sort of bobble or something from an african village or whether they'll violate the title and nobility clause. and i said oh, the titles of nobility's clause, interesting. was the title of nobility's clause. i don't know what happened in that case but i decide that very day that i would write a book about these odd clauses which is something i wanted to you, and waited 10 years until after i did. now, let me talk a little bit about why i think it's important to write, or rather read, what i wanted to write and why i think it's important to read about the odd clauses. i was originally to my good bit motivated by the kind of zany

madcap tribute aspect of these odd clauses, like wow, the state's is another state, isn't that wacky? but my editors, my publishing houses, decompress, fabulous press, lovely people, very earnest, and they said j., we're not publishing a tribute book, okay? so think about what is important to study these odd clauses. so i thought a lot about that issue, and i give workshops in law schools and such and professors came up with theories of oddness and said well, you know, wittgenstein suggests blah, blah, blah. they didn't actually say that, but in any event, i came up with some thoughts about why we ought to study these odd clauses through these discussions with people who had some great ideas about what's important about these weird things and why people ought to tell you.

so here's one, i think you get a much better understanding of what the framers were up to in writing the constitution by reading the whole thing instead of just little pieces. you get a lot of insight as to what the framers purpose is, what they were afraid of, what they wanted to do, what they were scared of it. my colleague and brilliant colleague gary lawson made me realize this a while ago. if you read the constitution to get a real sense for how paranoid the framers of the constitution were of concentrats of power, how worried they were that people would be corrupt and all the checks and balances that they put into the constitution in order to stop that kind of thing. for example, article one section six said there was a congress can't be arrested going to and from the congress can going to and from their work. what a weird thing to put in a constitution that this is your fundamental law of the government and your choices to put something in about how the president can't arrest a number of congress going to and from

work. how paranoid must they have been? as i think the result of station you get a sense of the as was a lot of other things. second point is that a lot of the clauses do very important work even if the average person for lawyer has never heard of them are or the media never talks about them, or the clauses never make it to any court. the third amendment is one example. when was the last time the army has to border soldiers in your condo? another case that is more important and a little complicated but i think the payoff is worth a. there's something called the ineligibility clause. i need a prop. because television is a visual media. and so i brought this. this is the ineligibility clause. i wish i had a mayor. but anyway, so going to hold it

up here and i'm going -- this by the way -- that's the mascot. i'm the odd clauses. i will bite you. >> said in a to build a clause basically says maybe i will put it here. i don't know if you can see. anyway, it says that your you are a member of congress and an executive position office is created while you're in congress, or if the salary for the position is increase while you're in congress then you can't go take a position. you can't be a point to a position. in order to stop self doing to your member of congress and you know you we appointed to protect your position so you vote to raise the salary by $1000, the framers thought that was a bad idea so they put this ineligibility clause in the constitution. it's come up several times over history, and there's a little

move that the government had used to sort of get around this, called the saxby fix which is because was in connection with attorney general named william saxby. the idea is that if the person who is in congress and takes the executive office whose salary has been raised, but before he takes can't he or she takes that office, congress passes a bill reducing the salary back to the original amount, then there's no violation of the ideas they didn't get any increase in so there's no problem. 1987, okay, lewis powell retired from the supreme court and the question that ronald reagan had to face these who to appoint it should be a point warren hatch backs orrin hatch of course is in the senate, and abuse in the senate the supreme court salaries went up. so that was argument of violation of the ineligibility clause the i didn't like discover any of the state of the

people have discovered this. they wanted can we use the saxby fix and put hatch in anyway? they the office of legal counsel in the reagan justice department and they said no. that if you read this clause, this clause means that anytime somebody, the salary is raise coming means he can be put in that office, no way. so what happened? reagan appointed board. bork was defeated. douglas ginsburg was almost appointed and then withdrew for various reason. and anthony kennedy was appointed. and anthony kennedy, of course, makes the law for him the whole country a. including a 1992, you see how the interpretation of this clause really in fact changed history. in a way that i don't think

anybody really knows about except for the person who discovered it. and now you. is a similar issue by the way with hillary clinton who also argue that it violates the ineligibility clause as secretary of state. and going to find out why it's okay for her to be there in that office, you will have read the book. okay, next raise what you might want to learn about the ineligibility clauses is this. because the clauses are not political hot potato to get their hot potatoes you would know about them. so they're usually not hot potatoes. and because there is no longline of cases that go along with them, they are easier to understand, it's easy to understand about issues about how to interpret the constitution and if you think about the first amendment or the 14th were some of the more complicated one. this is an example. i mean, i think if you look at this, and i really don't know how well this is working, but i think is a very strong argument that the text of this provision pretty much means that the

reagan justice department was right, and that you can't take a position if the salary was raised why you were in office even if congress passes a law producing the seller back to what it coverage of his. there's arguments on the other side, but it's is no sin or represent shall be appointed to any civil office if they them all humans have been raised to on the other hand, the purpose of the provision is to prevent self-dealing. this saxby fix i talked about solve the self-dealing argued so if you believe that if we should have a purpose of this interpretation of the constitution you might think that advocate for somebody to take such an executive position at the salary is moved back to its original amount. so we can think about these provisions but we think about whether we think tech shall interpretation is better, the purpose of interpretation of whether we want to be strict or pragmatic. it's a lot easier to do with these little clauses that it is

the first amendment and the 14th amendment. finally, sometimes these clauses to make front page news, or if not the front page news, you know, page seven. we are done with this. never mind. i run a blog called the odd clauses watch blog, which i made it connect with this book in order to keep tabs on the odd clause activity out there. and it turns out that in a few months i've been running a blog a lot of questions have come up in the news about we're close but not as the ones i've written about, but for example, a wild back president obama signed the extension to the patriot act with an auto pen. he was in france. the law had to be signed.

he wasn't around so he directed some to sign it with an auto pen, a computer that does that count as signing under article one, section seven quick some people thought no. there are reasons to think that might be right. the debt ceiling, remember the debt ceiling debate? there was a question that was really debated, i think the secretary of treasury and also bill clinton raised the possibly the president obama were congress to to raise the debt limit its outcome president obama could unilaterally raise the debt ceiling using the authority of section four of the 14th amendment i believe which says the public debt of the united states shall not be questioned. [laughter] you know, advice to constitution writers to pass a voice is not a really good tool for constitutional drafting, i don't think. i look into that some and they think that there's no way the

president obama could have used that provision to raise the debt limit unilaterally. but it was out there at the possibility. recently, there's been talk in the blogosphere about whether the occupy wall street movement has a sort of constitutional base in the guarantee clause of, i think they'll article iv, which says guarantees the state republican form of government. so you see these clauses come up a lot in the news, if you're looking for them. and as to clauses in the book, of course some of them have also been used lately, about legislative punishment came up when congress thought about the funding planned parenthood. the question without a legislative punishment of planned parenthood to take away their money, or not? there's a natural born citizen clause which, of course, is given rise to the argument the president obama of course is not a natural born citizen. i don't really want to talk about that, but it's out there.

there's a much more interesting question which is what does passionate whether john mccain is a natural born citizen. that's a hard question because he was born in the panama canal zone. it's not clear whether someone is born into panama canal zone to american parents is nonetheless a natural born citizen that i think the argument is in favor of a pending better than the arguments against them, but it's not crystal clear. then finally there's high rates. i'm going to close this, about two pages from the book and then i will take questions. the letters of mark, the congress shall have power to grant letters of mark and reprisal, article 1, section 8. americans adore pirates. we dress up like pirates on hollowing and bellow arrrr maties to our friends.

we spend every september 19 celebrating international talk like a pirate day an education change our facebook link which settings pirate zone. but despite victor is a romantic appeal come pirates actually suck. they sucked back in 1718 centuries when they lawlessly plundered innocent ships and they continued to suck today. as they use their high-tech gps equipment and automatic weapons to wreak havoc along the horn of africa, and elsewhere. in april 2000 alabama, a cargo ship during food for berries international relief organizations was on its way to kenya when for somali pirates attacking seize richard fuld, the captain and the maintenance of dollars in ransom. naval officers on the u.s. s. bainbridge, destroy the been put on the indian ocean at the time the attack negotiated for days with the terrorists but to no avail. when the life of the pirates were in ran out the field accepted the bainbridge offer to tour the -- told them i shall.

in the meantime, a crack team of navy seals have been flown to the area with a parachute in to see them were brought aboard the bainbridge. tension have been high for days but when they pull was fired up for the life boat sometime on april 12, president obama gave the go ahead for the stivers to start sniping. the navy marksman don nightvision classes and with what exactly the right moment when two of the cars stuck in a lifeboat where hatch and a third remain pirate big invisible, the three seals fight. rescuers from the bainbridge board's lifeboat and found all the pirates dead. captain phillips was rescued basically unharmed. but i'm a sony the seals had fired only three bullets, and crisis. in the wake of the affair that was of course much something i was a both captain phillips and the navy seals. but this june was a cover by debate over what to do but the increasing problem of somali pirates. naval operations and the alabama

crisis had allegedly cost tens of millions of dollars. might there be some better and cheaper way to fight these pesky pirates? among the recommendation to a curious one from the always controversial libertarian leaning republican congressman from texas, ron paul. representative paul suggested that's the, could authorize private and to fight pirates in return for bounty money. that way the u.s. government can use the market rather than its own firepower to solve the piracy problem as one supporter of the proposal observed, if it 100 american wannabe ramblers patrolling the seas, it's probably a good way of getting the job done. but wait, with this solution because the two should? in the u.s. government contract out its key naval functions? representative paul certainly thought so. following his proposal to get which use its power under article one of the constitution to grant letters of mark and reprisal to private vessels to these letters would authorize the private ships to fight pirates on the government's behalf. this seems like kind of an

antiquated solution to you. well, it is the united states has not issued a letter of mark or reprisal in almost 200 years. that's it. so that's all i have to. i'm happy to take questions if people have them. so the floor is open for questions now. and remember, this is on national tv so this can be your chance to have your voice on national tv. after reality shows, producers of reality shows monitor closely booktv to see, you know, get future contest. that's how snooki got on. yes? [inaudible] in a couple months ago scott brown being ineligible. >> right. >> i'm wondering, do you think it's unconstitutional for him to both in the national guard and serve in the senate?

secondly, do you have any thought why it's only unconstitutional to be in the executive branch and the legislative branch at the same time? if john marsh was secretary of state and chief justice at the same time. >> well, okay, so i think that, so first of all, thank you for the blog posted a great post. for those of you, should go -- watch the blog? [inaudible] in it okay. so apparently you actually asked him face-to-face, aren't you in violation incompatibility clause, right? [inaudible] >> if he got elected. >> and he immediately did that, right? >> he blew me off. >> he blew you off. so i haven't an independent research on the national guard question. i've been doing other things, and so my feeling is probably it is unconstitutional but i haven't done the work so that they feel confident saying that on my own behalf. i did, in the blog i asked the

guy, his name is seth who teaches in ireland and knows just what everything about the cost of an eye so what do what he's a person knows almost everything. he says he think is probably a ghost of an he says it's under very different theories. so my guess is that it is unconstitutional to do that. think about reason why, why we don't want names like that, right? i don't know anything about what scott brown is thinking or thing, but the reason we don't have somebody in the army, the military at the same time, or as an officer in the military the same vendor in congress because, you know, the person, the military doesn't want to go to war personally so that might alter their vote, not go to war. or maybe they want to go to war because it makes him a hero and they can become president so they vote for the war. they pushed for the war. those are the kind of conflict of interest the framers were worried about. the judicial branch was not powerful, i think might be the

answer in the 18th century, and i don't really know the answer as to why is no incompatibility between congress and the judicial branch. the specific thing the framers were thinking about was the practice of making the offering members of parliament key executive offices. that's the corruption that they saw and that they knew about and that they were really worried about. i don't think they were really think about the judicial branch is anything powerful, people in water a position in the judicial branch which i think is the case. some people rejected them. they didn't even want to be chief justice, no thanks, kind of thing. that might be the answer. other questions? yes. we're all going to read the book, if we haven't already come so we will know the 10 clauses that you selected? >> just. >> could you give us a little sampling of the 10 or 15 that you deselected?

>> okay, settle in. well, let's see, which once did i reject? there's one clause called the property clause which i think is very interesting. it says, it's the clause that gives congress the power to regulate the property of the united states, and it gives rise come is why the government can regulate national parks and national forests and stuff like that. les..

>> i thought about the ex post facto clause for a while which is the clause that prohibits retroactive punishment, so you can't punish somebody for something that wasn't illegal at the time they did it. and i remember at the workshop i did at boston university there was somebody that said a list of odd clauses that would have the ex post facto clause, and i thought that was right. but we can go over this for a couple hours later, you know, go through it. [laughter] yes. >> one thing that surprised me while i was going through the book and reading it was that quite often these do actually seem to come up in relatively pressing issues. for example, president bush did make an appointment while congress was out of session and just sort of claimed up with of the clauses he cites. -- one of

the clauses he cites. so do you think these types of clauses should be expunged, or do you think they serve an important role? do you think it's important for him to be able to -- >> oh, well, so it's hard to answer that -- it's a great question. it's hard to answer it in general. most to have clauses that i talk about in the book are, i think, very important, and i think they play, most of them play a very important role, usually quietly like the original jurisdiction clause is great clause if one state wants to sue another state, where are they going to do that, right? they're not going to sue them in their own court. that's not going to go over well with the other state. so go to the supreme court, that makes complete sense. and that's true for a number of the clauses. now, there's a natural born citizen clause which i think should be expunged, but that's unique in the book, i think. the recess appointment clause is an interesting case because that

was a clause that originally made a lot of sense, um, back in the day where you couldn't just zip over back to the capitol and there was an e-mail to get you back in case somebody died and there needed to be an appointment, it could take a very long time for somebody to get the senate back together to do a confirmation. so it was very important in those days for the president to be able to appoint somebody during a recess. now, now i'm not so sure how important it is, and, of course, when we see recess appointments are made they're made not because we can't get the senate back home, but because this is the only way to get somebody appointed without confirmation x it's a problem that both parties do. that's another thing that's interesting about the recess appointments clause. you can think about how should this be interpreted because whatever you think the rule should be for the democrats, it's going to be the same for the republicans, right? and so there's no political, you know, gain either way.

you've just got to decide what do you think it really means, what do you think the point is, and how should we interpret it irrespective of politics? other queries? ?ook can key? yes. -- snooki? yes. >> thank you, first of all, for having a sense of humor about all this. i think sometimes it gets lost that these things are dynamic, and they get talked about in very try ways, and then we think they're dead when, in fact, they're there under everything we do every day, so i like the way you bring it to life, and i'm hoping sometimes you'll write a children's book where you take these animals -- >> well, i thought about writing a children's book about dinosaurs and food like -- [laughter] the t rex and a pat of butter saurus. >> there you go. [laughter] >> my son's idea, actually.

he couldn't be here tonight because he's at a hockey game, but never mind. >> more seriously, how do you bring the constitution to life in a way where people are talking about it in context? because seems like people cherry pick different parts of the constitution, well, payoff that, we should do this, and it seems like a lot of times the conversations start off on the wrong foot, wrong floor, maybe not even on this planet. and that's not saying -- it's not partisan, it just seems like we're not good at going back to original intent and context. >> okay m well, there's a lot of stuff in there. you lost me a little bit when you said original intent or context because that's a controversial view, do we want to interpret the constitution according to its original view and if we do, what does that mean? that's a hard issue, and one can disagree about that. but the question you ask about why do we go off the rails and what can we do about it, i think the answer is because people want to justify whatever policy

in using the constitution as a sword for whatever they believe. if you start with a policy conclusion and you argue the constitution supports you, that's not a very good way to go about constitutional interpretation, i think. much better to understand the constitution before you start thinking about the specific political problems which is hard, of course, and which is one reason i think thinking about these odd clauses makes sense. it's very hard to think about the equal protection clause and affirmative action without thinking about your policy preferences or the due process clause and abortion, right? i mean, it's just hard to abstract those really difficult issues away. so i think it's worth talking about the constitution by itself and fostering a conversation which is one thing i'd like to do about the constitution as it stands before we start thinking about how it applies to the very difficult, divisive issues that, you know, that cause all these problems every day. so i guess that's my attempt at an answer.

>> thank you. >> you're welcome. yes, hi. >> i know your book is on the odd clauses, and the odd clauses are not the same thing as the stupid clauses. but if you were to have a chapter on the stupidest clause, what would it be? [laughter] >> okay, right. and so the professor is referring to a book that was published a few years ago by it was kind of a collection of essays about the stupidest clauses of the constitution which is not what i'm doing, of course, right? but if i had -- i don't know, well -- i do think, agree with some of the people that think the natural born citizens clause is a stupid clause. whether it's the stupidest, i don't know. i mean, i think the people who say a apportionment of two senators to every state regardless of whether they're california or, you know, rhode island seems kind of stupid, although i understand its origin and why we had it. i mean, you know, people in rhode island should feel powerful, right?

i mean, they really, they have a lot of say both in the senate and, like, in beauty pageants. but that's kind of a stupid clause if you look at it these days. so i don't think so those are two good candidates -- i don't know, those are two good candidates for stupid clauses. the reason i wrote this other than the fact that the stupid clauses book was already written was that i'm more interested in the, you know, odd clauses that are both stupid and not stupid than i am stupid clauses, but thank you for the question. yes. >> [inaudible] i read in some article that there's a possibility of making a trillion dollar coin, so as paper money is limited to how you can do that and the coins are not. do you know anything about that? [laughter] >> i know not a single thing about that. [laughter] >> i think it was a yale law professor that was writing about -- >> oh, yes. well, then, of course. [laughter] i'm sure it'll happen right away. [laughter] >> it said it never would

happen, but i -- >> that'd be cool, though, but you wouldn't want to lose it. [laughter] of. >> it would go right into the treasury. >> yes. >> i think one of the more sensible remarks i've heard about the workings of washington, d.c. is that all the cabinet positions have to be confirmed, yet the chief of staff who directs the president isn't and his staff. would you like to comment on that? >> yes, it's interesting, there are some people who are very important who are close advisers to the president, the white house counsel, policymaker arguably for the government is, lots of people in the office of management and budget, i think, so there are a lot of people who are very close to the president who don't have to be confirmed, and the idea is that the president really should be able when we're talking not about the cabinet, but the people he's sitting down with day-to-day planning the strategy should be people, you know, he feels very, very, very comfortable with. so i think there's something, i

think that that's, you know, without having thought about it much before off the top of my head i think that that's a fair, a fair arrangement. personally. >> [inaudible] >> yeah, absolutely. and it's worth knowing about, right? so, i mean, these are people who are very, very important in the government as close political advisers, but they don't have to be -- >> well, the chief of staff controls all the the -- he's the stop life, and he doesn't need to get confirmed. >> imagine, though, if it was somebody that the president didn't like. [laughter] that could be a real, you know -- yes. >> i've lost track in all the details whether the natural born citizen clause was one that you've covered. >> it is, it was. >> terrific. [laughter] so could you elaborate on why you feel that is a ridiculous clause? >> well, i feel it's a ridiculous clause because i don't think one necessarily has to be a natural born citizen to

be, say, loyal to the united states and to be a superb, excellent president in all respects. um, you know, the fact that somebody is born, i mean, schwarzenegger's now -- i don't know if that's a good example anymore -- [laughter] but, you know, that was a classic example people used. why should arnold schwarzenegger not be able to be president of the united states? you know, maybe there are some reasons -- [laughter] but one of them isn't that he was born in austria, right? [laughter] so that's why, i mean, there wasn't -- the original constitution says that, in fact, i can't remember exactly what it says, but basically, there was an exception to all the people who ended up being president, the fist -- first however many presidents were all born in england, and i think the first natural born president we had was martin van buren in 1836 or something like that. does that mean those people weren't loyal to the united states because they were born abroad?

i just don't think there's any connection. the fear, it seems, was that there would be a foreign prince who would be brought in from france, napoleon's nephew or something like that, an apocryphal story. that's not quite right, but almost right. rigor's not really my forte. [laughter] so a foreign prince, i don't think we really need to worry ant that much. we have, for example, the elections that could handle that situation, it seems to me. so i think it's really stupid. and it also sends a message. it says if you're not a natural born citizen, if you're born overseas, even if you've lived your whole life over here, you're still not good enough to be our president. and if i was not a natural born citizen, that would be offensive to me. shall we close up? thank you very much for -- oh, oh, whoa. in -- yakel is in under the

wire. this better be good. >> well, i have a question about your next book. >> oh, good. >> what about odd pieces of legislation? maybe the field's too broad, too many odd kinds of statutes running around, but wouldn't that make a great book? >> is this a co-authorship offer? [laughter] because if you read the book, you'll find out that i asked yakel over here -- >> i said it was an odd idea. >> no, you looked at me like i was crazy and walked away. not this book, a different book, state v. state, and i've gotten comments that said it would be a good book. what's your question? [laughter] i don't know. i'm not interest inside that book. [laughter] odd legislation? that sounds like something you see in the back of a taxi. in kansas it's illegal to drink malted shakes without a cover, you know? or whatever.

it doesn't say that exactly but -- >> maybe you're right. >> all right. [laughter] >> and now i'm on television. >> yes. you should expect a call from "big brother" anytime. [laughter] okay, thank you very much for copping, i appreciate it. [applause] >> we're live this morning as cia director general david petraeus and nasa administrator charles bolden will be speaking to the reserve officers symposium here in washington. we expect them to talk about what the future holds for both the contribution, a and nasa -- cia and nasa. the reserve officers association works on behalf of guard members and their families. >> ladies and gentlemen, please, take your seats. [inaudible conversations]