A woman holds a US flag and a constitutional pamphlet in her hands during a special naturalization ceremony in honor of Citizenship Day and Constitution day on Ellis Island in New York on September 16, 2016.

The new Annenberg Constitution Day Civics Survey finds that more than a third of respondents do not know what is in the First Amendment, and that only a quarter of Americans are able to name all three branches of government. We’ll discuss the survey’s findings, the importance of civic education, and take your questions about the Constitution.

Guests:

Jack Rakove, professor of history, American studies and political science, Stanford University; author, “Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America”
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, professor of communication, Annenberg School for Communication; director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania

Resources Mentioned on Air:

U.S. Constitution 101: Your Questions Answered 14 September,2017Mina Kim

  • Curious

    Why does the left hate free speech?

    • Kurt thialfad

      In 2016 John Schenone, a san francisco senior, was convicted of seven misdemeanor counts of vandalism and six misdemeanor counts of a hate crime by way of defacing property with the phrase “No More Chinese”. I thought hate speech was protected by the First Amendment. (as in: “I may disagree with what you say, but I support your right to say it”.)

      • geraldfnord

        A lot of supposèd ‘hate speech’ isn’t protected speech in the first place—non-protected speech includes fraud, menacing, assault, ‘fighting words’, sedition of actively serving troops, some pornography, brandishing.

        • Kurt thialfad

          You forgot rap lyrics. And Lenny Bruce comedy routines.
          Can anyone honestly assess “No More Chinese” as being hate speech, any more than ‘Yankee Go Home’ or ‘No More Republicans’ could be regarded as hate speech as well?

    • marte48

      for the same reason we hate fascism – they want freedom of speech for themselves, but not for anyone else.

  • jakeleone

    I had my own newspaper as teenage kid, but it was very critical of my highschool. The principal confiscated all copies of my magazine and suspended me. Why do we even have a Constitution when we teach our children that free speech is only okay sometimes?

    I have seen this scenario play out again and again. If you don’t have a massive lawyer pool on your side, your freedom of speech gets trampled on. Isn’t it about time we found a way to assess triple damages on companies, people, highschool principals who basically use their position as a way to enforce their will on others?

    • Noelle

      The justice system is deeply flawed. Look up Ted Rall’s lawsuit against the L.A. Times
      http://rall.com/2017/09/08/la-times-wins-first-round-of-anti-slapps-now-on-to-the-appeal
      If you have $$$ you have an advantage, 1st Amendment rights be damned.

    • geraldfnord

      People who have not reached their majority have defective rights and incomplete responsibility, so the high school loco parentis had that on you; also, even government resources are not equally directly controlled by all citizens, so in effect the resources of the paper weren’t ‘yours’. My sympathies, though.

      I.S.P.s in this country are private entities, their machinery are private property, and there is no right of free speech on private property not your own—a great argument against universal privatisation.

      • jakeleone

        ISP are using the government owned internet, government could require it. Clearly the reason why government doesn’t is because of lobbying dollars. Companies don’t care, so long as they can develop a sellable brand. It is time for that to end. If you are using a public utility, you are basically doing business on the sidewalk, and if someone uses what you built, on the public sidewalk, to make a statement, no different than placing a political banner on a curb.

        BTW, the principal has similar, brand motivations in confiscating my property, which happened to be on school grounds. That part is basically just stealing to prevent embarrassment. The valuable lesson here is that people censor for reasons of hysteria.

    • chriswinter

      There have been quite a few cases like yours in recent times. “Bong hits for Jesus” comes to mind. Without looking it up, I think the Supreme Court ruled that high school students do not have the same free-speech rights, in what they publish under school auspices, as adults do.

    • Robert Thomas

      geraldfnord is right. he rights of minor persons are curtailed in many ways.

      Schools are generally regarded under law as acting in loco parentis. In particular, the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (393 U.S. 503, 1969) seems to be that most often cited. There have been several limitations placed on Tinker in the ensuing period, however. Consider

      Violations of Free Press
      “The Supreme Court has held that schools and school administrators can censor student publications such as student newspapers. The difference between the tolerance of expression, as in Tinker, and in promotion of student views, is the key. By wearing an arm band, a student is expressing his view and the school is not taking a stand, nor endorsing the student. But in a student newspaper, the school itself is represented in the newspaper, and by publishing a student piece, is now no longer a passive observer but an active participant. In Hazelwood School v Kuhlmeier (484 US 260 [1988]), the Supreme Court ruled that articles in the school paper that were counter to the educational mission of the school were subject to censorship.
      “Though untested in court, it is probably true that students are protected in publication of “underground” newspapers, and perhaps web pages, but the distribution of those papers or use of school computers to view web pages could be restricted.”

      Constitutional Topic: Student Rights
      https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html

  • Skip Conrad

    I have a question about the Sixth Amendment. As you know the 6th Amendment guarantees the assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions, not in civil court. There is no constitutional right to an attorney in civil court.
    This is why we have the Public Defenders Office headed by Jeff Adachi. Now with the passage of City Ordinance 0032-17 File# 161344 on 2/10/2017, the Public Defenders Office has been expanded to provide to provide legal services for aliens in civil immigration court. Is this constitutional?

    I might add that the INA specifically states: “the alien shall have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien’s choosing who is authorized to practice in such proceedings.” (IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT(INA): ACT 240 – REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS)

    • geraldfnord

      Our rights are not limited to those enumerated, and the ‘Government’ referenced in I.N.A. is the federal government, that being a federal act.

      • jurgispilis

        If they meant federal government, why doesn’t ‘federal’ appear in the text?
        But also, the publicly-financed attorney only applies to criminal court.

        • Another Mike

          It’s the difference between what state entities MAY do, and what they MUST do.

  • Kurt thialfad

    Under “Powers of the President”, Article II section 2. “He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
    to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;”
    When NAFTA II treaty was passed in 1994, two thirds of the Senators did not concur. It passed with a simple majority of the Congress. How were they able to change the process without a constitutional amendment? (p.s. and please don’t tell me it’s not a treaty. Everybody on the planet regards it as a treaty.)

    Original NAFTA passed correctly in 1988. That was the treaty between just Canada and the US.

    • Robert Thomas

      I’m a lay person, but a quick use of Google brought me to

      242 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2001)

      MADE IN THE USA FOUNDATION, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 12L UNITED STEEL WORKERS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
      v.
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

      No. 99-13138
      D. C. Docket No. 98-01794-CV-PT-M

      Feb. 27, 2001

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

      Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and B. FLETCHER*, Circuit Judges.

      BETTY B. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:

      “§2. In a remarkably learned and thorough opinion, the district court granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment.   Made in the USA Foundation v. United States, 56 F.Supp.2d 1226 (N.D.Ala.1999).   The court found that Article III standing requirements had been met for most of the original appellants 1 and that the case did not present a nonjusticiable political question, thus electing to reach the merits of the case.   Ultimately, however, the court held that even assuming NAFTA constitutes a full-fledged “treaty,” the Treaty Clause does not constitute the exclusive means of enacting international commercial agreements, given Congress’s plenary powers to regulate foreign commerce under Art. I, § 8, and the President’s inherent authority under Article II to manage our nation’s foreign affairs.   Accordingly, the district court held that NAFTA’s passage in 1993 by simple majorities of both houses of Congress was constitutionally sound.
      “§3We agree with the district court that the appellants have standing in this matter, and affirm the principle, as enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court, that certain international agreements may well require Senate ratification as treaties through the constitutionally-mandated procedures of Art. II, § 2. See, e.g., Holden v. Joy, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 211, 242-43, 21 L.Ed. 523 (1872);  Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433, 40 S.Ct. 382, 64 L.Ed. 641 (1920).   We nonetheless decline to reach the merits of this particular case, finding that with respect to international commercial agreements such as NAFTA, the question of just what constitutes a “treaty” requiring Senate ratification presents a nonjusticiable political question.   Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and remand with instructions to dismiss the action and vacate the decision of the district court.” [emphasis added]

      And so on. There are thirty-four sections.
      https://openjurist.org/242/f3d/1300/made-v-united

      • Kurt thialfad

        Yes, this was a circuit court overturning the decision of a district court. It would seem the district court found in favor of the 2/3rds of the Senate requirement. Now, the supreme court have overturned the circuit court.
        Regardless, international agreements are treaties by definition.
        I think that simple majority treaty confirmation can be done, but only when a constitutional amendment is passed.

        • Robert Thomas

          Where has the Supreme Court done such a thing?

          endnote 21: The constitutionality of NAFTA was vigorously debated by legal scholars. Compare Ackerman and Golove 1995 (arguing that adoption of NAFTA as a congressional-executive agreement was constitutional) with Tribe 1995 (arguing that NAFTA is unconstitutional). In Made in the USA Foundation v. United States, 54 F.Supp.2d 1226 (W.D. Alabama 1999), a U.S. district court held that the failure to use the treaty process to approve NAFTA did not render NAFTA unconstitutional. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the issue of whether NAFTA must be approved as an Article II treaty was a non-justiciable political question, 242 F.3d 1300 (11th Circuit 2001), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.” [emphasis added]

          “Legal Options for U.S. Acceptance of a New Climate Change Agreement”
          Daniel Bodansky
          Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
          https://www.c2es.org/docUploads/legal-options-us-acceptance-new-climate-change-agreement.pdf

          Further,

          “Despite numerous such challenges to various Executive Agreements, no U.S. court has ever invalidated one of them on the grounds that it was actually a “treaty” that should have been subject to Senate approval. In fact, courts have concluded that they cannot even articulate any principle that would distinguish a “treaty” from any other agreement.
          “One example should suffice: If anything was ever a ‘treaty,’ it would be NAFTA. And in Made in the USA Foundation v. United States, 242 F.3d 1300, 1315 (2001), the Eleventh Circuit was asked to invalidate NAFTA precisely on the grounds that it was a ‘treaty’ that was not approved pursuant to the Treaty Clause. But the court simply could not come up with any criteria under which it could do so, because ‘the Treaty Clause also fails to outline the circumstances, if any, under which its procedures must be adhered to when approving international agreements’. Or, as one treaty scholar wryly observed, ‘One is compelled to conclude that there are agreements which the President can make on his sole authority and others which he can make only with the consent of the Senate (or of both houses), but neither Justice Sutherland [in United States v. Belmont] nor anyone else has told us which are which.’ L. Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the United States Constitution 222 (2d ed. 1996).
          “Thus no court has ever articulated any test for what would make something a ‘treaty’, let alone [Competitive Enterprise Institute’s] grab-bag of ad hoc criteria that ‘[t]he Paris Climate Agreement is a treaty by virtue of its costs and risks, ambition compared to predecessor climate treaties, dependence on subsequent legislation by Congress, intent to affect state laws, U.S. historic practice with regard to multilateral environmental agreements, and other common-sense criteria.’
          “For better or worse, after 230 years of the Treaty Clause, we are left with the rather tautological situation that a ‘treaty’ is simply any agreement that the President submits to the Senate under the Treaty Clause. And if CEI believes that needs to be fixed, then I suggest they propose the appropriate Constitutional Amendment.”

          “Is The Paris Climate Agreement A Treaty?”
          By David Bookbinder
          Climate & Energy Policy, Niskanen Center, May 5, 2017

  • Another Mike

    Dianne Feinstein recently told a judicial nominee that she was too influenced by Catholic dogma to be a judge. How does this square with

    1. The free exercise of religion promised in the First Amendment?

    2. The requirement from Article Six, clause Three that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”?

    • Curious

      It doesn’t.

    • Jon Latimer

      Good questions. I believe Feinstein may be referring to the conflict of interest presented by being beholden to the authority of a foreign body (i.e. the Pope, the Vatican, etc.), so she’s referring to the 14th, which in this case seems to be slightly at odds with the 1st as you suggest. The “no religious test” qualification is intended to prevent a religious hegemony in government, but the 14th still applies to all citizens, and someone who sits on a bench interpreting the law should certainly not be a “subject to the authority of a foreign power”. One could ask whether a strict interpretation of Catholic dogma may itself be at odds with the 14th, though this is obviously not how it has been interpreted. JFK ran up against this problem, but won regardless, by addressing it directly (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600). Any religion or political party that demands followers swear an absolute allegiance to a “foreign” individual whose commands could directly or indirectly contradict US law will run likely into confirmation problems of this sort.

  • EIDALM

    I totally agree with U C Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff who recently published an article title HATE SPEECH IS NOT FREE SPEECH……Please read it on line.

    • jurgispilis

      Fair enough, but who decides what is hate speech? How do you judge such a thing? It is very subjective.

      But regardless, isn’t hate speech protected?

      • Curious

        Yes.

  • Noelle

    Why isn’t this being taught in schools, is it only taught in American history classes during colonial -early republic period then they don’t mention Constitutional issues after that? It’s really hard to say, since school curricula is locally controlled.

  • Another Mike

    Immigrants have no right to live in this country unless the US specifically grants them one. So how does due process apply to deportation of illegal aliens?

    • geraldfnord

      They are ‘persons’, as much as you or me or GloboChem™Inc..

      • Another Mike

        The US did not really control immigration till the mid 1920s. If you showed up, you got in, unless you were manifestly unhealthy or otherwise likely to be a charge on the state. I had a relative suspected of having TB, so he had to cool his heels on Ellis Island for several days till he was eventually admitted.

        So, it seems to me the guests glossed over the distinction between legal and illegal aliens — are they both “persons”?

        • geraldfnord

          I think there was a reference in the show to case law involving a ‘Celestial’ in the 1880s establushing that ‘person’ includes all natural persons,though perhaps I mis-heard.

          • Another Mike

            Right, there were no “illegal aliens” back then.

        • Bill_Woods

          Before then, immigration control was provided by geography.
          Not that many people lived within walking distance of the US border.

  • Noelle

    There seems to be some evidence that the current occupant of the White House doesn’t understand the Constitution. Maybe his constituency is those people who are ignorant as well.

    • Bill_Woods

      His opponents also have an imperfect understanding of the 1st Amendment.

      • Another Mike

        Jack Rakove has (or at least, had) an imperfect understanding of the Second Amendment.
        Refer to UCLA law professor Volokh for an explanation.

        http://volokh.com/posts/1215540306.shtml

        • Another Mike

          The first federal court case to hold that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right was US v. Tot, a Third Circuit case from 1942.

          The famous US v. Miller Supreme Court case from 1939 (bootlegger carried sawed-off shotgun without evidence of paying federal tax under the National Firearms Act) granted the bootlegger standing to argue his Second Amendment case. Had the Second Amendment been limited to states or militias, cert should not have been given.

        • chriswinter

          Was it Rakove who stated that there is no individual right to self-defense in the Constitution? (I was just coming in the door as I heard this. I thought, “What—”.)

          • Another Mike

            Rakove defended the thesis of his brief in Heller, and mocked the idea that the Framers were considering an individual right to self defense when they drafted the Second Amendment.

            To me it is obvious that the Second Amendment guarantee of individual arms ownership benefited the country by enabling ample marksmanship practice by its citizens.

    • Curious

      He knows as much about it as the previous occupant.

      • Noelle

        whatever.

    • William – SF

      Even a meaningful document such as the Constitution can’t address bias, hate, strongly held beliefs, denial, and yes ignorance. The citizenry has to do some work.

      • Noelle

        indeed.

    • Another Mike

      That is why businessmen hire lawyers — to keep them out of trouble by telling them the legal limits they need to operate within.

  • geraldfnord

    Two fundamental questions:

    Firstly: why does the Constitution apply to us born here, recently, who have sworn no oath to it? I’ve always assumed that it’s because we assent to it as we understand it, as opposed to what the Founders meant.

    Secondly: the Founders meant by ‘constitution’ a body or structure, which they meant to establish in its initial form with a written document. As such, is the U.S. constitution just the written document as amended or our entire body of law and the norms grown-up about it?

    • Bill_Woods

      First,

      This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

      As to the second, if federal laws weren’t distinct from — and subordinate to — the Constitution, an ‘unconstitutional law’ would be an oxymoron.

      • geraldfnord

        My apologies: after Lysander Spooner, I’m asking about a moral or ethical claim on my obedience.

        • William – SF

          And can be asked of children brought up in a religious family.

        • Another Mike

          So long as you continue to live here, and avail yourself of its benefits and protections.

    • Another Mike

      The Constitution restricts the powers of the federal (and latterly, the states’) government. If you don’t like it, you are free to try to amend it, or find a country you like better.

  • geraldfnord

    Is the Constitution, being a formal system, subject (if strictly and textually interpreted) to Gödel’s Theorem?

    • Another Mike

      No.

    • chriswinter

      I find that question Undecidable. (G)

      But seriously, can we call the Constitution a formal system in the sense that Gödel meant? If we can, then I suggest that any composition in English (or any natural language, come to that) is equally subject to Gödel’s Theorem. Would it change the way we do things?

  • pm05

    Doesn’t Justice O’Connor have a program to teach civics?

    • Noelle

      they just mentioned it

  • Kurt thialfad

    You say every person is entitled to Due Process. But what about diplomats and ambassadors? Every hear of ‘diplomatic immunity’?

    Another point from the 14 amendment. About birth citizen, it would seems you (parents) need to be a resident of a State (the State in which they reside). But if you reside illegally in a State, are you a ‘resident’?

    • Curious

      The 14th Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship. It came about because of a left wing judge’s incorrect ruling.

      • Another Mike

        Birthright citizenship is the rule in the Western Hemisphere. Look at Ted Cruz, Canadian by virtue of being born on Canadian soil. Or John McCain, Panamanian by virtue of having been born in the Canal Zone — Panama retained sovereignty over the Canal Zone. Of course, they were also American citizens by descent.

        In the past, dual citizens would have to elect one citizenship at age 21 (later lowered to 18). But today, the US tolerates dual nationals.

        • Curious

          The he aspect of birthright citizenship I am referring to is that conferred by jus soli (Latin: right of the soil) i.e., people born in the US.

          • Another Mike

            Yes, ius soli is the rule in the overwhelming majority of Western Hemisphere countries, even if it does lead to dual citizenship.

          • Curious

            Not really. About half of European counties follow that rule.

            My point is that it is not conferred by the 14th Amendment.

          • Another Mike

            Right, birthright citizenship antedates the Fourteenth Amendment. Look at the New York case of Lynch v. Clarke (1944). (Child born to aliens temporarily in the United States with no desire to live her permanently, who returned to Ireland with her parents, was held to be a citizen of the United States, eligible to inherit real estate.)

          • Curious

            The 14th changed that.

          • Curious

            BTW, from the case: “It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States.”

            To the extent that this case was precedent, it was abrogated by the 14th Amendment.

          • Another Mike

            Why do you say that?
            The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that former slaves were treated as citizens, not to deprive Irishwomen of citizenship.

          • Curious

            During Congressional debate of the Citizenship Clause it was made clear that the drafters did not intend automatic birthright citizenship for all persons born in the U.S. Senator Jacob Howard, a drafter of the 14th Amendment, in floor debate said of the Clause:

            “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

            Senator Howard also made clear that simply being born in the U.S. was not enough to be a citizen when he opposed an amendment to specifically exclude Native Americans from the Citizenship Clause.

            He said, “Indians born within the limits of the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

            Notice the reasoning deployed, Native Americans maintain their tribal relations so they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Senator Edgar Cowan said, “It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power.”

            Senator Lyman Trumbull said:

            “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. That means, “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.”

            He further elaborated, “What do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
            There was still more discussion of the language by Senator Reverdy Johnson. He said:
            “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

  • jurgispilis

    Are you confusing the DOI and the Constitution. Does the DoI have the force of law? Does the right to Life have the force of law? it’s not in the constitution. Naturally, the Right to Life has served as a huge justification for the anti-abortion crowd.

    • MonkInSF

      Does the baby have a right of life? Does he/she have right to choose not be born if he/she knows that the parents are to abandon him/her?

  • marte48

    What is such a “stretch” about health care being considered “the right to life?”

    • Skip Conrad

      Who should pay for the healthcare? It seems that unlike the right to religion, the right to speech, the right to protection from illegal search, the right to have no soldiers quartered in you home, etc. the right to healthcare has an implicit cost.
      Everybody seems to be able to enter a healthcare facility and get treatment. But you still have to pay for it.

      • Robert Thomas

        The same could be asked about the rights guaranteed by the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, which require government expenditures of all sorts including those for buildings and other facilities, stipends for jurors and salaries for court employees and countless other “implicit costs” levied on the purse of the people.

        • Bill_Woods

          Most of that is implied by the establishment of a judicial system of some sort in Article 3,
          which was universally understood to be something a state had the power and duty to do.

          There are some extra expenses, e.g. interpreting the right “to have the Assistance of Counsel
          for his defence” to mean, ‘paid for by the government, if need be’. But that’s de minimis.

          • Robert Thomas

            Not at all. The U.S. Constitution makes demands that cost both the federal government an the states billions of dollars every year in judicial branch expenditure. The Sixth and Seventh Amendments – which cary no less weight than the initial seven Articles – impose substantial further burden to government over that that would be incurred if judicial decisions were taken by closed tribunals, without courtroom cost or the provisions required for poor criminal defendants.

            In any case, the fact that the federal government incurs any expenditure on them at all is sufficient to invalidate the argument that other requirements of the Constitution are free of “implicit cost”.

        • Kurt thialfad

          That’s why your public defender is a bozo. Virtually worthless.

          • Another Mike

            Not in the Bay Area. It is much harder to become a PD than a DA.

    • Curious

      How about food?

  • marte48

    From the native American’s point of view, we are all “illegal aliens.” Weren’t the “founding fathers” smart enough to realize this fact?

    • Curious

      Native Americans were immigrants too.

    • wandagb

      You are referring to Siberian-Americans I presume.

  • chriswinter

    Jack Rakove seems reasonably knowledgeable. It would be nice if he had answered the question a caller asked at 9:46 — Does the Electoral College have the responsibility of assuring that unsuitable people do not become president?

    Personally, I think this is one part of its job.

    • jurgispilis

      But how do you judge somebody as being unsuitable, when a huge segment of the voters say that he is suitable?
      Besides, the qualifications to be president on only 35 years of age, and a natural born citizen. Maybe we need an amendment to increase the presidential qualifications

      • chriswinter

        It is a thorny question, somewhat like defining pornography. (I’m sure you remember the quotation from a legislator that I’m thinking of, RE: pornography.)

        But I submit that having been convicted of racial discrimination in housing, and also being accused of numerous instances of fraud and sexual misconduct, would be a reasonable answer.

        • Bill_Woods

          Justice Potter Stewart was briefly a city councilman, but never a legislator.

        • Curious

          And yet Billy Clinton got a pass on all of that.

        • Another Mike

          You guys don’t remember or maybe are too young, but in the early 1970s, keeping your apartment buildings segregated was the financially prudent thing to do. For over a decade, Northern urban whites had fled their neighborhoods as the first blacks moved in. As long as tenants remained racist, their landlords could not get too far ahead of their skis, lest they have abandoned buildings to manage. It was totally immoral and illegal of course, but Trump could have gone broke waiting for his tenants to become enlightened.

          • Another Mike

            Did Trump commit fraud or not? Anybody can make an aggravation.

        • Kurt thialfad

          Bill Clinton had 2 out of 3, and he was reelected.

  • Tijmen

    You guys don’t remember or maybe are too young, but in the early 1970s, keeping your apartment buildings segregated was the financially prudent thing to do. For over a decade, Northern urban whites had fled their neighborhoods as the first blacks moved in. As long as tenants remained racist, their landlords could not get too far ahead of their skis, lest they have abandoned buildings to manage. It was totally immoral and illegal of course, but Trump could have gone broke waiting for his tenants to become enlightened.

  • Robert Thomas

    Yours is an account of injustice and dishonorable conduct on the part of administrators but possibly, of neither illegality nor unconstitutionality.

  • MonkInSF

    There are so many greedy people who just want rights without obligations. When there was no border control, there was no welfare. You were welcome if you could make a living. Things are very different. Those who are requesting open border, please also open the door of your house, donate all your fortune to fullfill your duty!

  • wandagb

    Guest Kathleen Hall Jamieson of Annenberg School for Communication apparently is a graduate of George Orwell Newspeak University. Notice her language for illegal aliens:
    “…those here illegally or undocumented” next becomes “those here without traditional legal standing and without traditional legal citizenship.”

    Gotta love NPR and FOURM; never a day with predictable disrespect for language and the exaltation of the immigrant.

Host

Mina Kim

Mina Kim is KQED News’ evening anchor and the Friday host of Forum. She reports on a wide range of issues affecting the Bay Area and interviews newsmakers, local leaders and innovators.

Mina started her career in public radio at KQED as an intern with Pacific Time. When the station began expanding its local news coverage in 2010, she became a general assignment reporter, then health reporter for The California Report. Mina’s award-winning stories have included on-the-scene reporting of the 2014 Napa earthquake and a series on gun violence in Oakland.

Her work has been recognized by the Radio Television Digital News Association, the Society of Professional Journalists and the Asian American Journalists Association.

Mina grew up in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Oak Park, CA. She lives in Napa.

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor