Constitutional Experts Pen Open Letter to Donald Trump (Audio)

of religious minorities. The letter also calls on Trump to withdraw the nominations of Senator Jeff Sessions as U s Attorney General and Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor joining us as. Neil Siegal, Professor of Law and political Science at Duke Law School, one of the writers of this letter, Neil, Trump does not seem to be taking advice, and you express doubt in the last paragraph of your letter that he will take his constitutional oath seriously. So what do

you hope to accomplish with this letter? Well, me, the first hope, which you've already spoken to, is that the President elector those around him as close as advisors, will take a close look at the letter and seriously and soberly consider it. Um. But I think that's not the only reason to have done it, and a more UH think another important reason and a more likely consequence, is

to um model uh An important form of resistance. I think a lot of people are struggling with how to respond to truly extraordinary and disturbing conduct by the president elect. Should one, UM, see what happens and hope for the best and extend an olive branch. Should one resist more formally?

And I think this more fortunately, I think this is modeling a very strong form of resistance, that that we hope various institutions in society that have developed slowly over time to push back against power when it's being exercised unlawfully or or profoundly unwisely. I'm talking about the media, for example. It's going to be important for the media not to the normalize or legitimate attacks on the constitutional system.

To understand the difference between neutrality and objectivity. I'm talking about educational institutions, religious institutions. Legal institutions are courts UH, which UH makes make good on our nation's commitment to the rule of law and which requires judicial independence. UM. And so I think that go ahead, Well, have you what if you've seen anything since Donald Trump has been elected that gives you hope about how he might treat

the constitution or the rule of law. UM, At least some parts of your letter, including you mentioned Jeff Sessions his choice for attorney in general, uh, sort of suggests that you see him as doubling down on the types of the kind of conduct that you're worried about. Yeah,

I hope is not the kind I mean. I wouldn't say I see conduct that gives me hope, given um when he's talked, when when he's still I think, undermining a free a free press, and um sending tweets talking about stripping people of citizenship or putting them in jail for burning the American flag. UM. So I'm not really

seeing much in the way of hope. I think he has um backed off of a few of his most disturbing statements or what appeared to be promises during the campaign, like putting his political opponent in jail if he was elected. He had really robustly embraced torture, which raises both constitutional problems and problems under international law. And then he had what appears to be a single conversation with General Maddis and he said, maybe maybe it's not as effective or

as wise as I had thought. So I I wouldn't call it hopeful. I did see a few ways in which he's backed off some of his most uh or more extreme statements. But then you know, we see a disinterest. There are there. The letter illustrates concerns but doesn't exhaust right, So there's disinterested intelligence briefings and what he may do

in the name of national security raises concerns. The multitude of financial conflicts of interest, which some of which raise constitutional concerns, but all of which raise serious concerns about whether he's going to be able to uh simply do what he thinks his best of the country as opposed

to best for his business deal. Let's talk about one of the concerns you raise, and he ran on overturning Row v. Wade and his list of Supreme Court nominees reflects that you asked him to reconsider that in light of the likelihood that he will not reconsider that, Is there anything that anyone can do about that? Well? I

think it's uh. I think what what those who uh, those who who disagree with with his with the stated promise which I agree he's gonna he's going to try and make good on, I think they could hold him to count to at least be completely aware of candid about to level with the American people about what the consequences are. So the letter doesn't simply say you want to over row, don't do it. When he was asked what the consequences for women would be, he said they

would simply have to go to another state. It would be sent back to the states. And you know that that shows a disturbing lack of awareness of or an insensitivity to the reality that for many women in our country, that's simply not possible. It's not possible economically in terms of their family and work situation. And I think it also ignores the fact that there have been many efforts, not just at the state level, but at the federal

level to roll back protections of women's reproductive rights. And unless he means to be suggesting that he's going to veto any federal law that would restrict divorce, and it's it's not just insensitive, it's also um disingenuous to say that the issue will be handled at the state level. So I don't think it's simply about will your nominees

vote to overull row? It's are you going to be fully aware of the consequences and in candid with the American people about um um, where and how this issue will be resolved if, if, if the Supreme Court is no longer going to be in the business of a tempting women's right. You know, I look at your list of signatories to this letter, and I don't don't know all of them, but the ones I do know I

tend to think of as being relatively liberal. Was there an effort to bring on more conservative legal scholars to to join this effort, you know, there was not. I think that the sense of of the group is that we wanted to do something as a group initially, we certainly would would very much appreciate the support of legal conservatives.

There were a group of legal conservatives, originalists who are committed to the original understanding of the Constitution, who wrote a letter with some similar themes, although not all the same, opposing Trump during the election because they saw him as a threat to the constitutional system. And the letter does call upon legal conservatives who are committed to basic constitutional

values too to join us in speaking out. But the the instinct of the group was to say something for ourselves, which is not going to be the last we have to say about it, at least as an initial matter. Before we think about working with others of more diverse ideological commitments, who many of whom share at least like some A is not all of our concerns, Neil, about a minute left here, So you have seven different areas. Is there one that is of particular concern? Well, there

are seven areas listed in the letter. There are a number of others which I've mentioned so far, and we could also talk about his response to the CIA report, the CIA finding that Russia interfered in the election, and his attack on the CIA without any kind of evidence or analysis. Um So again, I think these examples in the letter are are illustrations, but stuff is happening in real pinea just add to the concerns. You know, if

I had I would, I would prefer not to pick one. Um, but if I you know, if I had to, I think we we listed free speech and a free press first for a reason because if we if the media is not able to fully and fairly discharge its responsibilities out of fear that the administration is going to desiret access to the White House and not informative where the

president is. Um. I think that's that's absolutely fundamental, that that that this our next president UM, like his predecessors in both political parties, UM ensure that the press is able to to do its job to report No Pine candidly on his activities without fear of reprisals. We will have to leave it at that. If you want to read the full letter, you can go to the American

Constitutional Society website. Thank you Neil Single, professor of law and political science at Duke Law School, for joining us here on Bloomberg Law. Coming up on Bloomberg Law. In an unusual opinion, the Sixth Circuit says that finding marijuana residue and packaging in trash doesn't justify searching a home for drugs. I'm June Grosso with Greg Story. You're listening to Bloomberg Law. This is Bloomberg