HH: That music means it is time for the Hillsdale Dialogue. www.hughforhillsdale.com connects you with every Hillsdale Dialogue we have conducted back to 2013. All things Hillsdale are collected at www.hillsdale.edu, including your application to attend the college, your opportunity to sign up for free to Imprimis, the monthly speech digest of Hillsdale College, which is absolutely free and comes into your mailbox, and all of the online courses, some of which are taught by my guest, Larry Arnn, the president of Hillsdale College. Dr. Larry Arnn usually is my guest. Sometimes, one of his colleagues on the faculty or staff joins me. He is back this week. Dr. Arnn, good morning to you.
LA: Good morning, Hugh, how are you?
HH: I’m very good. Gary Oldman won the Golden Globe. Were you not pleased?
LA: Yeah, and I guess my wife was telling me he won the Critic’s Choice thing last night.
HH: Oh, I missed that.
HH: So he’s rolling them up.
LA: Well, it’s, there’s a pattern in these first two. The Darkest Hour film wins for lead actor and makeup, and then other films are winning best picture so fare. I actually hope that Darkest Hour wins the best picture. I think it’s awesome. But anyway, yeah, he’s, and it’s kind of hard to deny, because it’s a very distinctive role, and the transformation is amazing. And then he just plays Churchill so differently than he is commonly played and more like himself.
HH: Well, you have made the comment in weeks past, and I don’t want to belabor that which you’ve said before, but it struck me as something most people did not know, that Churchill was physically nimble, and that Gary Oldman communicates that.
LA: You know, less so at age 65 where he was in this war, but still, that’s, you know, for a 65 year old man, he got around great.
HH: Did he continue to ride? He was a cavalryman in the Indian Frontier wars, and participated in the last charge of the British Cavalry ever. I think I’m correct about that, am I not?
LA: He did, yeah.
HH: I got it right. We should just stop now and go home. That’s good.
LA: Yeah, there we go. That’s it, yeah.
HH: So what, you know, cavalryman, they know how to use not only their bodies, but their horse’s bodies.
LA: He, you know, he said a wonderful thing which I can only paraphrase. Men have been ruined by betting on horses and owning horses, but they’ve never been ruined by riding horses. There’s nothing so good for the inside of a boy as the outside of a horse. And he rode, he played pole. He was very, he was, you know, he won a great distinction in polo in the all-India Polo championship, the only home regiment not to win, no, to win that championship, because the regiments permanently stationed in India had lots of time to play polo. And he was from a regiment that was just there temporarily, and they won the all-India Polo championship, and he was a star in the thing. So he, and he played into his 50s.
HH: Into his 50’s
HH: See, that’s what I was wondering, how long, because when I read the standard biographies of him, he is painting in his twilight years, or even as prime minister, but he is not riding. And a lot of people ride for exercise well into their 70s or 80s. Is it just too time consuming?
LA: Well, painting is time consuming, too, but you know, he got older, and you know, riding is, you know, it takes a lot of room, and it takes a lot of horses. And so that’s, it’s expensive, and so it was, and it’s not portable, right? You can’t take your horse with you, and he moved around all the time. But he rode when he could. And you know, when he was young, you know, to get a sense of him, because if you just think about your own self, you know, the things that brought you joy in your late adolescence and to your adulthood, those things tend to stay with you. And you know, Churchill could think of a lot of things he’d rather do than sit and learn Latin, although he did learn a fair amount, but…
HH: (laughing) Couldn’t we all?
LA: He got up to Sandhurst, and they got on horses. Sandhurst is the military academy. And he was a cavalry officer, and they got on horses, and he just was a different young man. He just all of a sudden was happy.
HH: He was not happy, though, with that last cavalry charge. I want to make sure people understand that he saw in that charge the coming nightmare. I’ve been reading recently, because I’m reading a new book by Arthur Herman, 1917, about World War I, and you and I have talked about it before, but it always shocks me the casualty rate. I mean, it’s so shocking as to be unbelievable. In one battle, the Battle of the Somme, 70,000 people are killed, one battle.
LA: Oh, yeah.
HH: And that, he saw that coming in that cavalry morning, did he not?
LA: Well, in, to be a little more specific, there were two charges, cavalry charges, and one was a pretty small one made by the British, and he was in that. And that happened after the great Dervish or Sudanese charge. And they charged 35,000 people across open ground a mile toward the British, who had artillery and you know, rifles. And they were repeating rifles, and maximum guns. And they were just slaughtered. And that’s what horrified him. But the charge he was in, after that, they were out on a plain outside Omdurman, outside Khartoum, and they were out on that plain, and after the Dervish were badly crippled by their charge, the British Army began to maneuver to get to the city. And Churchill was in a cavalry unit sent first. And they were trotting along, and the desert is unpredictable. It looks flat sometimes when it undulates. And so they saw some Dervish soldiers shooting at them, and they charged them. And then when they got close, they realized that there was a depression, and that there were many, many more. And so they charged through them, and they took on a lot of casualties. And Churchill himself was not wounded, and he attributed that to this thing. He had wounded his shoulder getting off a boat, and he couldn’t really swing a saber. And so he just had a pistol. And so when some Dervish would come up to him, he would shoot them in the face. And he comments on the way battles work, and he says, you know, when you’re bleeding or your horse is bleeding, or your reins are cut, everybody charges up to take you on. But if a bunch of people run up to charge you and you shoot them, you don’t get many takers.
LA: (laughing) And so…
HH: But you know, that, it is a necessary background understanding the Darkest Hour, and understanding Oldman as Churchill to have known that he shot men in their face at close range, and that he served in the trenches of World War I, that he was not a man of the office, so that when, there’s a memorable part of the trailer, which people have seen so I don’t mind spoiling it for them. Will you stop interrupting me when I am interrupting you, he screams.
LA: Yeah, that’s right.
HH: And it’s a very great exchange, because it is both funny and authority establishing. But if you are a soldier, and indeed someone who has been in close-ordered combat, and has killed other people, you are not deterred by a room of suits.
LA: Yeah, he, I’ll tell one more story, because it’s, these war stories are tragic and fun, both. So there are two people that I know of in the First World War, in those terrible trenches, who cut a figure – MacArthur would wear a white scarf and carry a cane, a baton, to gesture with as he charged through those hellstorms. And Churchill, who was there for several months between offices, let’s say, after he had a crash, after the Dardanelles, Churchill would, he took very good care of his men. He brought in a huge bathtub and heated water. Everybody took a bath. He loved to take a bath. He got his bath for sure. He got rid of all of the lice. Operation Delouse was his first major operation with his troops. But what then, and he didn’t like the body count, and he didn’t like charging. But what he did like very much, and he did it, you know, when he had to, but what he did like very much was going out and exploring in no man’s land creeping around at night. And he was too loud. He wasn’t afraid. And they would be with him, and they would, you know, several people would be with him, and they would just marvel at him, because he said oh, let’s go over here, you know. And then one time, he, somebody had a, they tumbled into a trench, and therefore, somebody’s flashlight was on. And see, if they locate you, by the way, then they can…
HH: Then they can sniper you, yeah.
LA: Yeah, or artillery, you know…
HH: Oh, yeah.
LA: …because artillery were almost like rifles. There were just huge amounts of it, and they pockmarked the ground. And so he said in a too loud voice, put out that bloody light. And then this quiet, little voice said sir, it’s your light. (laughing)
HH: (laughing) Well, there, it’s just a magnificent life, and Gary Oldman, I just hope, he gave an elegant speech as he accepted. I am curious, though, and poor Tom Hanks. He plays a great Ben Bradley in The Post, but there is no standing against this performance, because there’s actually no parallel in history.
LA: Yeah, I don’t think so, and I very much hope so. You know, it’s an interesting thing. I might write something about it this weekend. The New York Times reviewed the thing, and ridiculed a little bit the great man theory of history. What Oldman said was this proves, in his acceptance, this proves something for all of us, about our ability to choose and have an effect.
HH: Oh, how well put. How well put. Don’t go anywhere, America. Dr. Larry Arnn and I discuss Article I, Section 8 after this, and the President’s comments. Stay tuned.
— – – – –
HH: Dr. Arnn, the controversy of the day happens to coincide with where we are in our series on the Constitution. We are in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which provides that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” I spend about six weeks on this in my Con Law course, some of it on naturalization authority, most of it on the Commerce Clause. But naturalization is much in the news, including the President’s comments yesterday. Set the scene.
LA: Well, first of all, this is the grant of power to the federal government, because the federal government proceeds from laws, or used to, made in Congress. And there’s a controversy right at the start, which I’ll summarize very quick. It says, you just read it, that lay and collect duties, duties, imposts, excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. So what follows that is a list of 17 clauses that break into three groups. And those describe a federal government with certain areas of power that are broad, but also finite whereas general welfare looks like it’s infinite. And I’ll just say about that that James Madison wrote later that that section was badly written, that it was an attempt to copy from the Articles of Confederation, a clause that would let the common government, the central government, pay the debt from the Revolutionary War. And so they were trying to set it up so that legitimate federal debts from the past, including the Revolutionary War, the debts were still out there, could be paid for by the federal government. But it reads like a positive grant of power, and as you the lawyer know, Constitutional lawyer know, it has been read that way with more people read it that way than the way Madison suggested.
HH: Although there’s been a very successful pushback on the idea of a general police power in the federal government. Otherwise, why bother listing all of these enumerated powers if there is a general power.
LA: There you go. You know, the logic of Article I, Section 8, Clarence Thomas in the very great court opinion U.S. V. Lopez makes the same kind of argument about the Commerce Clause, one of these 17 clauses. He said if it means what we say it means today, it means all of the rest of Article I, Section 8 is redundant.
LA: And so that, if you don’t follow Madison, and you know, it’s a mistake, by the way, about the meaning of the specific provisions of the Constitution not to follow Madison, because he is pretty sharp.
HH: And he drafted the Virginia plan, and he kept the notes on the Convention.
LA: Didn’t he, though, right? So, and you know, he was not a dummy. And it’s funny, he’s very different from his friend, Jefferson, because precision is his thing, and sometimes beauty, always precision and elegance. And so he can be wrong. There are places where I think he’s wrong, but he’s a heck of a guide, and you’d start with him, in my opinion.
HH: Yes, you would. When we come back, we’re going to talk about what he meant by to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. By the way, Dr. Larry Arnn, have you seen Hamilton, yet?
LA: I have not.
HH: How can that be?
LA: I don’t know. Isn’t that odd? Yeah, I should have, and I’ve had a note to myself to see it. I haven’t seen it.
HH: You ought to take the wonderful Penny tonight and get on a plane and fly to New York and see Hamilton.
LA: Yeah, yeah, okay.
HH: That’s part of your duty as president of Hillsdale College. I think it’s in the charter.
LA: Sure, sure. Are they showing it in the Bahamas?
HH: They are not. No, get on the, New York. I’ll be right back with Dr. Larry Arnn. Stay tuned, America.
— – – – —
HH: The room where it happens, Dr. Larry Arnn, concerns a certain meeting of three people in the year 1790 – Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton, out of which comes, of course, the great compromise. You know, this stuff is fun, and finally Broadway figured it out. You and I have been knowing that for years.
LA: Oh, yeah, yeah. And I guess it saved Hamilton on the money, is that right?
HH: Yeah, it is a terrific, it is a terrific musical, and I think it, to the extent it encourages people to actually learn the framing and the founding as we’re talking about today, it’s good. But let’s go back to Article I, Section 8. Among those enumerated powers is one to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. This very morning on the centerpiece of the opinion page of the Washington Post, I’ve got a column saying there’s a compromise right in front of us. The DACA people stay, the wall goes up, we adopt the Cotton amendments concerning chain migration and the visa lottery, and we’re done. Isn’t this too obvious to fail, Dr. Arnn?
LA: Yeah, and what the Cotton thing does in particular is it’s interesting, by the way, how the DACA thing is so important. It concerns 800,000 people, which is a fraction of the number concerned. But what the Cotton thing does is just recognize what the best immigration systems in the world, say, Canada have, and adopt that here. But also, the guidance we have about that from the things the founders said, and what they said you should pay attention to is people who are well-suited by, combine that by training, by experience, to live in a free country, participate in its rule, and provide for themselves and contribute to the economy. And you know, speaking English was a big deal, because fellow citizens need to talk to each other. And so they looked for people like that, countries where people live like that is what they look for. But today, you can, you know, with this point system that Senator Cotton proposes, today, you can, you know, you can examine individuals. And you know, everybody, you know, age is one of them, because like old folks like you and me would never get in. But people who are young, people who have got ability to contribute to free government and free economics, and be therefore excellent fellow citizens, those are the ones you want.
HH: Now this morning, there is a controversial story about the President who had a meeting on the compromise yesterday, in which he was alleged to have said, he is denying it now, that certain nations, why are we taking so many people from S-hole nations, or S-hole countries as opposed to, say, like Norway. And he listed among the S-holes El Salvador, Haiti and African countries, and among those that we should be getting them from, Norway. Now a lot of Americans have gone to Norway on cruise ships, and a lot of Americans have gone to El Salvador and Haiti on mission trips, and a lot of Americans have done both. And so the comment was shocking. But he has now denied it, and I want to read the, for the benefit of the record, and for the audience, and so that you can comment on it, his five tweets this morning, beginning two hours ago. The so-called bipartisan DACA deal presented yesterday to myself and a group of Republican senators and congressmen was a big step backwards. Wall was not properly funded. Chain and lottery were made worse. And USA would be forced to take large numbers of people from high crime countries which are doing badly. I want a merit-based system of immigration and people who help take our country to the next level. And I want safety and security for our people. I want to stop the massive inflow of drugs. I want to fund our military, not to do a Dem defund. Because of the Democrats not being interested in life and safety, DACA has now taken a big step backwards. The Dems will threaten shutdown, but what they are really doing is shutting down our military at a time when we need it most. Get smart, make America great again, in caps. The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used. What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made, a bit setback for DACA. Sadly, Democrats want to stop paying our troops and our government workers in order to give a sweetheart deal, not a fair deal, for DACA. Take care of our military and our country first, in caps. Your reaction, Dr. Arnn?
LA: Well, isn’t that interesting (laughing)?
HH: Yes, it is.
LA: It, so he, who knows what he said. Let’s put it this way. It won’t be worse than the Democrats in the room are claiming that it is. I hope they get a deal along the lines that you put in your Washington Post, and that would be a superb deal. And it looks to me like also a common sense deal.
HH: An obvious deal.
LA: Yeah, you know, who’s against that, right, or at least who can say so out loud? But he used this strong language, whatever language he used, and if he did that, I don’t know why. It would have been a mistake, I would imagine, but I have grown gun shy over the years, over the last year and a half, two years, I guess. You know, these controversies come up, and then on examination, they don’t work out the way everybody expects. And I don’t know what’s going to happen to this one. I do know that what he said in that tweet this morning, that’s a strong ground to stand on, right?
LA: And if it’s true that the deal is eroding, then an attack on it, in decent language, would be the right thing. I want to refer the listeners, by the way, to a really great piece of journalism in the Los Angeles Times this morning.
HH: What? Did I just hear you right?
LA: Yeah, yeah. It’s…
HH: Really great piece of journalism in the Los Angeles Times? Be…
LA: Yeah, it’s really great. And the headline is Trump’s Vulgar Migrant Remarks Is Latest In a Long String of Racial Provocations. So you know, that’s not exactly…
LA: …on the question. But then what they do in the piece is they reproduce exact quotes with dates and locations of the chief places where Trump is supposed to have made racist statements. And you can just go read them, and you will find that most of them are not about race, and that the worst of them, the ones that are most hated, they contain explicit denials that it’s about race.
HH: Including the famous Trump Tower escalator statement where he said they’re not sending us their best people.
LA: That’s right. And so I’ll just read that one to you, right? So anyway, I think, you know, kudos, because to present the actual, and most of the article is presenting these quotes. And here’s the one from June 16, 2015. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. Now by the way, that may or may not be true, and they may not be sending them at all, right? Probably, they’re not. So maybe that’s wrong, right? They’re not sending you, he refers to the audience, they’re sending people that have lots of problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume are good people. Now that means that last phrase, that means he’s definitely not saying that all Mexicans are rapists.
LA: And that may be a caricature, that may be a distortion of what’s happening in immigration. But it contains a denial that it’s a statement about race.
HH: Which takes us back, by the way, to Article I, Section 8.
LA: There you go.
HH: …which is that you have to take the entire statement in order, this is Scalia 101, in order to understand any part of it, you must read the whole of it.
LA: That’s right. And that’s, you know, it, the Constitution is, you know, you could, there’s more literature about the Constitution, and alas, the Constitution is too much understood today to be whatever a long string of court cases about every provision say it is. But the actual document itself is short. And if you read it, and then if you add in, you know, the prime sources, and they’re prime for a reason. They’re written by the people who were there and participated in the drafting of it and the ratification of it. Then you can get a strong sense of what they’re up to.
HH: You know, Dr. Arnn, yesterday was my second Con Law class at Fowler School. of Law at Chapman, of the semester, and I got us up to 1789 yesterday. And most Con Law classes begin in 1803 on the very first day with Marbury V. Madison. I like to drive home to my students, and I have for 22 years, that 1803 is a long ways after 1787, and that there’s a lot that’s being missed by people who begin their Con Law courses in 1803 with Marbury V. Madison, versus 1787, or indeed with the Articles and the Revolution.
LA: It, you know, there’s a, the story, you said this earlier, the story of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution is exciting, oddly enough in the same way that the story of the Declaration of Independence and the war is exciting.
LA: And the reason is it was done, both of those things were done amidst incredible peril, and against all odds. There had never been a constitution like this before. And what you’ve got is you’ve got these 13 warring factions, right, with their interests and their pride and their divisions, and they’re going to now, and see, unlike the Articles of Confederation, they’re going to write a constitution and take it to the people to ratify. And that had never really happened before, right? And nothing like this had ever been articulated as a plan of government from the beginning. The only real rival to it at that time, or I daresay since, is the British Constitution, which developed over a very long period of time and which, you know, you have to sort of tell a story of history to figure out what it means. And this Constitution is written down at a moment, and it is a plan. And it’s remarkable in that way, and it’s fun to read because of that, and you can get a grasp of it.
HH: Did any of the Greek city-states ever write down their governing morays?
LA: Oh, yeah. Yeah, you know, the famous law givers, you know, the most prime, of course, are Athens and Sparta. And they, you know, they had hallowed constitutions. Were they written down like this? They were not. And there’s a really great, you know, Paul Rahe, our professor who’s been on this show, is a very learned man, and he’s made his second really signal academic achievement in recent years, his first was to tell the story of republicanism, both ancient and modern in a three volume book that’s really great, young man when he wrote that. And now, he’s publishing, he’s almost finished with the last, a three volume set on Sparta. And he claims that Sparta is the first real system of checks and balances. And Sparta was famously stable. It was a great, powerful, stable country for hundreds of years.
HH: 600 years. If Sparta lasted 600, we do have a time limit on the U.S. Constitution, right?
LA: Yeah, we do. We want it to last a thousand years, and then rethink.
HH: (laughing) Don’t go anywhere. Dr. Larry Arnn is my guest. We’ll be right back with more comments on Article I, Section 8, and on President Trump and his immigration comments. Don’t go anywhere. The compromise is there. It’s too obvious to fail.
— – – —
HH: Dr. Arnn, this is a live broadcast, and therefore we have to respond to news as it occurs, and the President is news, and he has tweeted again one minute ago. Never said anything derogatory about Haitians other than Haiti is obviously a very poor and troubled country. never said ‘take them out’. Made up by Dems. I have a wonderful relationship with Haitians. Probably should record future meetings. Unfortunately, no trust. Let me be the first to say recording future meetings is a bad idea. But what do you think of this, Dr. Arnn? I’ve worked for a guy who found that that was not in his best interest.
LA: Yeah, and by the way, he was a very foul-mouthed guy, too.
HH: Only in the genteel way of the 60s, not in the gross way of the new millennium.
LA: Yeah, that’s right. He, and you know, I even think Richard Nixon was a gentleman, but not always.
HH: Not always.
LA: …clean in his language. So yeah, he…
HH: Well you know, George Washington was known to swear up a storm occasionally.
LA: Yeah, and in the middle of a battle…
HH: Yes, or in the middle of a cabinet meeting.
LA: He would never…
HH: I believe he was said to God D them quite a lot, was he not?
LA: He did, and he…
HH: He did.
LA: And he didn’t, you know, he didn’t like people running away on the battlefield or in the cabinet. (laughing)
HH: (laughing) So we’ve got three minutes. What is going on here? We’ve got to do the deal. I’m not sure if this helps or hurts, but he’s now thrown salt in everyone’s eyes, because they can’t figure out what happened.
LA: If you look at his first year, I believe it is a year full of amazing, you know, of course plenty of problems, right, amazing achievements. He’s got the regulatory state on the mend. It’s amazing. This tax deal is great. The welfare rolls are down. Unemployment relief is down. We’re having trouble finding workers, right? I mean, all of that stuff, and he does get up in the morning, and he’s working on what he said he would work on. And I wish, myself, that he wouldn’t, you know, I don’t know if I wish he wouldn’t tweet. Isn’t it fun reading these tweets of his?
HH: Well, it certainly, I don’t have to do much work.
LA: Yeah (laughing)
LA: You know, Duane said at the beginning, what are we going to do next segment, and he said wait a minute.
HH: Just wait a minute. By the way, we’re calling him Poppleton now after the children’s book. So he’s no longer Duane or Radioblogger or Generalissimo. He’s Poppleton. But anyway, it is, it does make for easy radio.
LA: It does, yeah. And you know, there’s obviously some methods, some extensive method to his madness. And you know, maybe sometimes, it’s just madness. It’s hard to say. But I will say this. This deal that they might get, that would just be revolutionary, it would be so great.
HH: But let me stop you there, because you don’t really mean madness.
HH: You mean unpredictable, often emotional, erratic, confrontation, but not mad.
LA: I’m just carrying on. Yeah, trained to be consistent, I’m just carrying out my metaphor, and I don’t want to vary it. But I don’t mean mad.
LA: I mean…
HH: But people will lift that from the transcript, and they’ll say, because I know how this works now.
LA: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
HH: And the world is full of this.
HH: And that’s why we can’t actually get obvious deals done, Larry Arnn.
LA: Yeah, well good, and you’re good at this stuff, and I’m more candid.
LA: But I don’t, you know, and I don’t mean that he’s mad. I don’t think so. I’ve been making the point that I think he’s very artful.
LA: And also a very purposeful man, isn’t he?
HH: Driven. Driven.
LA: And you know, I, what bothers me about him, I wish he wouldn’t praise himself quite as much as he does. But that’s part of the thing, and it means that people take him seriously. They think he’s very formidable. You know, you can say whatever you want to about Donald Trump. Everybody regards him as formidable. And that’s better than the alternative.
HH: Doesn’t that come from Machiavelli?
LA: What was it like in the last year of…
HH: It is better to be feared than loved?
LA: Yeah, what was it like, and you can remember, in the last year of the Carter administration, you know?
HH: Oh, my goodness.
HH: Oh, I remember it well, because I was in San Clemente with Richard Nixon, and everybody was laughing at us, everybody.
HH: And the Iranians were put into their dark night, which continued until last week when 22 were butchered and a thousand jailed. Their dark night began, because we had weakness and pusillanimity in the White House.
LA: That’s right. These things, the things that are happening in America, just many of them are very good, and in my opinion, right? I mean, people should get a chance to work. They shouldn’t live in dependency. They shouldn’t, you know, Americans are supposed to be thrusting, entrepreneurial, pushy people. They’re supposed to start businesses. They’re supposed to advance themselves. They’re supposed to get a chance to do that. And you know, this thing about the Trump and the poor, I’ll just say this. Trump draws a sharp line at the border of the United States of America, and I think that’s legitimate. But I think Trump often says things and is doing things that shows that he cares very much about the poor in America’s urban centers, especially. And he wants to help. He wants to get them off the welfare, and he wants them to work.
HH: More next week. Article I, Section 9. Dr. Larry Arnn, thank you, www.hillsdale.edu.
End of interview.