Is the Constitution the Moral Document You Think It Is?

> WELL, NOW WE TAKE A LOOK AT HOW ONE MAN SHOOK THE FOUNDATIONS OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY BY TEARING UP THE CONSTITUTION DURING A TIME OF ITS GREATEST THREAT.

HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR AND BLOOMBERG COLUMNIST NOAH FIELDMAN IS OUT WITH A NEW BOOK, THE BROKEN CONSTITUTION.

IT DELVES INTO PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S THOUGHT PROCESS AS HE REWROTE THE RULE BOOK AND GRAPPLED WITH CHALLENGES FROM BOTH POLITICAL RIVALS AND PASSIONATE ABOLITIONISTS.

HERE HE IS SPEAKING WITH WALTER ISAACSON.

THANK YOU, BIANNA AND PROFESSOR NOAH FIELDMAN, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

THANKS FOR HAVING ME, WALTER.

I LOVE THIS BOOK.

WHAT REALLY SURPRISED ME IS HOW ABRAHAM LINCOLN, SO TORE UP THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN HE GETS FACED WITH THE CIVIL WAR.

EXPLAIN THIS TO ME.

THE SOUTHERN STATES HAD SECEDED, AND LINCOLN FIRST HAD THIS -- TO GO TO WAR TO FORCE THEM TO STAY IN THE UNION AND TODAY WE THINK OF THAT AS OBVIOUS.

BUT AT THE TIME IT WAS VERY FAR FROM IT.

THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENT JAMES BUCHANAN AND HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD ISSUED A FORMAL DECISION OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD NO AUTHORITY TO FORCE A STATE THAT DIDN'T WANT TO BE IN THE UNION TO BE IN IT AND THAT WAS THE UNDERSTOOD CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW AT THE TIME.

SO FIRST YOU HAD TO BREAK THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONSTITUTION EXISTED JUST TO GO TO WAR AND THEN WITHIN A COUPLE OF MONTHS LINCOLN SUSPENDED THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WHICH MEANS WHEN YOU GET ARRESTED, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SHOW UP IN COURT AND HAVE CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU.

AND THEN HE USED THAT SUBSEQUENTLY OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS TO SHUT DOWN NEWSPAPERS AND TO SILENCE ARREST CRITICS WHO WERE AGAINST THE WAR ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

THE MOST EXTREME SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH EVER IN OUR HISTORY AND THAT, TOO, WAS PRETTY MUCH OBVIOUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE SUSPENSION OF HABEAS CORPUS WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTRICTED TO CONGRESS.

IT'S NOT THE PRESIDENT'S JOB.

AND THEN LAST, AND MOST FAMOUSLY, WHEN LINCOLN EMANCIPATE HAD HAD ENSLAVED PEOPLE IN THE CONFEDERACY HE WAS ACTING AGAINST WHAT HE HIMSELF HAD SAID WAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE AS RECENTLY AS A YEAR BEFORE THAT WHEN HE FIRST BECAME PRESIDENT.

IN FACT, IN HIS FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS HE BEGAN BY SAYING SLAVERY IS PERMANENT, IT'S CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AND I HAVE PLANS TO AFFECT IT.

IS THAT WHY THE FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS IS NOT CARVED ON THE WALLS OF THE LINCOLN MONUMENT?

EXACTLY.

YOU KNOW, YOU GO IN THERE AND SEE THE SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS WHICH IS A BEAUTIFUL SPEECH WHICH THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS WHICH WE ALL KNOW BY HEART AND NO ONE MENTIONS THE FIRST INAUGURAL.

THAT'S EXACTLY THE REASON.

IT SHOWS THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR, LINCOLN THOUGHT THE GOAL WAS TO REESTABLISH THE UNION AND THE WAY TO DO THAT WAS TO CONVINCE THE SOUTH TO COME BACK VOLUNTARILY AND THAT HE THOUGHT REQUIRED A GUARANTEE THEY WOULD HAVE SLAVERY FOREVER.

THIS ABILITY OF LINCOLN TO IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION OR IN SOME CASES AS YOU SAY TEAR IT UP.

SHOULD WE THINK MORE OF HIM FOR THAT OR LESS OF HIM FOR THAT?

WE SHOULD FIRST OF ALL SEE THAT HE IS A FAR MORE IMPORTANT FIGURE IN OUR HISTORY, EVEN THAN WE THINK.

WE ALL KNOW HE WAS A GREAT PRESIDENT, AND THAT HE HELPED THE UNION TOGETHER BUT WE DON'T ALWAYS REALIZE THE CONSTITUTION THAT WE HAD FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WAS A COMPROMISE, AND IT WAS A COMPROMISE THAT ENTAILED ALLOWING SLAVERY.

AND IN SOME FUNDAMENTAL WAY, THAT WAS IMMORAL.

AND LINCOLN WHEN HE BROKE THAT CONSTITUTION GAVE US THE POSSIBILITY OF NEW MORAL CONSTITUTION AND THAT MEANS HE'S WAY MORE IMPORTANT.

THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU BREAK SOMETHING, YOU'RE TAKING INCREDIBLY HIGH RISKS AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT LINCOLN WOULD SAY, WELL, IT WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE UNION WAS IN TROUBLE AND THE CONSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE REMADE AND THERE'S A LOT TO THAT BUT IT'S ALSO WORTH REMEMBERING IF A PRESIDENT TRIES TO BREAK THE CONSTITUTION WHEN WE'RE NOT IN A CRISIS OF THAT SCALE, THEN THAT PRESIDENT BECOMES WHAT LINCOLN HIMSELF SAID HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE, NAMELY A DICTATOR.

AND, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT, LINCOLN CHANGED HIS MIND FROM SAYING I DON'T WANT TO BE A DICTATOR BECAUSE ONLY A DICTATOR WOULD FREE THE SLAVES TO SAYING, OKAY, I AM GOING TO FREE THE SLAVES AND HE STILL DENIED BEING A DICTATOR BUT IN CERTAIN RESPECTS HE ACTUALLY WAS.

UP UNTIL THE CIVIL WAR YOU SAY THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT A GREAT MORAL DOCUMENT.

IT WAS JUST A COMPROMISE THAT HAD TO BE PUT TOGETHER.

DO YOU THINK THAT THE ORIGINAL COMPROMISE OF THE CONSTITUTION -- THAT LED TO THE CONSTITUTION HAS SLAVERY AND RACISM BAKED INTO IT?

THIS IS THE DEEP AND IMPORTANT QUESTION, AND THE WAY I WOULD PUT IT IS THAT THE 1787 CONSTITUTION DID HAVE SLAVERY BAKED IN.

IT GUARANTEED THAT THE SLAVE TRADE WOULD CONTINUE FOR 20 YEARS.

IT TREATED AFRICAN-AMERICANS AS THREE FIFTHS OF A PERSON FOR PURPOSES OF COUNTING FOR ELECTIONS AND WORST OF ALL IT INCLUDED THE FUGITIVE SLAVE CLAUSE WHICH GUARANTEED THAT FREE STATES WOULD HAVE TO COLLUDE IN SLAVERY BY RETURNING ESCAPED SLAVES BACK TO THEIR MASTERS.

SO IN THAT SENSE IT DID HAVE SLAVERY BAKED IN AND WE SHOULD BE HONEST SLAVERY WAS BASED ON WHITE SUPREMACY AND RACISM AND IN THAT WAY IT WAS BAKED IN.

BUT, AND IT'S A BIG BUT, THE CIVIL WAR AND LINCOLN'S ACTIONS BROKE THAT CONSTITUTION.

AND WE THEN REPLACED THAT CONSTITUTION WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

THE CONSTITUTION THAT INCLUDED THE 13th, 14th AND 15th AMENDMENTS WHICH PROHIBITED SLAVERY, AND GAVE EVERYBODY EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAWS AND GUARANTEED EVERYBODY THE RIGHT TO VOTE, OR AT LEAST ALL MEN AT THE TIME AND THOSE WERE FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATIONS, IN THAT SENSE I WOULD SAY WE HAVE A DIFFERENT CONSTITUTION THAN WE HAD IN 1787, AND THAT LATER CONSTITUTION, LINCOLN'S CONSTITUTION, DOES NOT HAVE SLAVERY OR FUNDAMENTAL RACISM BAKED IN, WE'RE CAPABLE OF CHANGING AS A COUNTRY.

ONE OF THE IMPORTANT PARTS OF YOUR BOOK IS ABOUT THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.

AND WHEN LINCOLN ISSUES IT, DOES HE ACTUALLY THINK HE HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO WHAT HE DID, WHICH IS TO FREE ENSLAVED PEOPLE IN THE REBELLIOUS CONFEDERATE STATES?

HE WORKED HIS WAY UP TO BEING ABLE TO SAY, WITH SOME CLARITY OF CONSCIENCE, THAT HE HAD THE AUTHORITY BUT IT WAS A HARD ROAD FOR HIM TO FOLLOW.

YOU KNOW, JUST A FEW MONTHS INTO THE WAR THE -- AN IMPORTANT GENERAL JOHN FREMONT WHO WAS THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL -- STARTED FREEING THE SLAVES OF REBELS IN MISSOURI.

AND LINCOLN ORDERED HIM TO STOP.

AND TO REVERSE HIS ACTIVE EMANCIPATION.

AND FREMONT SAID NO, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIRE ME.

LINCOLN FIRED HIM.

AND REVERSED HIS ACTIONS.

AND EXPLAINED TO A FRIEND OF HIS IN A LETTER THAT TAKING THE SLAVES OF REBELS WAS MERE DICTATORSHIP.

OVER THE NEXT YEAR AND A HALF HE SLOWLY, SLOWLY BEGAN TO TELL HIMSELF AS THE WORLD WENT WORSE AND WORSE, I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING AND AT THE SAME TIME HE BROUGHT INTO HIS THEORY OF MILITARY NECESSITY AND THIS WAS THE IDEA THAT AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF DURING A WAR, HE COULD DO WHATEVER IT TOOK, VIOLATING ANY RULES, INCLUDING THE LAWS OF WAR, AS THEY WERE UNDERSTOOD, IN ORDER TO WIN THE WAR SO THAT BY THE TIME HE GOT TO ISSUING THE FINAL VERSION OF THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION HE WAS SAYING I HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S A WAR MEASURE, AND I HAVE TO WIN THE WAR.

HE AVOIDED SAYING THAT HE WAS DOING IT BECAUSE IT WAS THE MORALLY RIGHT THING TO DO BECAUSE NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION ENTITLED HIM TO GET RID OF SLAVERY BECAUSE IT WAS IMMORAL.

HE EMPHASIZED THE IDEA THAT IT WAS A NECESSARY WAR MEASURE.

HE KNEW THAT ARGUMENT WAS DOUBTFUL BUT HE MADE IT ANYWAY AND IT WAS ENOUGH OF A FIG LEAF FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO SAY I'M GOING TO DO THIS.

DID HE CONSIDER, DID HE WANT TO, END SLAVERY, THROUGHOUT THE UNION, OR DID HE ONLY WANT TO DO IT IN ORDER TO WIN THE WAR IN THE SOUTH?

YOU KNOW, NOT LONG BEFORE EISSUED THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION LINCOLN MADE A PUBLIC STATEMENT WHERE HE SAID EMPHATICALLY IF I COULD END THE WAR BY FREEING ALL THE SLAVES, I WOULD DO IT.

IF I COULD END THE WAR BY FREEING NONE OF THE SLAVES I WOULD DO IT.

I WILL DO ANYTHING IT TAKES TO WIN AND END THE WAR.

I THINK -- MY OWN VIEW IS HE MEANT IT WHEN HE SAID THAT AND HE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT HE HAD THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SLAVES ELSEWHERE.

DID HE WANT SLAVERY TO END?

IN THOSE SLAVE STATES THAT WERE PART OF THE UNION?

HE DID.

AND HE ENCOURAGED THOSE STATES, HE URGED THOSE STATES, TO ENACT VOLUNTARY LEGISLATION.

BUT WHEN THEY DIDN'T, THERE WAS NOTHING HE COULD REALLY DO ABOUT IT UNTIL THE 13th AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, THAT ENDED SLAVERY EVERYWHERE IN THE UNION.

ONE OF THE MANY THINGS THAT SURPRISED ME IN THE BOOK WAS HOW MUCH LINCOLN ARRESTED NEWSPAPER EDITORS, JOURNALISTS, AND EVEN POLITICIANS, AND HELD THEM WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, ANY RIGHTS.

WHY DID HE DO THAT?

DID HE KNOW IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS IT NECESSARY FOR HIM?

HE WAS BEING TOLD IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL THE WHOLE TIME, YOU KNOW, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES WROTE AN OPINION SAYING THAT LINCOLN LACKED THE AUTHORITY TO ARREST PEOPLE AND HOLD THEM WITHOUT BAIL.

AND SENT THE OPINION TO LINCOLN, AND LINCOLN IGNORED IT.

AND MANY CRITICS, THROUGH THE WAR, TOLD HIM YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS.

IN HIS OWN MIND LINCOLN CAME TO BELIEVE THAT CRITICS OF THE WAR WERE ENDANGERING THE WAR EFFORT BECAUSE THEY WERE CONVINCING PEOPLE TO RESIST THE DRAFT AND WITHOUT A DRAFT THERE WOULD BE NO SOLDIERS AND WITHOUT SOLDIERS THE WAR COULDN'T BE WON AND HE TOLD HIMSELF, AND HE EVENTUALLY SAID THIS PUBLICLY, I NEED TO BE ABLE TO DRAFT PEOPLE TO WIN THE WAR.

SO I NEED TO BE ABLE TO SILENCE PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING WE SHOULDN'T BE FIGHTING THE WAR.

AND SOMEWHERE, THE NUMBERS ARE VERY HARD TO GET, BUT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 15,000 AND 40,000 PEOPLE WERE ARRESTED AND HELD WITHOUT BAIL TO END THIS PERIOD OF TIME, FOR AN EXTENDED TIME, WITH NO CHARGES.

HUNDREDS OF NEWSPAPERS WERE CLOSED.

HUNDREDS OF NEWSPAPER EDITORS WERE HELD AND ARRESTED.

AND EVERYBODY, INCLUDING LINCOLN'S SUPPORTERS, CALLED THOSE PEOPLE POLITICAL PRISONERS.

THAT WAS THE TERM 'THE NEW YORK TIMES' USED AT THE TIME, AND THE 'NEW YORK TIMES' WAS IN FAVOR OF IT YET THEY STILL CALLED THEM POLITICAL PRISONERS.

THIS IS A CHAPTER OF OUR HISTORY THAT WE'VE BASICALLY FORGOTTEN BECAUSE AT NO OTHER TIME IN OUR HISTORY HAS THE SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH COME ANYWHERE CLOSE AND WHENEVER WE HAVE DONE IT OTHER TIMES CONGRESS HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN PASSING LAWS LEEK THE ESPIONAGE ACT OR THE SMITH ACT THAT WERE THEN ENFORCED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AFTER TRIAL INVOLVING THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.

THIS IS THE ONLY TIME WE'VE HAD MASS ARRESTS, MASS DETENTIONS, WITH NO LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING IT, AND THE JUDICIARY PLAYING NO PART WHATSOEVER.

AND I'LL JUST CLOSE THAT THOUGHT BY SAYING THAT AFTER THE WAR THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO APPLY MILITARY LAW IN PARTS OF THE COUNTRY THAT WEREN'T UNDER FOREIGN OCCUPATION OR THAT WEREN'T UNDER WARTIME CONDITIONS.

AND THAT REMAINS THE LAW TODAY.

SO THE SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT ULTIMATELY WAS THAT WHAT LINCOLN HAD DONE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, WE'VE GONE THROUGH A SPATE OF RE-EXAMINING MONUMENTS, TAKING MANY OF THEM DOWN, CHANGING STREET NAMES HERE IN NEW ORLEANS.

LET ME ASK YOUR OPINION ON SOME OF THAT.

WHAT ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF THOMAS JEFFERSON FROM CITY HALL IN NEW YORK, GOOD IDEA, BAD IDEA?

I'M VERY INFLUENCED BY ANY COLLEAGUE ANNETTE GORDON REED WHO WROTE AN AMAZING BOOK ABOUT JEFFERSON AS A MAN BUT ALSO AS A SLAVE HOLDER.

SHE'S PROBABLY THE LEADING EXPERT -- I MEAN, SHE IS DEFINITELY THE LEADING EXPERT THAT WE HAVE IN THE WORLD NOW ON JEFFERSON'S ATTITUDES TO RACE AND HIS TREATMENT OF THE ENSLAVED PEOPLE WHO WERE LITERALLY HIS FAMILY, NOT JUST METAPHORICALLY.

THEY INCLUDED HIS OWN CHILDREN, SOME OF HIS OWN CHILDREN.

AND PROFESSOR GORDON REED'S VIEW, WHICH HAS INFLUENCED ME A LOT.

WHICH IS THAT AS A COUNTRY WE DO BETTER IF WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE BAD ASSOCIATED WITH OUR -- SOME OF OUR LEADERS, AND ALSO THE GOOD.

AND CONTINUE TO RECOGNIZE AND ACKNOWLEDGE PEOPLE LIKE THOMAS JEFFERSON, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY NOT HIDING FROM THE TRUTH AND THE FACTS ABOUT THEIR VIEWS.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE WHO, LIKE JEFFERSON, MADE TREMENDOUS POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR COUNTRY.

I MEAN, JEFFERSON WAS OUR PRESIDENT, HE WAS SECRETARY OF STATE, HE WROTE THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

BUT ALSO WERE DEEPLY FLAWED PEOPLE WITH VIEWS THAT WERE WRONG AND IN SOME CASES KNOWN BY OTHERS TO BE WRONG AT THE TIME.

SO I THINK THAT'S THE KIND OF BOUNDS THAT WE SHOULD STRIKE AND I THINK IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE QUESTION OF CONFEDERATE MEMORIALS, SOME OF WHICH WENT UP IN A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE THERE WAS A SELF-CONSCIOUS EFFORT TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO BLACK PEOPLE WHERE BLACK PEOPLE HAD GOTTEN TO THEMSELVES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

I THINK THOSE SYMBOLS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN OUR SYMBOLS LIKE THE RECOGNITION OF THOMAS JEFFERSON IN NEW YORK CITY.

YOU WERE AN ADVISER TO MARK ZUCKERBERG, AND HELPED IN AN INFORMAL WAY, I THINK, CREATE THAT IDEA OF A FACEBOOK COUNCIL THAT WOULD TRY TO HANDLE SOME OF THE MORAL ISSUES.

AS YOU LOOK AT THE PAPERS THAT HAVE COME OUT ABOUT FACEBOOK AND HOW THEY'VE AMPLIFIED THINGS THAT WERE UNTRUE, AND KNEW THAT THAT WAS HAPPENING, DO YOU THINK WE THESE TO REVISIT SOME OF THE FREEDOMS WE GIVE A COMPANY LIKE FACEBOOK WHEN IT COMES TO HOLDING THEM IMMUNE FROM LAWSUITS, WHEN THEY SPREAD THINGS THAT ARE FALSE AND MISLEADING?

THE FIRST THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT THE OVERSIGHT BOARD, WHICH I HELPED TO BUILD, ABSOLUTELY STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT FACEBOOK HAS TO BE MUCH MORE TRANSPARENT.

AND HAS TO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLES THAT IT PUTS FORWARD IN A SINCERE AND THOROUGH GOING WAY AND INDEED THE OVERSIGHT BOARD ACTUALLY RECENTLY ISSUED A MAJOR REPORT CALLING ON FACEBOOK TO BE MUCH MORE TRANSPARENT AND I FULLY ENDORSE THAT THOUGHT.

AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT SOME REFORM TO SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT YOU'RE ALLUDING TO IS DESIRABLE.

WE SHOULD BE REALISTIC ABOUT WHAT THAT REFORM CAN DO.

ALL IT CAN DO IS ALLOW COMPANIES LIKE FACEBOOK TO BE SUED IF LIBELLOUS MATERIAL IS PUT ON THEIR SITES.

AND THAT MIGHT BE DESIRABLE.

THAT MAY WELL BE DESIRABLE BUT THE PROBLEMS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS FACING IN RELATIONSHIP TO SOCIAL MEDIA ARE NOT JUST RESTRICTED TO LIBEL.

THEY ALSO INCLUDE A WIDE RANGE OF MISINFORMATION, POLARIZATION, AND OTHER KINDS OF SPEECH THAT CAN HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS.

AND THOSE THINGS REQUIRE A DEEPER ANALYSIS OF WHAT KINDS OF REGULATION CAN FIX THEM.

SOME OF THAT REGULATION WILL COME FROM OUTSIDE OF THE COMPANIES BUT BECAUSE OF OUR FIRST AMENDMENT, A LOT OF THAT REGULATION IS GOING TO HAVE TO COME FROM INSIDE THE COMPANIES.

SO I THINK IT REMAINS IMPORTANT TO HOLD PRIVATE COMPANIES, SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, RESPONSIBLE FOR REGULATING THEIR OWN CONTENT, AND NOT TO THINK THAT WE HAVE A MAGIC BULLET AVAILABLE TO US THROUGH GOVERNMENT REGULATION.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE FRAMERS, OR LINCOLN, WOULD FEEL ABOUT OUR POLITICAL DIVISIVENESS TODAY, THE FIGHTS OVER VOTING RIGHTS ACT, GERRYMANDERING, ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE TEARING US APART AS A SOCIETY.

LINCOLN WOULD LOOK AT OUR POLARIZATION, AND SAY IT'S BAD, BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW BAD IT WAS IN MY DAY.

WE STILL, AS AMERICANS, ARE UNITED IN THE BIG PRINCIPLES OF OUR COMMITMENT TO EQUALITY, AND OUR COMMITMENT TO LIBERTY AND OUR COMMITMENT TO LIVING TOGETHER AS A COUNTRY.

WE HAVE REAL AND DEEP DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT HOW TO DO THEM.

WE HAVE REAL AND DEEP DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT HOW VOTING SHOULD OPERATE, ABOUT HOW WEALTH SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED.

THESE ARE REAL THINGS AND THEY'RE REAL CHALLENGES AND IN OUR POLARIZED MOMENT PEOPLE ARE ANGRY ABOUT THOSE DIVISIONS BUT I BELIEVE WE WILL EVENTUALLY WORK OUR WAY OUT OF THAT POLARIZATION BY FOCUSING ON THE BIG PICTURE OBJECTIVES THAT WE STILL SHARE.

NOT PREDICTING THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN TODAY OR TOMORROW BUT I BELIEVE THAT EVENTUALLY, CERTAINLY IN OUR LIFETIMES, AND PROBABLY IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, WE'LL SEE A RETURN TO WHAT WE HAVE IN COMMON.

YOU KNOW, THE CLIMATE DOESN'T CARE WHETHER WE'RE ANGRY AT EACH OTHER.

IT'S GOING TO KEEP ON GETTING HOTTER, UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

AND I THINK MORE AND MORE AMERICANS ARE REALIZING, THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING WHERE WE NEED TO COOPERATE.

YOU KNOW, THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF OUR COUNTRY IS IN MANY WAYS COLLAPSING, WE NEED THAT TO BE REPAIRED, AND WE NEED TO AGREE ON THAT, AND SURE ENOUGH, CONGRESS WAS ABLE TO REACH SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE, THE GOOD KIND OF COMPROMISE, ON INFRASTRUCTURE BILL.

SO THERE ARE THINGS WE HAVE TO DO IN COMMON, AND WE'LL PULL BACK FROM THIS.

PROFESSOR NOAH FELDMAN, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, WALTER, FOR HAVING ME.

INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE THERE AND I KIND OF LIKE THE IDEA OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN BEING ON INSTAGRAM.

> AND FINALLY TONIGHT, MORE GOOD NEWS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST COVID-19.

AS PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED IN A SPEECH ON THE ECONOMY EARLIER TODAY.

LAST NIGHT WE RECEIVED PROMISING NEWS ABOUT ANOTHER POTENT AND POTENTIAL COVID TREATMENT.

A PILL, A PILL DEVELOPED BY PFIZER, THAT MAY DRAMATICALLY REDUCE THE RISK OF BEING HOSPITALIZED OR DYING WHEN TAKEN SHORTLY AFTER INFECTION, IF YOU'RE INFECTED.

IF AUTHORIZED BY THE FDA, WE MAY SOON HAVE PILLS THAT MAY TREAT THE VIRUS OF THOSE WHO BECOME INFECTED.

THE NEW PFIZER PILL IS ACTUALLY THE SECOND ONE IN THE PIPELINE.

ON THURSDAY BRITAIN APPROVED AN ANTI-COVID-19 PILL FROM MERCK, ALSO SEEKING AUTHORIZATION FOR USE IN THE UNITED STATES.

TO FILL US IN ON THESE DEVELOPMENTS SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT ELIZABETH COHEN JOINS US NOW.

THIS IS BIG NEWS, PFIZER ACTUALLY STOPPING THIS TRIAL BECAUSE THEY WERE SO PLEASED WITH THE RESULTS.

ACTUALLY, BIANNA, IT WAS A TEAM OF MONITORS, AN INDEPENDENT TEAM OF MONITORS THAT WATCHES THE TRIAL, TO SEE HOW IT'S GOING, AND IT WAS THIS INDEPENDENT PANEL ALONG THE FDA THAT SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS IS LOOKING SO GOOD, WE WANT TO STOP IT SO THAT PFIZER HAS A CHANCE TO GET AHEAD OF THE GAME, AND TO DO THIS AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE, TO GO TO THE FDA AND SEEK AUTHORIZATION.

SO LET ME SHOW YOU THE RESULTS THAT MADE THIS MONITORING BOARD WANT TO STOP THE TRIAL EARLY.

ALL OF THEM HAD VERY EARLY COVID, THEY WERE WITHIN THEIR FIRST THREE DAYS OF HAVING SYMPTOMS.

THEY GAVE HALF OF THEM A PLACEBO WHICH IS A PILL THAT DOES NOTHING, JUST A SUGAR PILL AND OUT OF THAT GROUP 27 ORE TIME WERE HOSPITALIZED AND SEVEN DIED OF COVID.

WHEN YOU LOOK OVER HERE AT WHO RECEIVED THE PILL, ONLY THREE PEOPLE WERE HOSPITALIZED, AND NONE OF THEM DIED.

SO THOSE ARE PRETTY DRAMATIC RESULTS.

OBVIOUSLY THOSE -- THAT'S NOT EVERYTHING, THAT'S NOT ALL THE DETAILS.

THAT'S WHAT THE FDA ADVISERS AND THE FDA AND THE CDC IS THERE FOR, BUT THOSE ARE THE BASICS OF WHAT PFIZER FOUND OUT.

HASN'T BEEN REVIEWED BY ANYBODY AT THIS POINT, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE STARTING WITH.

BIANNA?

AND WHO ARE THE TARGET PATIENTS FOR THIS PILL?

THE TARGET PATIENTS IN THE CLINICAL TRIAL WERE FOLKS WHO WERE EARLY ON, AGAIN WITHIN THREE DAYS OF SYMPTOMS, AND ALSO FOLKS AT A HIGH RISK OF HAVING COMPLICATIONS FROM COVID.

SO IN OTHER WORDS IF IT WAS A YOUNG PERSON WHO WAS ONLY JUST A LITTLE BIT SICK AND CHANCES ARE WOULD BE FINE, THAT'S NOT WHO WAS IN THIS TRIAL.

SO, AGAIN, THAT'S -- AND THAT MAY BE, IF THIS GETS AUTHORIZED.

WHO THIS PILL WILL BE FOR.

YOU MAY NEED TO BE IN A HIGH RISK GROUP.

THERE'S A VARIETY OF REASONS FOR THAT.

SOMETIMES PILLS HAVE SIDE EFFECTS.

NOTHING SHOWED UP IN THIS TRIAL BUT IT WAS ONLY ABOUT 775 PEOPLE.

YOU ONLY WANT TO TAKE A RISK WITH A DRUG FOR PEOPLE WHO REALLY NEED IT.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS DRUG IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE VACCINE ITSELF.

THAT'S RIGHT.

AND THAT IS SO IMPORTANT, BIANNA, VACCINES ARE THE BEST.

PREVENTION IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN TREATMENT.

IT'S ALWAYS BETTER NOT TO GET SICK THAN TO GET SICK AND THEN TREAT AND THEN TREAT IT.

FIRST OF ALL, THE TREATMENT'S NOT ALWAYS GOING TO WORK.

SECOND OF ALL, YOU NEED TO GET TO IT SO QUICKLY THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK FOR EVERYBODY.

IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO GET THE VACCINE.

I'LL NOTE, THE VACCINE HAS NOW BEEN USED IN HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, AND WE'VE SEEN VERY, VERY FEW SIDE EFFECTS.

THIS IS A NEW PILL.

SO WE DON'T EXACTLY KNOW 100% WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN YOU GIVE IT TO LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE.

THE VACCINE IS SORT OF A MORE TRIED AND TRUSTED DRUG AT THIS POINT.

LOOK, BIG NEWS THIS WEEK FOR PFIZER, BIG NEWS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST COVID.

NOW CHILDREN 5 TO 11 CAN GET THEIR VACCINE AS WELL.

I'M NOT KIDDING, RIGHT AFTER THE SHOW I AM TAKING MY 9 AND 5-YEAR-OLD TO GET THEIR VACCINE SHOTS AS WELL.

THIS IS A MOMENTOUS DAY FOR MY FAMILY AND I KNOW FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS THIS HAS BEEN A MOMENTOUS OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TOO.

ELIZABETH COHEN, THANK YOU, AS ALWAYS, FOR BREAKING IT DOWN FOR US, WE APPRECIATE IT.

THAT IS IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT, YOU CAN FOLLOW ME AND THE SHOW ON TWITTER.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WATCHING AMANPOUR& COMPANY ON PBS.

JOIN US AGAIN.