I MARKED THAT FOR THE RECORD. WE ARE GOING TO START THE SECOND ROUND OF QUESTIONS 20 MINUTES EACH. I WILL KICK IT OFF. THIS IS AN UNUSUAL DOCUMENT. THIS CONSTITUTION OF OURS WHICH HAS TAKEN UP SO MUCH TIME IN THE HEARING. IT IS REALLY AT THE CORE OF PUBLIC SERVICE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS A PLACE YOU CAN TAKE A JOB AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL IN ANY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT WITHOUT TAKING A VOTE TO DEFEND THIS DOCUMENT. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES AND THE OATHS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED, BUT WE SPELL OUT THE OATH TO BE TAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THIS DOCUMENT. THERE IS GREAT DEBATE ABOUT JUST WHAT THIS DOCUMENT MEANS IN TODAY'S CONTEXT. WE UNDERSTAND THE WISDOM, THE INHERENT WISDOM OF THE DOCUMENT IN THE FACT THAT WE ARE STILL HERE 230 YEARS LATER, WITH THE DESIGN OF A GOVERNMENT THAT HAS ENDURED LONGER THAN VIRTUALLY ANY OTHER DEMOCRACY, WHICH OF COURSE, SPEAKS TO THE WISDOM OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THEIR PLAN FOR THIS NATION. WE ALSO UNDERSTAND, TAKING AN HONEST LOOK AT IT, THAT YOU BARELY GET INTO THIS DOCUMENT, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION TWO AND YOU RUN INTO A PROBLEM BECAUSE IN ARTICLE ONE, SECTION TWO, THE ARTICLE THAT RELATES TO CONGRESS, THEY TALK ABOUT WHO WILL BE COUNTED FOR A PORTION AMONG THE STATES AND THERE IS THE AWFUL REFERENCE TO 3/5 OF ALL OTHER PERSONS, WHICH THOUGH THE DOCUMENT NEVER MENTIONS SLAVERY, ARE SLAVES, WHAT WAS BEING SPELLED OUT HERE BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS WAS, HOW ARE WE GOING TO COUNT THESE SLAVES? THEY WERE TO BE COUNTED AS 3/5 OF A PERSON, WHICH IS A HORRIBLE NOTION BY ANY STANDARD, BUT THE WISE FOUNDING FATHERS INCLUDED IT TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE REALITY OF THEIR DAY. I HEAR DEBATES BACK AND FORTH OF ORIGINALISTS, TEXTUAL LISTS, AND OTHERS, AND YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED AS OFTEN AS ANY OTHER NOMINEE WHAT YOUR THOUGHT IS. YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT STAYING IN YOUR OWN LANE JUDICIARY, METHODOLOGY AND THE LIKE. I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE, WITHOUT ASKING YOU TO GET INTO ANY PARTICULAR FACT PATTERN, THE REALITY OF A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST, WHEN THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS WRITTEN, THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO IT MADE CERTAIN TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF PRESS. FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN 1790 WAS OF COURSE REFERRING TO A PIECE OF PAPER, A NEWSPAPER, AND SAYING THAT THEY WOULD BE FREEDOM TO ENGAGE IN THAT PROCESS IN THIS DEMOCRACY OF AMERICA. NOW, THE FREEDOM OF PRESS IS REFERRING TO THIS, AND THINGS HAVE CHANGED AN AWFUL LOT. WE HAVE A CIRCUMSTANCE NOW WHERE PEOPLE NO LONGER HAVE JUST A HANDFUL OF TELEVISION NETWORKS OR KNOWN PUBLICATIONS, BUT TURN FOR THEIR SOURCES OF INFORMATION TO PLACES LIKE FACEBOOK AND TWITTER AND BEYOND. AND WE HAVE A REAL SERIOUS QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IS A PUBLICATION IN AMERICA. WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BE A PUBLICATION AND BE PRESS? IS MY BLOG THAT I PUBLISHED TOMORROW, THE PRESS GUARANTEES IT WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, THAT I HAVE A RIGHT TO PUBLISH IT AS I WISH AND SAY WHAT I? I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU AS WE LOOK AT THIS IS, HOW DO YOU MOVE FROM THE LANGUAGE OF 1789, 1790, TO THE REALITY OF 21ST CENTURY AND MAKE SURE IT IS RELEVANT? IF MORE PEOPLE ARE RELYING ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER FOR INFORMATION, AND THEY ARE COMMON SOURCES OF TELEVISION AND NEWSPAPERS, HOW DO WE RATIONALIZE THAT THEY CAN SAY FACEBOOK AND TWITTER TO A FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU CANNOT PUBLISH HERE. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT AND THEY HAVE DONE IT. HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THAT CONFLICT OF THE CHANGING TIMES, THE DRAMATIC CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY, WITH THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED AND WHAT WE FACE TODAY?