>>> AS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S BATTLE WITH THE COURTS ESCALATES, ONE LEGAL US WERE -- EXPERT IS TAKING A STEP BACK TO SEE WHAT A REPRESENTATIVE LEGAL SYSTEM COULD LOOK LIKE.

WE FIND OUT ABOUT HIS UNCONVENTIONAL THEORY EXPLORED IN HIS LATEST WORK.

>> Reporter: YOUR NEW BOOK WITH A FANTASTIC TITLE, BAD LAW, 10 POPULAR LAWS RUINING AMERICA FOCUSES ON 10 LAWS THAT YOU SAY IF REPEALED WOULD MAKE AMERICA BETTER AND, FIRST OF ALL, YOU EVEN START?

HOW DO YOU FIGURE WHICH TO GO AFTER AND WRITE A BOOK ABOUT?

>> YES SCOPING IS THE VERY FIRST PROBLEM FOR A BOOK LIKE THIS.

THERE ARE MANY LAWS AND MANY OF THEM ARE TERRIBLE AND I HAVE NOT READ THEM ALL.

SO THERE IS A LARGE UNIVERSE YOU ARE WORKING FROM.

THE WAY I WHITTLED IT DOWN AND SCOPED IT WAS TO TRY TO THINK OF LAWS THAT COULD JUST BE REPEALED.

THERE ARE MANY BAD LAWS THAT NEED TO BE REFORMED, UPDATED, SIZED, BROUGHT INTO OUR MODERN AGE.

I LEFT THOSE TO THE SIDE AND FOCUSED ON THE ONES THAT WE COULD BE RID OF, WE COULD BE RID OF THE DAY AND IT WOULD MAKE OUR WORLD BETTER TOMORROW.

THAT IS KIND OF WHERE I STARTED THE SCOPE.

THE SECOND THING I LOOKED AT WAS THE TITLE OF THE BOOK, 10 POPULAR LAWS THAT ARE RUINING AMERICA.

I TRY TO FOCUS ON LAWS THAT ENJOYED BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AT THE TIME THEY WERE PAST.

YOU SEE, THIS BOOK IS ABOUT LAWS THAT ARE WORKING AS INTENDED.

THE RACISM OR MISOGYNY OR ANTI-POVERTY, THE STUFF THE LAWS ARE DOING WAS WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO PASSED THE LAWS ONE OF THEM TO DO.

RIGHT?

SO I TRIED TO REALLY HONE IN ON LAWS THAT PEOPLE LIKE ONE TIME, BOTH PARTIES.

AND AGAIN, A LOT OF THIS BOOK IS A BIPARTISAN LOOK AT MISTAKES THAT BOTH PARTIES HAVE MADE NOW AND RELATEDLY IN A LOT OF CASES AND DEMOCRATS HAVE SAID, IT WAS A TERRIBLE MISTAKE AND NEVER SHOULD'VE PASSED BUT THE LAW IS STILL THERE.

AND YOU DON'T SEE DEMOCRATS ORGANIZING TO REPEAL TO FIX MISTAKES OF THE PAST.

THAT IS HOW I SCOPED THE BOOK TO 10.

>> YOU SEND THERE IF IT WERE UP TO ME I TREAT THE LAW PASSED BEFORE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 AS PRESUMPTIVELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THIS COUNTRY WAS ILLEGITIMATE WHEN IT RULED OVER PEOPLE WHO HAD THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE THE RULES.

EXPLAIN.

>> I WOULDN'T GIVE THE LAWS PASSED BEFORE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, WHICH I ARGUE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY BECAUSE THE FIRST PIECE THAT MADE US ANYTHING APPROACHING A DEMOCRACY OR A REPUBLIC AS OPPOSED TO AN APARTHEID STATE.

SO IF YOU BRING TO ME A LAW THAT IS PASSED BEFORE EVERYBODY WHO WAS LIVING HER HAD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON A LOT AND VOTE ON ARE PRESENTED AS IT WOULD MAKE THOSE LAWS, THEN I WILL GIVE IT A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENCE.

I AM NOT SAYING YOU CAN COMPLETELY IGNORE THOSE LAWS, BUT CERTAINLY, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT HOW A COURT GIVES REFERENCE TO THE WILL OF CONGRESS OR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WHEN MAKING DECISIONS, I WOULD GIVE IT DEFERENCE AT ALL.

BRING ME A LAW FROM 1921 AND WHATEVER.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING SUPPORTING YOUR CASE FROM AFTER APARTHEID?

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING SUPPORTING HER CASE FROM, I DON'T KNOW, THE 1970s?

RIGHT?

IF YOU CAN'T GIVE ME A REASON FOR YOUR LAW TO EXIST OR YOUR ARGUMENT TO WIN WITH A MODERN ARGUMENT, THEN I WOULD DISREGARD YOUR ANTEBELLUM ARGUMENTS.

>> LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHO GETS TO VOTE.

YOU LAY OUT IN THE BOOK THAT AMERICA IS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER DEMOCRACIES.

WHAT IS AMERICA NOT GETTING RIGHT OR COULD GET BETTER?

>> I WOULD SAY THE KEY STUPIDEST THING WE DO IS WE DON'T HAVE ONE NATIONAL ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM FLOWS UP FROM THE STATE SO INSTEAD OF ONE FEDERAL ELECTION SYSTEM, WE HAD 50 DIFFERENT FEDERAL ELECTION SYSTEMS.

EACH STATE HAS ITS OWN RULES FOR WHO IS ELIGIBLE, WHO HAVE TO REGISTER AND WHEN YOU CAN VOTE AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN EARLY VOTE OR CARRIER VOTES AFTER THEY PASSED OR THE PROCESS FOR MAIL-IN BALLOTS AND WHEN THE REGISTRATION DATE IS.

IT IS RIDICULOUS.

IT IS DIFFERENT AND EVERY STATE DEPENDING ON WHAT SIDE OF THE RIVER YOU HAPPEN TO BE ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON SATURDAY OR NOT.

THAT IS NOT WHAT ALL OF THE OTHER MAJOR DEMOCRACIES IN THIS WORLD DO.

THEY HAVE FIX THIS PROBLEM.

THEY HAVE ONE NATIONAL ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

THAT NOT ONLY ALLOWS FOR, I THINK, CONFIDENCE IN THE SYSTEM, BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR LESS FRICTION IN THE SYSTEM.

BADCOCK TO ME IS THE REAL KEY POINT HERE.

IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE WHEN THERE IS ONLY ONE SYSTEM THEY HAVE TO FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH.

RIGHT?

SO ADD AN ALPHA KIND OF 30,000 FOOT LEVEL, OUR INABILITY TO HAVE A NATIONAL ELECTION SYSTEM IS A FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH HER COUNTRY.

>> YOU HAVE A WHOLE CHAPTER CALLED HOW DID INGRATES BECOME ILLEGAL AND YOU SAY IT WAS INVENTED, BASICALLY, WITH THE STATED INTENTIONAL GOAL OF KEEPING AMERICA WHITE AND PROTESTANT.

HOW DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD BE APPROACHING THAT?

>> AGAIN, THROUGHOUT MY BOOK I DON'T ASK PEOPLE TO TAKE MY WORD FOR BUT I LOOK AT THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE FROM THE PEOPLE WHO PASSED THE LAW AND IN THE 1921 IMMIGRATION AND NATIONAL ACT WHICH IS WHAT THE FOUNDATION IS IN OUR COUNTRY, THIS LAW WAS -- HEAVILY RELIED ON THE SCIENCE OF AMERICA'S LEADING EUGENICISTS TERRY LAUGHLIN AND YOU KNOW THAT IS KIND OF A PROBLEM.

THE CONGRESSMAN AT THE TIME THERE ARE PASSING THE LAW SAID THAT THIS LAW WAS NECESSARY TO STOP THE MONGREL IS ASIAN OF THE WHITE RACE BY THE INFERIOR RACES.

I DON'T THINK A LAW BASED ON SUCH OBVIOUS AND STATED BIGOTRY AND RACISM SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EXIST TODAY IN MODERN AMERICA.

THE SIMPLE FIX, TO ME, FOR THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS, AND TO BE CLEAR CUT IF I HAD A COMPLETE FIX FOR THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS, I WOULD NOT BE TELLING IT TO YOU BUT TELLING IT TO THE GOOD PEOPLE IN STOCKHOLM AND WAITING FOR THAT.

IT IS A LARGE ISSUE.

I DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE ANSWERS HERE.

RIGHT?

BUT I THINK THE FIRST AND MOST SIMPLE FIX ON THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE IS TO MAKE IT A CIVIL EVENT AS OPPOSED TO A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

WE HAVE CRIMINAL LAWS FOR PEOPLE WHO COMMIT CRIME, INCLUDING IMMIGRANTS WHO COMMIT CRIME.

THAT IS TAKEN CARE OF.

WHAT WE DON'T NEED TO DO IS TO CRIMINALIZE PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMITTED NO CRIME SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE HERE OUT OF STATUS AND SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY OVERSTAYED THEIR VISA AND SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T FILL OUT THE RIGHT PAPERWORK AND FORM WITH A CARBON COPY AND GET IT NOTARIZED.

THAT ISN'T A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

THAT IS A CIVIL OFFENSE.

CIVIL PENALTIES CAN BE SUBMITTED AND HARSH AND CIVIL PENALTIES INCLUDE DEPORTATION.

THAT IS A CIVIL PENALTY IN THIS COUNTRY.

AND WE CAN DO THAT IF WE FEEL THAT A PERSON HAS VIOLATED OUR LAWS IN A CIVIL SENSE.

BUT THROWING PEOPLE IN JAIL, TAKING THEM AWAY FROM THEIR CHILDREN, THROWING THEIR CHILDREN IN JAILS OR HOLDING PENS OR CONCENTRATION CAMPS, OR WHATEVER EUPHEMISM WE ARE CALLING IT TODAY, THAT IS THE MORAL AND WRONG.

IT DOESN'T NEED TO HAPPEN.

THE ONLY REASON WHY THAT DOES HAPPEN IS BECAUSE THE 1921 IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALIZATION ACT SUPPORTED BY PEOPLE WITH A VERY MOST RACIST INTENTIONS POSSIBLE MADE IT SO, BEFORE THE 1921 ACT, ALL IMMIGRATION OFFENSES WERE CIVIL PENALTIES AND NOT TERMINAL.

AND THEY COULD BE AGAIN IF WE REPEALED THAT SECTION OF THAT LAW.

>> YOU MENTIONED THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT PASSING IN 1952 AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME LIKE THE PRO- PALESTINIAN ACTIVISTS AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, ABE PRIVATE STUDENT WHO IS A GREEN CARD HOLDER BUT SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO SAID THE INA GIVES HIM THE AUTHORITY TO DEPORT AN ALIEN WHOSE PRESENCE OR ACTIVITIES COULD HAVE SERIOUS FOREIGN-POLICY CONSEQUENCES FOR AMERICA.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT THINKING?

>> IT IS TYRANNICAL.

PEOPLE'S LEGAL STATUS SHOULD NOT BE UP TO THE WHIM OF ANYONE OFFICIAL.

THAT IS WHAT THEY DO IN TYRANNIES.

IN AMERICA, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE PROCESS, AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL.

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE EVIDENCE.

WHAT EVIDENCE IS RUBIO REQUIRED TO GIVE UNDER THAT SUBSECTION OF THIS STATUTE?

AS CLEAR AS I CAN READ, NONE.

IT IS HIS WHIM.

WHEN YOU LIVE UNDER THE WHIM OF MAN, YOU LIVE UNDER THE TYRANNY OF MEN.

IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

THAT IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY SOME OF THESE BAD LAWS, SOME OF THESE OLD LAWS, DESPERATELY NEED TO BE REPEALED, BECAUSE THEY ARE POISON PILLS IN THEM.

I READ A WHOLE BOOK AND HAD A WHOLE CHAPTER ON THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT AND I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT SECTION EXISTED UNTIL RUBIO PULLED IT OUT OF HIS HAT TO JUSTIFY JAILING A VALID GREEN CARD HOLDER AND I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT.

AND I AM AN EXPERT, RIGHT?

I AM TALKING ABOUT IT.

I AM SAYING THIS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM.

BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS IN THE LAWS THAT NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE OR HOW THEY WORK, SO SOME, USUALLY A PERSON WITH A BAD INTENT, PULLS IT OUT OF THEIR HAT.

IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE A PERSON WITH THAT INTENT IS PULLING IT OUT OF HIS HAT TO ENACT HIS WHIMS AS OPPOSED TO ANYTHING APPROACHING A NORMAL LEGAL PROCESS.

>> YOU ALSO WRITE IN YOUR BOOK ABOUT THE STAND YOUR GROUND LOT AND MOST AMERICANS BECAME FAMILIAR WITH THAT IN 2012 WHEN GEORGE ZIMMERMAN FATALLY SHOT TRAYVON MARTIN BECAUSE HE THOUGHT HE WAS ONE -- WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO DO SO.

A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THAT?

>> IS THE MOST PROVABLY RACIST LAW WE HAVE.

WHAT STAND YOUR GROUND SAYS THAT IF YOU ARE ILLEGALLY IN A PLACE THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BE, AND SOMEBODY, WHATEVER, COSTS YOU ANNOYS YOU, BOTHERS YOU, THREATENS YOU, YOU CAN RESPOND WITH DEADLY FORCE AND YOU CAN STAND YOUR GROUND IF IT WERE.

IT'S NOT JUST THE TAGLINE OF THE LAW.

IT IS LITERALLY IN THE LANGUAGE OF A LOT OF THE LAWS IN THE VARIOUS STATES THAT HAVE THEM.

WHEN I SAY IT IS THE MOST PROVABLY RACIST LAW WE HAVE THE CISCO GOAL -- STATISTICAL EVIDENCE FOR, IF YOU ARE A WHITE PERSON STANDING YOUR GROUND AND ARE ALLEGEDLY THREATENED OR ACCOSTED OR ANNOYED BY A BLACK PERSON AND YOU SHOOT THAT BLACK PERSON TO DEATH, YOU ARE 218 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE LET OFF WITH NO CHARGES THEN IF THE RACES ARE REVERSED AND ARE A BLACK PERSON AND YOU STAND YOUR GROUND AGAINST A WHITE PERSON WHO THREATENS OR COSTS OR ANNOYS YOU.

THAT IS HOW THE LAW WAS KIND OF INTENDED TO FUNCTION.

THE THING ABOUT STAND YOUR GROUND THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHAT IT DOES IN TERMS OF THE LEGAL STRUCTURE OF IS THAT IT ALIEN ICES THE PERSON WHO WAS SHOT AND ALIEN ICES THE SHOOTER FROM EVEN BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME AND TAKEN TO TRIAL.

IF I AM WHITE AND SHOOT A BLACK PERSON AND SAY I WAS STANDING YOUR GROUND AND THE COPS BELIEVE ME, I CAN'T BE CHARGED.

I CAN'T BE INVESTIGATED.

IF THE COPS JUST TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, UNDERSTAND YOUR GROUND, THAT IS IT.

THAT IS THE END OF THE INQUIRY.

AND THAT IS ALSO ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE LAW IS SO DISPROPORTIONATELY RACIST.

>> SO WHAT IS TO PREVENT THIS FOR A LOT OF THE LAWS YOU TALK ABOUT IN YOUR BOOKS VERSUS COMPLETE REPEAL AND OVERHAUL?

>> AGAIN, IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT THE LAW IS INTENDED TO DO, WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF REFORMING?

WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF REFORMING STAND YOUR GROUND?

I MEAN, WE HAVE LAWS PROTECTING YOUR RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE.

THAT IS ALREADY A LOT.

THE STAND YOUR GROUND IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A LAW THAT IS ONLY THERE TO DO BAD THINGS.

IF YOU ARE THREATENED WITH DEADLY FORCE AND YOU DEFEND YOURSELF WITH DEADLY FORCE, WE HAVE AN ENTIRE LEGAL CANNON THAT IS DESIGNED TO FIGURE OUT IF YOU'RE SHOOTING WAS JUSTIFIED AND IT'S CALLED A JUSTIFIED HOMICIDE.

THERE IS AN ENTIRE COMMON LAW BACKGROUND FOR THAT.

IT IS NOT EASY.

BUT YOU CAN PROVE THAT YOU SHOT SOMEBODY IN SELF-DEFENSE.

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

WHAT YOU NEED STAND YOUR GROUND FOR?

>> SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

WHAT YOU THINK PEOPLE CAN DO TO MAKE ANY KIND OF MEANINGFUL CHANGE IF THERE ARE SO MANY KIND OF STRUCTURAL AND CODIFIED HURTS?

>> YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THE STRUCTURE.

YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THE STRUCTURE AND ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS I MAKE IN THE EPILOGUE OF THE BOOK IS ONE OF THE FIRST PLACES I WOULD START IS CHANGING THE STRUCTURE OF CONGRESS.

MOST OF YOUR VIEWERS KNOW RIGHT NOW WE ARE STUCK AT 435 CONGRESSMAN, BUT A LOT OF YOUR VIEWERS DON'T KNOW WHY.

THERE IS NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS CONGRESS CAN ONLY BE 435 PEOPLE.

WE STARTED WITH 90 SOMETHING AND WE QUICKLY WENT TO 137.

WE USED TO ADD CONGRESS PEOPLE EVERY DECENNIAL CENSUS.

EVERYBODY NOW KNOWS YOU DO THE CENSUS AND REAPPORTION LIKE NEW YORK LOSES TWO REPRESENTATIVES TO ARIZONA BUT BEFORE, INSTEAD OF TAKING CONGRESSMAN FROM ONE STATE AND PUTTING THEM IN ANOTHER, WE JUST USED TO ADD MORE CONGRESSMAN.

WE STOPPED DOING THAT IN 1920.

IT ISN'T BECAUSE WE RAN OUT OF CHAIRS OR LOST THE ABILITY TO MAKE A BIGGER ROTUND WE STOPPED DOING IT IN THE 1920s BECAUSE THE 1920 CENSUS WAS THE ONE THAT REALLY SHOWED THE WHITE RULING ELITE THAT THE POWER OF THIS COUNTRY WAS MOVING AWAY FROM THE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL CENTERS INTO THE URBAN AREAS, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADD A LOT MORE CONGRESSMAN TO REPRESENT A LOT MORE PEOPLE LIVING IN CITIES.

AND PEOPLE GOT SCARED OF THAT.

IF WE HAD JUST KEPT GOING WITH OUR POPULATION INCREASE AND ADDING MORE CONGRESSPEOPLE AND KEEPING THE LEVEL OF PER CAPITA REPRESENTATION, THAT IS, HOW MANY PEOPLE ONE CONGRESSMAN REPRESENTS, AND KEPT IT STEADY FROM THE 20s, WE WOULD HAVE 1200 PEOPLE IN CONGRESS RIGHT NOW.

DO YOU KNOW HOW DIFFERENT OUR SYSTEM LOOKS WITH 1200 CONGRESSMAN INSTEAD OF 435?

IT CHANGES OUR ENTIRE POLICY IF YOU MAKE REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE HOUSE OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IF YOU ACTUALLY MAKE IT PROPORTIONAL.

IT CHANGES THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

AMERICA IS THE LEAST REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD BY THE MEASURE OF PER CAPITA REPRESENTATION.

ONE CONGRESSMAN HERE REPRESENTS ABOUT 760,000 AMERICANS.

THE NEXT LEAST REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT IS JAPAN WHERE ONE MEMBER OF THEIR LOWER HOUSE REPRESENTS AROUND 520,000 JAPANESE PEOPLE.

SO WE ARE OFF THE CHARTS IN TERMS OF AN UNWRAPPED RESENTED OF LACE TO LIVE.

AND WE COULD FIX THAT.

MY SOLUTION IN THE BOOK IS CALLED THE WYOMING PLAN THAT TIES REPRESENTATION OF THE LEAST REPRESENTED OR LEAST POPULOUS STATE.

RIGHT?

NO STATE NO MATTER HOW SMALL GETS ONE CONGRESSMAN.

SO THE IDEA IS THAT EVERY CONGRESSMAN SHOULD REPRESENT THE POPULATION OF THE LEAST POPULOUS STATE.

RIGHT NOW, THAT IS WYOMING WITH 507,000 PEOPLE AND IF YOU MADE EVERY CONGRESSMAN PERSON REPRESENT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY GO AND GET 200 OR 300 MORE CONGRESSMAN.

WE CAN CHANGE THE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS A SIMPLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION JUST LIKE WE ARTIFICIALLY LIMITED THE NUMBER OF CONGRESSPEOPLE WITH A PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

>> THE BOOK IS CALLED BAD LAW, 10 POPULAR LAWS THAT ARE RUINING AMERICA.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.