Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

GOP Debates Examined; 14th Amendment Discussed; Vaccines and Autism Explored. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired September 17, 2015 - 12:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[12:30:57] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What would you want, Governor Christie, I'll start with you, your Secret Service code name to be?

CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) GOVERNOR, NEW JERSEY: You know, I've been called a lot of names by a lot of different people. Now, I get to get called by names by the Secret Service? I would just say "True Heart."

SCOTT WALKER, (R) GOVERNOR, WISONSIN: Harley. I love riding Harleys.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Eveready. It's very high energy, Donald. Mr. Trump?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Humble.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dr. Carson?

BEN CARSON: One Nation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Pretty funny stuff. That question required really no deep constitutional expertise, did it? But in the heat of last night's immigration discussion, the top turn to that 14th Amendment that we have. That's the one that provides for that so- called birth right citizenship. I know you've heard the term, but if you're not sure 100 percent what it means, it's simple. If you're born here in the United States, you're American, case closed, or is it, because Donald Trump is not so sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The 14th Amendment says very, very clearly to a lot of great legal scholars not television scholars, but legal scholars, that it is wrong. It can be corrected with an act of Congress probably doesn't even need that. And by the way, Mexico, and almost every other country, anywhere in the world, doesn't have that. We're the only ones dumb enough, stupid enough to have it.

CARLY FLORINA, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The truth is, you can't just wave your hands and say the 14th Amendment is going to go away.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BANFIELD: And she would be right. You can't do that. My lawyers can't wait to weigh in on this. Paul Callan is a trial attorney, former New York Prosecutor and CNN Legal Analyst Sally Kohn is also a lawyer in case you did not know, she's also progressive (ph), she's a columnist for the Daily Beast.

So, this is how nerdy I am, I bring this out often on the show as its legal view. It's my little pocket constitution. Let's just read through it just so everyone's clear with the 14th Amendment says.

Section 1, all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, I yell that, because that's what's critical here, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

That seems awfully clear. Awfully clear, and yet there are scholars, Donald Trump is not wrong when he says there are scholars, some say you can get a work-around. Paul Callan, can you get a work around?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I don't buy it. And yes, there are some scholars who would agree with Trump, but I have to say, there are very few legal scholars who would, because the wording of the Amendment is so clear. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, born in the United States, you're an American citizen.

The Supreme Court looked at it only once in a forthright way and that was some 30 years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. This is back in the 1800s. Now, 1868, they finally passed the 14th Amendment and then in 1898 they handed down this Wong decision, where a Chinese immigrant had a child in the United States. That child left the country and then the U.S. tried to prevent him from returning saying, "You're not an American citizen." Supreme Court said, "He is an American citizen. He was born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

BANFIELD: So all that makes sense, that whole subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And I think what Trump is referring to, Sally, and I don't want to get to wonky here, but let's make it really simple, that there are some exceptions to that. Diplomats who have children here...

SALLY KOHN, COLUMNIST, THE DAILY BEAST: Correct.

BANFIELD: ... are not citizens. Those kids don't become citizens.

KOHN: Correct.

BANFIELD: And invading army who might come to the United States and have a baby, that will not be a citizen either.

KOHN: Let's look at the example of why those are different. And you also think we should talk about these values under which this was passed and has been adhered to for centuries. But when we -- when diplomats for instance, run a stop light, right, we don't -- we can't -- they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(Crosstalk)

KOHN: That is not a crime. They can't get a ticket, right?

BANFIELD: But an illegal immigrant...

KOHN: Well, look, there is your -- listen, first of all, I think we should call them undocumented. But if you as a party, anyone is going to call undocumented immigrants illegal by the very nature that you're calling them illegal, you are suggesting they are breaking the laws of the United States and that's saying they are subject to our jurisdiction thereof. So right there. Right there.

BANFIELD: So the very fact, the right term illegal immigrant, no matter whether you use it or you don't use it, suggest that they're breaking a law, therefore they are subject to the jurisdiction. So it is really sort of this strange irony.

KOHN: But the more profound thing here is, look, you have this phenomenon where Republicans as of late, have liked to say, you know, we're the party of Lincoln. We are the party that stood up once upon a time before there was a shift in, and sort of the ideological match ups to the party. We are the party that fought to end slavery. That fought to do the right thing in this country.

This amendment, the 14th Amendment, sometimes called the Second Constitution, is so fundamental to upholding that idea of a more perfect nation, affixing some of the original sins of our nation and then it was a matter of Republican pride. They say we're the party of Lincoln and yet now, they want to undue what was his signature accomplishment.

[12:35:58] CALLAN: And, you know, in fairness though to the way that conservatives, some conservatives look at this. Lincoln had the amendment in favor with the 14th Amendment, of course, he was dead by the time it was passed, but, because he wanted the children of slaves to be viewed as American citizens and that's why the 14th Amendment was passed originally. It had to do with slaves, nothing more. But the wording...

(Crosstalk)

BANFIELD: ... the Dred Scott decision which was dreadful, they decided that there was a need to change the Constitution because of how Dred Scott completely...

CALLAN: Well, Dred Scott said that the descendants of American slaves were not American citizens. 14th Amendment comes along, they are citizens.

BANFIELD: Yeah.

CALLAN: ... that's why it was passed. But the wording they used -- it didn't refer to slaves, it said, born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction. So you're stuck with the words, and if you're a strict constructionist...

(Crosstalk)

CALLAN: I have to agree with Sally. Yup.

KOHN: What has applied to my ancestors, my ancestors because my ancestors were citizens too.

CALLAN: OK.

BANFIELD: I have a very passionate feeling, but this, I was not born in this country. I am subject to the jurisdiction of it and I became a citizen. They're (inaudible) about it, but I really do -- I mean I really do keep this aside because I think those words matter. Sally, Paul, thank you very much, appreciate it.

We've just gotten some interesting word as well that I want to share with you. The CNN's Senior Media Correspondent Brian Stelter now has the numbers. How many people around the country watched the Republican debate here on CNN? Drum roll. I'm just hearing a drum roll in my head. But trust me on this one, 22.9 million. 22.9 million people tuned in to that primetime debate.

The earlier under card debate didn't do too badly either. It pulled in 6.3 million viewers. And you know what that says, folks? You are interested in this process. I hope you listen real intently because the words that you heard, they ain't over yet. For other compelling moments from the debate, you can visit cnn.com/politics.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:41:41] BANFIELD: Hey, I got a little -- this just in for you. Just a few moments ago, President Obama met at the White House with those three American heroes who stopped that gunman on that Paris-bound passenger train back in August. Those three to the left of the President spotted the man with the gun on the train. They wrestled him to the ground. They were injured. They hogtied him and thwarted a potential terror attack. Remember, all of this happening just last month. These three heroes are Oregon national guardsman, Alek Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler, and U.S. Airman Spencer Stone. So here's what President Obama said in his meeting with them just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES: Because of their courage, because of their quick thinking, because of their teamwork, it's fair to say that a lot of people were saved and a real calamity was averted.

And, you know, the French people have already bestowed on them the highest honor that they can -- the Legion of Honor -- at a ceremony presided over by President Hollande of France. I had an opportunity to talk to him, and he told me that he could not have been more grateful for what these three outstanding young Americans did.

And I just wanted to make sure that, having talked to them on the phone right after the event, that I had a chance to shake their hands in person and to tell them what I think they've heard from a lot of people, which is they represent the very best of America, American character. And, you know, it's these kinds of young people who make me extraordinarily optimistic and hopeful about our future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: That's great. That's a high honor to be invited to the oval office to be, you know, congratulated by the president. And then America gave them another high honor. Alek Skarlatos is on "Dancing with the Stars." How about that?

Coming up next, Lindsey Graham is promising to drink more if he's elected. And Jeb Bush admits smoking pot. And the candidates needle each other over vaccinations and autism, better call in Dr. Sanjay Gupta. He's going to make a house call, right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[12:47:37] LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Ronald Reagan really did a couple of really big things that we should all remember. He sat in with Tip O'Neill, the most liberal guy in the entire house. They started drinking together. That's the first thing I'm going to do as president. We're going to drink more.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Those are the things that people remember, right? Senator Lindsey Graham with one of his many zingers from last night's CNN debate.

Coming up next hour, he is actually going to talk with our Wolf Blitzer. See, if he'll double down on that, have the whole drinking thing.

In the past few minutes, we found out exactly how many of you watched CNN's Republican debate last night, 22.9 million of you. Wow. That's an aggregate. You all watched that prime-time debate. And that makes the most watched program in CNN history.

There were two actual doctors who were on that stage last night, two. And several others chimed in on medical issues as well. Not to mention chiming in on recreational drug use.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEB BUSH, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So 40 years ago, I smoked marijuana and I admit it. I'm sure that other people might have done it and may not want to say it on front of 25 million people. My mom is not happy that I just did. That's true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Again, a memorable moment. But that admission came out during a discussion about legalizing marijuana. And interestingly enough, another issue came up that's been a subject of debate for years and years, vaccines, and the idea that they may somehow be linked to autism. Have a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Autism has become an epidemic. 25 years ago, 35 years ago; you look at the statistics, not even close. It has gotten totally out of control. I am totally in favor of vaccines but I want smaller doses over a longer period of time.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Dr. Carson, you just heard his medical take.

BEN CARSON, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He's an okay doctor. Okay. But, you know, the fact of the matter is, we have extremely well- documented proof that there's no autism associated with vaccinations.

But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time. And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: A lot of pediatricians recognize that. A lot of pediatricians have something else to say about it.

So I want to bring in Dr. Sanjay Gupta who is much better than just an okay doctor. He's actually a neurosurgeon, practices neurosurgery every Monday, in case you wonder why he's not on, on Monday.

[12:50:08] And you're our Chief Medical Correspondent, you're the perfect person, Sanjay, to ask. Talk to me about what those two were arguing about, the length of time in which we give our babies those vaccinations and whether we're doing something dangerous. Can you definitively tell me what that's about?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yup, the question is, is there any merit to sort of spreading out childhood vaccines instead of giving them the way that we give them now on a schedule, is there any merit to sort of spreading them out? And the answer is no. The answer is no. And I was a little surprised that just -- that part just didn't come out to make it very clear if the answer is no.

Let me tell you the consequence of doing that, Ashleigh, and then just explain why it makes no sense to spread out vaccines. The consequence is that your child who's not getting the vaccines on schedule are going to be vulnerable to certain diseases. So let's say you have two small children in the house. One gets vaccinated. The other one is being spread out in terms of the vaccines. They could actually get one of these infections now and spread it to other people perhaps within their school. So, there's real consequence to delaying vaccines, you leave kids susceptible longer.

But here's another thing Ashleigh and you've probably thought about this as well. The argument always is we give too many vaccines too soon. That's the argument. We're overwhelming the child's immune system. And in fact, the opposite is probably true.

If you think about it, we used to give -- if you talk about the amount of vaccine, the amount of antigens we used to give, used to be nearly 30 times higher several decades ago when we gave big vaccines like the smallpox vaccine.

So we get -- receive a lot more vaccines before and the autism rates were lower. As we've actually decrease the amount of vaccine that we give to a child, the autism rates have gone up. So there's really no sense in sort of spreading it out. It just leaves your kids vulnerable and accomplishes nothing in terms of their immune system.

BANFIELD: And didn't a lot of this really come about not so much because of the amount of vaccine that we're injecting into the kids, but the amount of preservatives that might have been inside those -- you have a big bottle, let's just say, a big bottle of vaccination that you tap into and you withdraw up. You need to have it preserved as opposed to a single vial that you take and throw away, no preservation needed. Wasn't that really the issue that the preservatives that were being used like thimerosal, et cetera?

GUPTA: Yeah, I mean, I think different people had different sort of issues as to why they had a problem with all these vaccines. Some people said it was the vaccines themselves that was overwhelming the immune system. Some people said it was the thimerosal which is the preservative you're talking about which isn't in most childhood vaccines anymore. That's actually been removed. And despite that being removed, the autism rates have continued to go up.

So, again, you know, as a parent myself and Ashleigh you are as well, we talk about this idea. You obviously want to do best by your kids, but it's soften in sort of -- uncomfortable to say, look, let's just spread out the vaccines. That's going to make it better in some way. The answer is that it doesn't. It could potentially be harmful. And it makes no scientific sense.

And, you know, I think the doctors who are involved with these debates probably just need to come out and say that very clearly.

BANFIELD: Okay, now, I just want to do a real quick American Academy of Pediatrics' statement regarding all of this. "There is no alternative immunization schedule. Delaying vaccines only leaves a child at risk of disease for a longer period of time; it does not make vaccinating safer."

So you are spot on with what they say as well. Let me switch gears a little bit about since I have you here and I could talk to you all day, Sanjay. But there was a lot of talk last night about marijuana and recreational versus medical marijuana use.

And there were -- there was a talk on stage. Carly Fiorina gave a very impassioned comment about having lost a child, it was her stepdaughter. And she considers marijuana to be a gateway drug as many of those on stage said. "It's a gateway drug."

Can you talk to the audience a little bit about what kind of studies are out there that suggest it is indeed a gateway drug as they allege?

GUPTA: Well, you know, first of all, as you know, Ashleigh, I always separate medical marijuana versus recreational marijuana. I think it's just really important -- when you talk about medical marijuana, you talk about it as a medicine. Cannabis is a medicine. And you should not commingle that argument with the recreational part.

But having sort of said that, you know, when you talk about the studies regarding marijuana as a gateway drug, I think people would be really surprised to find that there's really not conclusive science to show that it's a gateway drug at all. I mean, the idea that people who take marijuana will then can reliably go on to take other drugs, heroin, cocaine, there's just no evidence of that. There are people who at times will start all these things sort of simultaneously or trying several different drugs on the same time. Or they may have started with cigarettes for example which would make cigarettes the gateway drug or alcohol, for example, making alcohol the gateway drug.

So it's not -- it doesn't change the brain in a way that makes you crave other drugs. That's what you typically think of as a gateway drug. You've taken this. Now, your brain is saying I need something stronger, more powerful. Marijuana doesn't seem to behave that way.

BANFIELD: And is there a lot of consensus in that in the medical community to that point?

GUPTA: I think within the scientific community that there is. Obviously, there's a lot of people who treat patients who are addicts and they look at their lives in total, and trying to piece them together and say, well look, a lot of people started with marijuana and then moved on to these other drugs.

[12:55:14] That's sort of an inference. I mean, you're looking at them and saying, therefore marijuana must be the gateway drug. If they hadn't done marijuana, they would have never gotten to this other point.

And again, the science doesn't show that. People who treat these patients will be very careful about saying we need to abstain from all these drugs. But again, there's no evidence that marijuana itself led to future drug use.

BANFIELD: And I do love that you separated these issues. We have this banner on the bottom of our screen right now, saying that candidates spar on medical marijuana. And that really what they sparred on for the most part, the medical marijuana, completely different, politically and, you know, medically speaking than this recreational use.

And by the way, I'm just going to give a plug to your series "Weed", which when we rerun it which I know we will. I highly encourage our audience to watch it.

Sanjay, you and your team did a remarkable job helping us to navigate through those very complex issues. And again, you are invited everyday on this program.

GUPTA: I will be back, thank you very much, appreciate it.

BANFIELD: Thank you Sanjay, have a great Thursday.

Coming up, Senator Lindsey Graham is going to talk with Wolf Blitzer live. Make sure you stay with us for that.

In the meantime, thanks for watching everyone. It's so nice to have you here this hour.

"Wolf" starts after this quick break

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)