THOMAS AND MAX CENTER AT THE

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA-LAS VEGAS.

I'M CHRIS WALLACE OF FOX NEWS.

I WELCOME YOU TO THE THIRD AND

FINAL OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL

DEBATES BETWEEN SECRETARY OF

STATE HILLARY CLINTON AND

DONALD J. TRUMP.

THIS DEBATE IS SPONSORED BY THE

COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL

DEBATE.

THE COMMISSION HAS DESIGNED THE

FORMAT.

SIX ROUGHLY 15-MINUTE SEGMENTS

WITH TWO-MINUTE ANSWERS TO THE

FIRST QUESTION, THEN OPEN

DISCUSSION FOR THE REST OF EACH

SEGMENT.

BOTH CAMPAIGNS HAVE AGREED TO

THOSE RULES.

FOR THE RECORD, I DECIDED THE

TOPICS AND THE QUESTIONS IN

EACH TOPIC, NONE OF THOSE

QUESTIONS HAS BEEN SHARED WITH

THE COMMISSION OR THE TWO

CANDIDATES.

THE AUDIENCE HERE IN THE HALL

IS PROMISED TO -- HAS PROMISED

TO REMAIN SILENT.

NO CHEER, BOOS OR OTHER

INTERRUPTIONS SO WE AND YOU CAN

FOCUS ON WHAT THE CANDIDATES

HAVE TO SAY.

NO NOISE EXCEPT RIGHT NOW AS WE

WELCOME THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE

FOR PRESIDENT, SECRETARY

CLINTON, AND THE REPUBLICAN

NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT, MR.

TRUMP.

[APPLAUSE]

CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]

SECRETARY CLINTON, MR. TRUMP,

WELCOME.

LET'S GET RIGHT TO.

IT THE FIRST TOPIC IS THE

SUPREME COURT.

YOU BOTH TALKED BRIEFLY ABOUT

THE COURT IN THE LAST DEBATE.

BUT I WANT TO DRILL DOWN ON

THIS, BECAUSE THE NEXT

PRESIDENT WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY

HAVE AT LEAST ONE APPOINTMENT

AND LIKELY OR POSSIBLY TWO OR

REE APPOINTMENTS WHICH MEANS

THAT YOU WILL IN EFFECT

DETERMINE THE BALANCE A OF THE

COURT FOR WHAT COULD BE THE

NEXT QUARTER CENTURY.

FIRST OF ALL, WHERE DO YOU WANT

TO SEE THE COURT TAKE THE

COUNTRY AND SECONDLY, WHAT'S

YOUR VIEW ON HOW THE

CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE

INTERPRETED?

DO THE FOUNDERS' WORDS MEAN

WHAT THEY SAY, OR IS IT A

LIVING DOCUMENT TO BE APPLIED

FLEXIBLY AYE ACCORDING TO

CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES --

FLEXIBLY ACCORDING TO CHANGING

CIRCUMSTANCES?

SECRETARY CLINTON, YOU GO

FIRST.

YOU HAVE GOT MINUTES.

HILLARY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH,

CHRIS, AND THANKS TO UNLV FOR

HOSTING US.

I THINK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE

SUPREME COURT, IT REALLY RAISES

THE CENTRAL ISSUE IN THIS

ELECTION.

NAMELY, WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY

ARE WE GOING TO BE?

WHAT KIND OF OPPORTUNITIES WILL

WE PROVIDE FOR OUR CITIZENS,

WHAT KIND OF RIGHTS WILL

AMERICANS HAVE?

AND I FEEL STRONGLY THAT THE

SUPREME COURT NEEDS TO STAND ON

THE SIDE OF THE AMERICAN

PEOPLE, NOT ONED SIDE OF THE

POWERFUL -- ON THE SIDE OF THE

POWERFUL CORPORATIONS AND THE

WEALTHY.

FOR ME THAT MEANS THAT WE NEED

A SUPREME COURT THAT WILL STAND

UP ON BEHALF OF WOMEN'S RIGHTS,

ON BEHALF OF THE RIGHTS OF THE

LGBT COMMUNITY, THAT WILL STAND

UP AND SAY NO TO CITIZENS

UNITED, A DECISION THAT HAS

UNDERMINED THE ELECTION SYSTEM

IN OUR COUNTRY BECAUSE OF THE

WAY IT PERMITS DARK,

UNACCOUNTABLE MONEY TO COME

INTO OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

I HAVE MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS WITH

MY OPPONENT ABOUT THESE ISSUES

AND OTHERS THAT WILL BE BEFORE

THE SUPREME COURT.

BUT I FEEL THAT AT THIS POINT

IN OUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY, IT IS

IMPORTANT THAT WE NOT REVERSE

MARRIAGE EQUALITY, THAT WE NOT

REVERSE ROE V. WADE, THAT WE

STAND UP AGAINST CITIZENS

UNITED, WE STAND UP FOR THE

RIGHTS OF PEOPLE IN THE

WORKPLACE, THAT WE STAND UP AND

BASICALLY SAY, THE SUPREME

COURT SHOULD REPRESENT ALL OF

US.

THAT'S HOW I SEE THE COURT AND

THE KIND OF PEOPLE THAT I WOULD

BE LOOKING TO NOMINATE TO THE

COURT WOULD BE IN THE GREAT

TRADITION OF STANDING UP TO THE

POWERFUL, STANDING UP ON BEHALF

OF OUR RIGHTS AS AMERICANS.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING

THAT OPPORTUNITY.

I WOULD HOPE THAT THE SENATE

WOULD DO ITS JOB.

AND CONFIRM THE NOMINEE THAT

PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SENT TO

THEM.

THAT'S THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION

FUNDAMENTALLY SHOULD OPERATE.

THE PRESIDENT NOMINATES AND

THEN THE SENATE ADVISES AND

CONSENTS OR NOT.

BUT THEY GO FORWARD WITH THE

PROCESS.

CHRIS: SECRETARY CLINTON, THANK

YOU.

MR. TRUMP, SAME QUESTION.

WHERE DO YOU WANT TO SEE THE

COURT TAKE THE COUNTRY AND HOW

DO YOU BELIEVE THE CONSTITUTION

SHOULD BE INTERPRETED?

DONALD: WELL, FIRST OF ALL,

IT'S GREAT TO BE WITH YOU AND

THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.

THE SUPREME COURT, IT'S WHAT

IT'S ALL ABOUT.

OUR COUNTRY IS SO, SO -- JUST

SO IMPERATIVE THAT WE HAVE THE

RIGHT JUSTICES.

SOMETHING HAPPENED RECENTLY

WHERE JUSTICE GINSBURG MADE

SOME VERY, VERY INAPPROPRIATE

STATEMENTS TOWARD ME AND TOWARD

A TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF PEOPLE,

MANY, MANY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE

THAT I REPRESENT.

AND SHE WAS FORCED TO

APOLOGIZE.

AND APOLOGIZE SHE DID.

BUT THESE WERE STATEMENTS THAT

SHOULD NEVER, EVER HAVE BEEN

MADE.

WE NEED A SUPREME COURT THAT,

IN MY OPINION, IS GOING TO

UPHOLD THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND

ALL AMENDMENTS, BUT THE SECOND

AMENDMENT, WHICH IS UNDER

ABSOLUTE SIEGE.

I BELIEVE IF MY OPPONENT SHOULD

WIN THIS RACE, WHICH I TRULY

DON'T THINK WILL HAPPEN, WE

WILL HAVE A SECOND AMENDMENT

WHICH WILL BE A VERY, VERY

SMALL REPLICA OF WHAT IT IS

RIGHT NOW.

BUT I FEEL THAT IT'S ABSOLUTELY

IMPORTANT THAT WE UPHOLD

BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT IS

UNDER SUCH TRAUMA.

I FEEL THAT THE JUSTICES THAT I

AM GOING TO APPOINT, AND I'VE

NAMED 20 OF THEM, THE JUSTICES

THAT I'M GOING TO APPOINT WILL

BE PRO-LIFE, THEY WILL HAVE A

CONSERVATIVE VENT.

THEY WILL BE PROTECTING THE

SECOND AMENDMENT.

THEY ARE GREAT SCHOLARS IN ALL

CASES.

AND THEY'RE PEOPLE OF

TREMENDOUS RESPECT.

THEY WILL INTERPRET THE

CONSTITUTION THE WAY THE

FOUNDERS WANTED IT INTERPRETED.

AND I BELIEVE THAT'S VERY, VERY

IMPORTANT.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE

JUSTICES APOINTED THAT DECIDE

WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR.

THE ALL ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION

OF -- AND SO IMPORTANT, THE

CONSTITUTION, THE WAY IT WAS

MEANT TO BE.

AND THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT I

WILL APPOINT.

CHRIS: MR. TRUMP, THANK YOU.

WE NOW HAVE ABOUT 10 MINUTES

FOR AN OPEN DISCUSSION.

I WANT TO FOCUS ON TWO ISSUES

THAT IN FACT, BY THE JUSTICES

THAT YOU NAMED, COULD END UP

CHANGING THE EXISTING LAW OF

THE LAND.

FIRST IS ONE THAT YOU

MENTIONED, MR. TRUMP, AND THAT

IS GUNS.

SECRETARY CLINTON, YOU SAID

LAST YEAR, LET ME QUOTE, THE

SUPREME COURT IS WRONG ON THE

SECOND AMENDMENT.

IN FACT, IN THE 2008 HELLER

CASE, THE COURT RULED THAT

THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

TO BEAR ARMS, BUT A RIGHT THAT

IS REASONABLY LIMITED.

THOSE WERE THE WORDS OF THE

JUDGE ANTONIN SCALIA WHO WROTE

THE DECISION.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?

HILLARY: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I

SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

I LIVED IN ARKANSAS FOR 18

WONDERFUL YEARS.

I REPRESENTED UPSTATE NEW YORK.

I UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THE

TRADITION OF GUN OWNERSHIP.

IT GOES BACK TO THE FOUNDING OF

OUR COUNTRY.

BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THERE

CAN BE AND MUST BE REASONABLE

REGULATION.

BECAUSE I SUPPORT THE SECOND

AMENDMENT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I

WANT PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE

GUNS TO BE ABLE TO THREATEN

YOU, KILL YOU OR MEMBERS OF

YOUR FAMILY.

WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT WE NEED

TO DO, WE HAVE 33,000 PEOPLE A

YEAR WHO DIE FROM GUNS.

I THINK WE NEED COMPREHENSIVE

BACKGROUND CHECKS, NEED TO

CLOSE THE ONLINE LOOPHOLE,

CLOSE THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE,

THERE'S OTHER MATTERS THAT I

THINK ARE SENSIBLE, THAT ARE

THE KIND OF REFORMS THAT WOULD

MAKE A DIFFERENCE, THAT ARE NOT

IN ANY WAY CONFLICTING WITH THE

SECOND AMENDMENT.

YOU MENTIONED THE HELLER

DECISION AND WHAT I WAS SAYING,

THAT YOU REFERENCED, WAS THAT I

DISAGREED WITH THE WAY THE

COURT APPLIED THE SECOND

AMENDMENT IN THAT CASE.

BECAUSE WHAT THE DISTRICT OF

COLOMBIA WAS TRYING TO DO WAS

PROTECT TODDLERS FROM GUNS.

SO THEY WANTED PEOPLE WITH GUNS

TO SAFELY STORE THEM.

THE COURT DIDN'T ACCEPT THAT

REASONABLE REGULATION.

BUT THEY'VE ACCEPTED MANY

OTHERS.

I SEE NO CONFLICT BETWEEN

SAVING PEOPLE'S LIVES AND

DEFENDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

CHRIS: LET ME BRING MR. TRUMP

IN HERE.

THE BIPARTISAN OPEN DEBATE

COALITION GOT BILLIONS OF VOTES

ON QUESTIONS TO ASK HERE AND

THIS WAS IN FACT ONE OF THE TOP

QUESTIONS THAT THEY GOT.

HOW WILL YOU ENSURE THE SECOND

AMENDMENT IS PROTECTED?

YOU JUST HEARD SECRETARY

CLINTON'S ANSWER.

DOES SHE PERSUADE YOU THAT

WHILE YOU MAY DISAGREE ON

REGULATION, THAT IN FACT SHE

SUPPORTS A SECOND AMENDMENT

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS?