From the Thomas and Max Centre of University of Nevada,

Las Vegas.

I'm Chris Wallace of Fox News.

And 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 Debates.

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 has promised to remain silent.

No cheers, 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.

Secretary Clinton, Mr. Trump, welcome.

Let's get right to it.

The first topic is the Supreme Court.

We, 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 three appointments,

which means that you will in effect determine the balance 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 according to changing circumstances?

In this segment, Secretary Clinton, you go first,

you have two minutes.

Thank you very much, Chris,

and thanks to UNLV for hosting us.

You know, 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 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 the 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.

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?

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 bent,

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 appointed

that decide what they want to hear.

It's 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.

Mr. Trump, thank you.

We now have about 10 minutes for open discussion.

I want to focus on two issues

that in fact by the justices that you name

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, and let me quote,

the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment.

And now, 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 Antonio Scalia who wrote the decision.

What's wrong with that?

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.

And so 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 are 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 reference, Chris,

was that I disagreed with the way the court

applied the Second Amendment in that case.

Because what the District of Columbia was trying to do

was protect toddlers from guns.

So they wanted people with guns to safely store them,

and the court didn't accept that reasonable regulation,

but they've accepted many others.

So I see no conflict between saving people's lives and defending the Second Amendment.

Let me bring Mr. Trump in here.

The bipartisan Open Debate Coalition got millions of votes on questions to ask here,

and this was, in fact, one of the top questions that they got.

How will you insure the Second Amendment is protected?

You just heard Secretary Clinton's answer.

Does she persuade you that,

while you may differ on regulation,

that in fact she supports a Second Amendment right to bear arms?

Well, the DC v. Heller decision was very strongly...

and she was extremely angry about it.

I watched. I mean, she was very, very angry when upheld.

And Justice Scalia was so involved,

and it was a well-crafted decision,

but Hillary was extremely upset, extremely angry,

and people that believe in the Second Amendment and believe in it very strongly

were very upset with what she had to say.

Let me bring in Secretary Clinton. Were you extremely upset?

Well, I was upset because, unfortunately, dozens of toddlers injure themselves,

even kill people with guns

because, unfortunately, not everyone who has loaded guns in their homes

takes appropriate precautions.

But there's no doubt that I respect the Second Amendment,

that I also believe there's an individual right to bear arms.

That is not in conflict with sensible, common-sense regulation.

And, you know, look, I understand that Donald's been strongly supported by the NRA,

the gun lobby's on his side,

they're running millions of dollars of ads against me.

And I regret that

because what I would like to see is for people to come together and say,

of course, we're going to protect and defend the Second Amendment,

but we're going to do it in a way that tries to save

some of these 33,000 lives that we lose every year.

Let me bring Mr. Trump back into that.

Because, in fact, you oppose any limits on assault weapons,

any limits on high-capacity magazines,

you support a national right to carry law.

Why, sir?

Well, let me just tell you before we go any further,

in Chicago, which has the toughest gun laws in the United States,

probably you could say, by far, they have more gun violence than any other city.

So we have the toughest laws and you have tremendous gun violence.

I am a very strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

And I don't know if Hillary was saying it in a sarcastic manner,

but I'm very proud to have the endorsement of the NRA.

It's the earliest endorsement they've ever given

to anybody who ran for president.

I'm very honored by all of that.

We are going to appoint justices.

This is the best way to help the Second Amendment.

We're going to appoint justices

that will feel very strongly about the Second Amendment,

that will not do damage to the Second Amendment.

Another issue which divides you

and the justices that whoever ends up winning this election appoints

could have a dramatic effect there,

- and that's the issue of abortion. - Right.

Mr. Trump, you're pro-life.

But I want to ask you specifically,

do you want the court, including the justices that you will name,

to overturn Roe v. Wade which includes,

in fact, states a woman's right to abortion?

Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life

and I will be appointing pro-life judges,

I would think that that would go back to the individual states.

But I'm asking you specifically, would you like...

If they overturned it, it will go back to the states.

What I'm asking you, sir, is do you want to see the court overturn?

You just said you want to see the court protect the Second Amendment.

Do you want to see the court overturn Roe v. Wade?

Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on,

that's really what is going to be... and that will happen,

and that will happen automatically, in my opinion,

because I'm putting pro-life justices on the court.

I will say this, it will go back to the states

and the states will then make a determination.

Secretary Clinton?

Well, I strongly support Roe v. Wade,