yes, know. hell friends please justice back to the national constitutionter center. thank you for.

it is always an our honorary co-chair here to the ncc andmeaningful to convene this evening to discuss his new book reading constitution why i chose fragments as i'm not textualism justice. it is clear from this powerful book which better than any other sums the central methodological debate on the supreme court between the pragmatism of which you are the leading spokesperson and textualism which is embraced by a supreme court majority. i so question why did you choose to write tbout why you chose pragmatism? textualism it's a good question because what many people say is the way i've been a judge for 40 s, 48 years on the supreme court and want to get across particularly to students and others, how do you go about deciding or how do i deciding these difficult

questions and statutory questions constitutional questions. and there is a division of and this thing has come along out of the creature from the black.an texture ism or originalism.appropriate to go about it. and i think it'll a i, i want to write why not why from acholars of view, you know, there are lots of scholars and teachers who will be able to do this better than could do it. but i will say and i said a it but, i say i've had some experience to the scholars that ' i would like to write about from the perspective of the cases and experience that i've had. and then y why i go this way and maybe that way but you can make up your own mind. so that's at least one reason why i wrote it. and there are others. how many would you like? youcame about like a creature from the black lagoon. i hesitated about that because is i think thepl sincere

and i think they have think and that's another reason if i non-lawyers i know that 40% are going to sy isering? this is all politics. and if they don't thi'politics. it's just the judges doing what they think good or what they'd like to do. and i said, that's not been my experience. my experience over 40 years say zero in politics, but no that's not the main thing. people who try to get judge appointed, they may think that they have political and these judge will carry them out his, but that isn't what judge thinksn he's deciding a case. what the judge's think approach this is the right result acco approach that i believe is the proper way to statutesthis. this constitution of they think they're it according to law and what others think, that's not going to affect them asmy opinion, is if i sit down or

have you tried right. but if you sit down and i try put on paper what i think i've learned over 40 years about how you go about interpreting these statutes in thes phrases, the constitution, you want an example. that would be great. no, i'll give you an example first. what's the job? what's the job? the best i read on what's the job appellate court judge within a french newspaper area to discuss with someone. i read a french newspaper, it said. an talking to a bunch of high school students or h with fifth graders, i say in that article, it's a high school biology teacher was traveling from not to paris on t train and he had next to him a b basket there were 20 lives that the ticket for the snails. and that i and i bought a ticket for the snails. a crazy here's no read the book.

read the fair book. th book. no animals on the train unless they a half price ticket if they're talking about dogs, cats rabid but surely not snails. you think you're talking about the skeeters isil an animal or not? so i say to the fifth grade, what do you think? perfect. i don't have to. another word. they get into the argument you've ever seen. half of them say, of animal of. well, well, what about a mosquito. why did they. it happy for the rest of that per talking snails. i don't know of a statutes haybe could be, but the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms any police office's a law enforcement officer had said in the statute you say differentidea same idea mean

how do they apply? and once you see, you say how i going to decide this one? how am i going to figure it out? because if this is a case in the supreme court of the united cases or almost only take good in different conclusions about the word i want to say snails but that isn't word. the word is usually about freedom of speech oromething in a statute or some other word in in the law. have figure out how to do it and ways. and what i say several hundred pages which book. yes. thank you. and for pursuit of happiness, it's called got. all right. right. that was last word. okay. okay. and in any case, in case i, how do we go aboutt? you know, and i need a scalia

who's a good fend. we used to argue about it. we'd argue publicly. lubbock texas in a bigause they'd never seen a supreme court justice before. they thought maybe it'll be like the but any case, there they were would come away from that discu those two were good friends, which we were were. and then i'm trying to figure say here that will make you see that life changes over time? and those words in the that stood for so clearlyago they have to adapt a little bit in their values they have so i said you knowge washington didn't know about the internet. said i knew that then he well, the problem the two campuses is that this is there are two campers and one sees the other putting on his runninge said, well

there's a bear in the camp, the bear in the camp. i outrun you. all right, that's one level of slight, bad comedy, but at the r othe he to me that you have a method usin what's the purpose of this statute? what are the consequences this way or that way? what are the values that it's embodied as? and how does that relate to the values that are in this doetc.? it's possibleand you're the only one who could do it. he's trying to compliment me that henobody could do it. and then say to him hmm. and if your approach just looking at the words, just seeing w meant, a reasonable observer at the time were written, if we follow that approach we're to have a constitution that no one will want. and in my own mind, that's those two ideas well, you don't want judges going outwhat think is good for what is the law. i agree with that and so does he know what the

that is do you scalia and there are two or three is one who read the wholep of textualism, which means you read that text it mean to a reasonable observer when it was they think they think they'll be able when read a text and follow you will hav simpler system. you will have a system that pe follow. you will have a system that congress can follow. e in different courts likeclear. and more than that, as i've said times already, you will have system that keeps the judges in it stops thembsy think is good for what the do i say to that? i say, i think t great. and i also think you can't po won't. that's what i think as an

answer. all right. as one of the answers. right? i don't know how long you want me to go on. i well, i've got of questions for you. all. you just laid out very clearly the differencematism, which focuses on and textualism ask what was the meaning of the text at the moment of its adoption? and you said it's not all litics. but i got the strong sense from, this book that you do there it is about political philosophy and you not politics, but what would you say to this. the what i got that presidentce justices to meet to to mirror their favored a broad national government and the was the jeffersonians who wanted construction in de protect rights and rein in federal power. and th textualist are appointed for just the same reason. and they're trying n federal power with. their textualism level of generality that so

high that it' of course. lots of presidents have been appointe ex and lo and behold, x turns out decide cases than the president thought. let's call x david souter no, go yonex. yeah, there, that because when you're there theyears you go around,d, how did i get here? you don't tell anyone you thought that because you have to pretend you belitally qualified. but you, the yeah. can i do this job? yeah i sure hope so. and then years, three years, souter thought three. william o. dougla you said. well, i don't know, but i can do the tried. do the best you can. and true of all of them. and course, there may be outlooks. and i think this outlook textualism, originalism is not one of the most desirable. so let's try? okay. we have a case. this is case you wanted. are you readyoach? yes.

this is the statute it says if that is handicapped, the public sc has to give him an appropriate education, i.e. a good educatiand if you think they're not doing that, you can bring a and the plaintiff in that case did and she had to change it. well the cases have are pretty technical a lot them and they're pretty far down and they don't into the newspaper but that's the somewhere says if she wins you know and she gets costs and she says to the judge judge, one of the things that i had is it cost was aeducational. dohe board is that part of the cost or do they just mean legal costs? and is that a legalu w we're going to answer that. let's read the word. yes, what the word wasokay. we didn't read it hard enough. let's twice. cost costs.

oh, now we've uñoh, three times. cost, cost cost okay see i say where are we in this. we're in mixed up at best. and that's going to tell you the an that. or did you know you may not know i shouldn't tell you this, but are a lot of federal officers you can lawsuits against some money don't tell i said that but but possible and then there are some exceptions you can' job which people one of the exception and says that you cannot sue for keeping was an customs and other enforcement oh who do they mean by that last on. the beat, a german police a cop on the beat or those with customs and excise. so i say say it three times. anyment officer any other. okay, won't do it. but but you see, you or let's

will actually write about let guns. that's when where i wrote a long and justice sotomayor. new york has a cannot carry autside your house, concealed or not concealed. violate the second amendment, which militia being necessary for the security of a people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. you to memorize all that in that but but you say in ana sense three ofur of us then you said that has do with doesn't have to do with holding a gun uer burglar. five said itdid. i think that was the number. so we passed tnow at i can't i can't. i'm i lost that. okay. s's law and the court says in the opinion go look back in history and just look at what when this was

passed a have thought it meant i said, ohat do i look at? so started looking at a few of the old weapon or what a hall, the barred. does that letter? and then there was asian, which you took and threw over the walls to burn up somebodyrigin of artillery it? gotd at history. or at least not skill bar or r they are. and to ask the judges to decide on that way in my opinion, because they don't know. they're notd you'll get briefs. the briefs will go in opposite directions and the historians will disagree. and then you have to decide what a skill ladder was or whether it' a relevant. no. and what wanted to write about. and i did. t it. yeah. in the senate. relevant here that the has 400 million guns. one. number one. number two is yemen. i think okay. and look at the number of deaths

o are killed and the and the home accident and the spousal problems an is endless endless. and i say in my opinion that relevant. i'm not saying you're just going to look ate we'll look at the words if the word in thetatuter the word in the constitution. not in but suppose it was. if it's carrot, that doesn't mean a fish. i got that point, but i want to go beyond that and i want toa clear from the statute, which is most of the the costs 14 times. don't try to say any other police officer, other law enforcement officer 18 times, look for thingsook to who are the people? holmes brando's learned is chief justice marshall and many othe purpose. someone wrote those words. somebody had an idea when the words were written of what you were trying to do in them. and when you're reading that other things, it has certainhere democratic

human rights. degree of equality. separationlaw. that's enough for the m there and take those into account who said this i wrote one montaigne actually 84. you like these old writers writers and yeah 84 justinian ever made. i rea justinian okay but in any case he said thwo these roman emperors made is they wanted their to write everything in a statute. and we will have statutes and statutes, statutes and words and words and words and. now, my judges won't be able to do the things that they really want to do. i don't want them to do it in thehat man must been an idiot. he didn't say quite like that. he he realize that for lawye, word is just a basis for disagreement and instead of his

discovering that more will rule, he might discover fewer will disagree, will agree or disagree him is will agree with and they won't you don'tbecause life changes and life hasar to it than a simple static written, they have to be written in a way. marshall says thathave to apply and they will have to help us. have to help us live with a world that is changing and that's why the freedom ofspeech, however, clear what it not to be clear how it. a i or, you know, those different. and so you better thinktter look not just the words in many cases where those just answer you better look at a fe things purposes consequence his values s well. well, let me just do anythingthing.

i you try living with my you'll understand. oh, okay. no. you try as a judge to do you the law. and so what i'm doing assume with me that that's correct. and i people shouhave experience in that. and now do we do about this tidal wave of textualism or originalism that seems to be along and replacing in the schools replacing in the law schools, replacing in a lot of plac to what you read it. i what's the purpose? what was the mischief that congress was trying to stop? what was the will this achieve that objective or the opposite you say and that's that's what i'm doing what telling people. no i'm trying to show them here i'm trying to show them with with enough examples that they'll able but they got

time if they get tobook, they'll be able to say he's asking me which i am to make up in my direction, but nonetheless nonetheless, it's something people have to learn and think about and decide for themselves. and in my own view i think we'll t farther with the supreme court doing sort of what i think it ought to do. then we willt by saying, oh, it's all politics, all the way to all politics. that doesn't help very much. will you do do it with examples. and the gun case is a perfect example of your defense of pragmatism and, your critique of originalism for your. you say this is what have almost marshall and it was holmes and it was fran way the supreme court approaches cases and it leads to moreresults. and for the critique, you saythis was bad history. the scholars did, a and they found that that's not what it in 1789 and moving baseline

and that which was the main promise of originalism and you also say it leads to a failure to defer tothe other thing that was to happen with originalism. an's all encapsulated in your defense of the case and now i want you to talk about jobs and abortion which is another of your major examples you probably going to talk of that. i did dissent in that case and wesotomayor and i wrote a pretty long dissent we thought the majority was wrong in that case. and one of the reasons i think directly relevant to what i'm in this book, remember the two promises that the textualism made this is going to be a simple method to which i give a wonderful response. i say, oh okay, that isn't a very good response but nonetheless. allin, but remember the second promise system thatdifficult for a judge substitute

what he thinks is good or what the law requires. you know, i said, you know, they try not to do that. noit perfectly. i did grow up in san francisco. i went to lowell school. lived and yeah, we all have. by the time we're in our forties or fifties we have sort of views on and about the country and about our neighbors about all kinds of things, and to try to hold any job and keep all thatotally out. you can't, you can't jump out of your own clothes, but you t and. i think judges, too, they take. what i'm saying is 100%, but judge is trying to do is be honest about the decision decided that what you justbut what about the textualism will that hold us in we slip back to the san francisco school board r's watch. and so the san francisco school board. but will it and i found dobbs interestinusimaginary textualist opponent on that, i would hmm, why did you overrule

decided why did you overrule of casey v paulino 30 years i mean, isn't there a principle in the law called he knows latin says be careful criticizes which means sog' decided and don't change it even if it's wr now, that's not 100%. the court ferguson went to brown versus i'm he did. it's not 100% but you're b to mr. textualist w next? mm. ar overrule or are they candidates for overruling a't decided by atualist. well, if that's your view, every case is up for there are hardly textualist cases recently. so we're going to have no lord over everyclients will love it. they'll go into the lawyer's office and say, you them, overrule it. this is going to be a mess.

oh you don't mean that. and he doesn't.on't. what do you mean? well i think you mea cases not only weren't decided according to a which is about all of them. nearly all. and you thand you think they were very wrong. oh you think they so we bring that in as a ground for ove back page one for a sec you, nino and the others criticize me on the gro not to do, that you just pick the cases that you think areand know what you're to do is get think are really wrong. does that giveto. good when you decide what you're going toverrule? i mean, you think they're basis? on the basis of textualism? basis? i mean, what is it? i mean, there you are in the

precisely that you say i'm in. and so you have the conscience of a good judge in deciding to as i must do the same. okay. in cases aren't there and, so i don't see much to choose. there at best. ow have two promises. simple clear, uld by the boards. number two a better way of holding ju well, there it is by the boards in dobbs. in my now we're left with with nothing. thsay we're left with next to nothing. and more than that, i think th s about this. dangerous? why? well, you know, i hate to admit it, but congress is closer to ir constituencies need and want than the there with a lot of rooms and not very good food. i was in charge of getting the food ready for years because i was a junior justice and. i admit it wasn't very good, say and they will successfully.

they're in a position because past to some degree presentthey have to have campaign in coherence. they'll try, even though we may thinkes they fail and they're always people think yeah, they failed here. that didn' help try to make a better and sor for he saida lot he said everyone this building the senate everyone in to help america. he they have different ideas about how to do it but you see theirand if they didn't somewhere some goal like that they wouldn't bel right. you think they want to help amey don't get around to the constituents and they shouldn't. so the chances of an 't further is very often a desirable in this law, the chances of that have just gone chances of interpreting this talking about this constitution in a way that

helps. what marshall wanted to do, he said, we can future only all. and wewritten in fairly words, because you can't montaigne said you can't just constitution and this is only 27 pages i think something like thatriskier than when you just read the words at slaves were not part of the system. ad about that person would have thought of that at that time. those words mean should be applied that you will eliminate something called, the future and be careful and try to understand those basic principles those basic and use them when they help use them when they worries me so much if we move in the wrong direction of what henry hyde said, my professor and albert saxe, my professor years and years ago that the law is

there. it's athis law, it's a human institution designed make 320 million people now live tibet race every religion, every point of view. that' said. tell anyone. we lived in san francisco, said crazy there isn't somebody who doesn't know that in this country. tl live in los but don't say that. but oh yeah. okay. you see we have to, says henry. art, says saxon. documents are designed to help us live together, even though weeaken that is, a risk to weaken weaken. other is a risk because it doesn't help uough. people might say, why follow it? why follow the law? why do what the law says when we gree with it. and there the rule of law itself is i think that will happen. know knows? now you question and a very long ans extremely serious answer because you jusual is an originalist.

some have to original st going to constrain judges, and second, that it would lead to deferenced it's done neither. in fact, it's done the opposite. an well at least we're following the text, you say essentially random whidecisions you're going to follow because all inconsistent with the text and that would lead to overturning of them. so given the power of that e to ask why citizens conclude that it ipolitics, because that isn't politics. politics. i mean, i learned politics. i'm in my office in the senate staff. i come back to looking through all my papers and i say, excuse me, can i help you? and she says, yeah, i just wanted to find out. she says, what do on the staff do here? ho best was to go into your office and look through all thei think, hey, that's not a very good thing. but before i at her, i thought, the constituent mm politics.

you see her? andcall to one fromof defense and one from the mayor of wister, which will he take, first? of course, the mayor of wister obvious to anyone initics. that's where the constituents are, i be able get the republicans and the session? and who's going to be popular party and will i do to keep my seat and which consist to ensure i listen to you in which do i not? and is a yes o here going to help me win the primary? that's. do i see that in the court. no, i don't. i don't seehat. so that's why i had a lot and i say you might findt political philosophies. yes. and you might call real politics sneaking in occasionally. when frankfurter said to the others during the terrible time they were having getting brown in forest and they a miscegenationase. and he said to the others, i read don't take is what the south is afraid of. and if we take it and hold do, god

only knows what they'll do with brown. no one's helping us, not tpresident, not the congress. we've got to get that case brown and they did take the miscegenation case. later. and that's why i've always warren had some experience with politics, saying it was tough getting that brown partly so i'm not saying never. i'm saying never. but i am saying you have things like your own background that sneaks and you have political and you have listening to others and you politic. so ended up by not a good quote, g. wodehouse like p.g. wodehouse? verysays of bertie woke up one morning and he wasn't disgruntled. but he wasn't exactly grumbled either. so that's sort of it. but i think is better. tter. no judge takes into account day but

all j account the season the climate of the season. and that's sort of where we are which not a real answer, not a definite answer, but an experience allowance. why? at the end of the book, i would say you're a very you're famously optimistic and your optimism uplifts, all of us. it certainly uplifts me in tough the end of the bookic about whether is merited. you say these are strongly oppose the tax fairne project and you fear that it may be unstoppablein the end you think that they'll pull back. why do think they' back? well, you're on the court a long time. you'readjust, i say. was told this by one of the president, she said you'll discover something. the applause dies away very fast. you like the.

and that's exactly happened in theof attention and efforthe court. that's true of over time over time, what the job like in tsense i'm a three years and i'm some kind of meeting of young lawyers. one comes up to me and he says oh, justice breyer, i love your and so well, would you mind signing my programs? i'll soon as he walks, he turns to his friend for is. and so the privilege of the is ng it and having to give your all to this cthat case and, it's sort of like a doctor doctor who doesn't not to treat this person because he has such a b know, you know, that's not what ithink over time, the approach will become more apparent. your cases and it won't give them the answer and they'll see it right there and they'll know it when they see this gets rid all

these up appeals in this area which coming and they'll discover it doesn't and then it give an answer that actually in terms of consequence is for the people who have to live under that particular statute and they'll discover that it i impossible. they might think some of the time to go back and see what the purposes were when congress passed statute or what at when this constitution was written and when slavery ended. and a few of the other ke the right of women to vote. an what they'll see that they'll see of the era just will hesitate to make them hesitate hesitate to this, you know, because can use it in a way that doesn't hurt much. you can say textualism read the statute.

well, okay, igree with that. yeah, read the statute. decide a case without reading thethat one. but so so you don't know quite where and so one of the reasons as i said i w away as possible and that's on i wrote the book so that it's one possibilit might be another. you say it's not politics, but philosophy and the political philosophy is strong an to strike down the society, ifand this is strongly held back. they really believe it and therefore it they will to strike new deal might that happen? and if it does what would be nsequences. it well, it could happen. i wouldn't think they were good consequences. remember w changed the big movement towards agencies towards, big central government or bigger central government and shifting power to washington came during the new deal and the new deal was itself a paradigm shift from a previous way of court, a way that

made some sense at time. that's what's sort of interesting. alan greenspan wrote a very interesting book to me about it about a the capitalism in the united states. and he says and he'shat before civil war, this country was very in. the south, too, they couldn't afford to go torch. it was a very poor country. but after the boom, inventions and moreover ways of financing those activities. so across the country they spread and people. and from one of the poorest countries in the world became one of the ricso in my imagination i'm of that lochnerourt. the court everyone despises, but theye when they're thinking the nt against property, the movement against contract, the movement against laissez faire that's going kill the goose. egg. and so they turned against by the time you get to the new changed. you want to believeinesses

alone in a period of 24% unemployment when people on the bread lines depression is right there no and the who said this roosevelt i read it he said try something. if that doesn't work else and if that doesn't work, try something else but keep trying. yeah, there is a season. there in the new deal and that's going on in a movement away. when you go to the courtchanges attitudes andy, maybe you go there and say the worstwas osha, because osha supposed to, you people working. and they have a rule which says the top three rungs of a ladder so no one walks off the top. oh, okay. they did have a rule like that know. so so maybe they're not perfect but by the time you try to get looked up every agency he could in, the lower parts of the agency had

nure. they were appointed by the people in the higher board that had tenure. an and we found pages and pages worth and all that's going to changel that's going to change. you see, i'm of how far t they will and i think th world i think life will catch up. i think life willthem. and i think, by the way that the changes in i'm so glad someone this group took my administrative look at what and but in administrative that that isn't textualism the words there in the constitution are legislative judicial and that doesn't tell you too much which way to go in these cases anyway but they still might have the attitude you have, which is a different kind of athose are such powerful points. you argue that thes not rooted text and you also show that transitions of the court the lochner era to the new deal individual to warren court were driven by changes in society. but this move is not the

textualist revolution which was in the eighties by president reagan doesn't t of majorities of the country the way the previous guess the argument that it's not going to bet up in defiance to public opinion, maybe that's that i'm not going to disagree with that. but isn't that well president reagan believe'll do that that's just not the court i mean, there you better do what you think is the right thing and because there's nowhere else to go powerful pointed by those groups of people who thought there was too much power in washington. and then you couple that with, all right, let's get rid of agency x,begin to think of what might hmm. if you hesitate a little bit about, going too far too fast. so there are a lot of things in ings in judge and there are a lot of things in the court itself that prevents it or

hesitate or stops. you're going in some of these areas, too, away from what will make the country. and this is why i use word 50,000 times, but we'll make the countryork, i think use it. i found a place where like it law is workable ise ways you can describe the various things that i and othersha at in order to interpret difficult or the statutes. these are extraordinarily challenging times for democracy as we in america and around the world and, polarization and social media have created the ghtm of public discourse based on passion than cool reason. why is it important that the court maintain its during these traordinarily threats to the rule of law? and will this court times we're in as it decideslist path? as far the ultim i say the reader is going to have to read what i try to p a dn onrson's point of view

and see what tand. make up his or her own mind. but what you're saying there is written well and your book very well. you said, let's go back. let's go back to see what the framers read. read they really think that we're pony but the seneca cicero. some of the greeks the stoics, they like the stoics marcus aurelius and epictetus, which is the obvious. yes. the epigram for your yes. book of the book, which i actually i can't without my constitutional readin't tell peter. it says, tell people about what philosophy embody it. absolutely. no, i think that's just what i write either. but in inhey read these things. they read the french enlightenment, theywe never read in philosophy on moral or m moral of the scottish enlightenm and and other people, theis a it with.

as joanna, my wife. i am. and and we're just we remember themperance courage wisdom and try to keep those passions under control and try to use your says. madison says. we won't have thath a problem. there will be factions. yeah, i learned this from you. there will beactions all over this country, but it's big country and the factions will all be places and time it take time to get where can have an impact and the those three things together and you will have time for people to reflect andrnment like they individually will be able to have reason in control. mm hmm. well today means nothing or not much in time. zero in complexity, but it's more complex in different. and so can we find that find that substitute root

that madison and the others and they're all over here. that room, madison and the others thought would bring the r control. jeff said read and read deeply. i think that'kennedy used to say, that you're trying to work on a project. yo opposition on, find the pn. and i think mills said something like this, find a person who really disagrees wit think intelligent and go talk to them. wait, don't just talk. listen listen and listen.with something that you really agree with. and when they do that, you say what a good idea you that and. yeah, and they will and you'll succeed. and if you what you want take it don't

%. all your followers will say oh, how great you are in getting, oh no, you didn't get it that you say get the 30% and take it and i saw a lot the press wouldator kennedy did such a good job on this bill andt thank me. thank orrin hatch. he's the one that came up with the get and produce helpful, because he'd say to his staff, keep in mind this credit is a weapon. it's aand uset. if you're a success at what you're trying to do or even a 30% success, there'll plenty of credit to go around. and if it's a failure, who credit? yeah, good point. so i tell this to the fifth graders of the seventh graders of the highchools students and i'll tell you something. you can hear drop silence. they're listening. they're listening. because i say to them when they ask you what they think. they should do. i say, i'm verys now up to you.

it's not up to me. going to have to figure out how to save this downs, that that we're does the right thing after trying everything else. but not so bad at getting people together and covered. they came around and saw how the old people were doing and did they have food and neighborhood groups or created. and they were created in lot of different but we can work together and we have a history of doingand down. but what's interesting to me is theth graders or eighth graders or ninth graders were paying to is they want to do something they want help. and that's what i came awa it's that mood in that room of the high school the mood in the room of the high school students the at the end where i say yes, direction of being optimistic i have the same experience with this amazing job of convening high school students and students of all ages andng to their

thoughtful debates. it really is the way things are t i want to go back to this about madisonian and using powers of reason to case. madison was a pragmatist that he, after all changed opinion about the constitutionality of theited states based on the fact that had worked and people had come to accept it. wh you about changing the minds, not only of yourlast and kids in high school today that are textualism and originalism might you appeal to madison and say it was this pragmatic approach rather than j's strict constructionism which wasn't even supposed to be applied by theeople in constitutional conventions that actually represents the the way the courts were supposed function again in the future. at and. i think that's a good point. the way i put it in the past is i'll say to a graduating class, if i'spcollege, i would say, you know, i can't really tell yo hope i can hope

úqthat you'll find someone to love. i hope that you'll have a job that you find. and i can hope that you will participate in public life if voted leaves commissioner or a member of that board. you may are a million ways you can do it. and the reason i can say with point is i have worked with this document here and i believestrongly that if you don't if, you do not. adams madison might evolve this. if you do not work in public life, if you don't do that, this won't you are doing that. so i hope you because told my yeah. i did this and derek spoke if you want quotation on on that particular he wrote a pretty good about education and he says though i'm not sure it's true he describe at the famous funeral athens he says there, he says. and what do we say in man who does

not participate in public life? we do not. he is a man who minds hiswnbusiness. we say he is a man has no business here. pretty tough probably your remarkable and inspiring optimism in democracy root an athenian sense of the fact that our fullachieved through political participation remains inspiring just. as brier, i must thank for embodying the matter soni and virtues that the framers hoped for when thought about judges would thoughtfully listen to all points of view with a sense of the limitations, the role of the court in our society, and modeling the various dialog in which the future of the rebldepends. we're here in this sacred space at the naton centertuti i want you to just gaze over on independence hall, which we're about to celebrate the 250th anniversary of, the dec i think we all could benefit from your optimism. are you optimistic that the declaration, the constitution thrive the next 250 years? and why syhhoul point.

lord governor, we don't know. we don't know. it's an experiment that washington says. he says this is an experiment. he w friend, lincoln. johanna got our grandchildren. she you give them $20 each if they memorize the gettysburg i first to 88 fourscore and seven years ago our fathers came on tsntinent to create a new nation conceived in liberty and to the proposition that all men are created equal. today we are engaged in a great war to see whether that nation i like these or any nation so can see in and so dedicated to that what's he saying? it's anim teaching leads me to that. why you say the teachers think they're like the illuminati lumiere they're the enlightenment figures. they think we a great theory but it'll never work. and then they think, let's see united states is going to try it. , let's see how long it takes them to

washington an if they could only talk. now we're writing an experiment. franklin constitute and if you can keep it. lincoln lincoln long we can't promise it. we can just experiment. and the reason that why i think it cost $60 requires you some amount of parts that and that's what we're livingwe're no different than people who lived before us or peopl lived after us. friends for his servicconstitution and for inspiring all of us to the american experiment.please join me in thanking justiceto thank