>> washington journal continues. host: welcome back it "washington journal." we are joined by the president of the bill of right institute david bobb. it is the 232nd anniversary of the ratification of the bill of rights. take us through a little history of that process and why weren't they included initially in the

constitution. guest: the constitution feels hammered out over three months in philadelphia in the summer of 1787 in philadelphia. there were people who at the time of that debate, it was a long hard conversation, very contentious, could have broken down many points but there were many delegates to that constitutional convention that were worried that what had been set up was too strong a central government. these people came to be none as antifederalists. they thought we needed elements to have some bulwark for freedom and we would write them down and state them in a way that was clear for everybody. so there people that opposed the ratification of the constitution. those in favor, federalists, said it is good as it is.

there was a big challenge. so as the constitution was sent out to the states many people weighed in and they said look, here is the protection that i want. we should add this, that. and the total of more than 200 came about. by the time it came into adoption, what happened in 1789 they sent 12 amendments out to the state, 10 came bhakta were ratified and on december 15, 1791 the bill of rights the first 10 amendments were added to the constitution. host: did one person write the bill of rights or was it more group effort? guest: it was definitely a group effort. it was a big kerfuffle. democracy is messy and we had lots of disagreements but one thing the parties agreed on it should be set up to ensure

freedom for the people and mitigate against tyranny. so, what happened is i give credit to madison, he was involved in that first congress, a great editor. he had been the father of the constitution. he relied on some of the work george mason did with the virginia declares of rights. he took that list of 200 plus and brought it down to 17 and then came down to 12 and then there was debate if it should be at the end or the beginning. he did the back room deals appear negotiations that ultimately allowed for it to pass. he was against the bill of rights before was for it. hamilton the same way. they were lake what if we write it down but don't computer all of them. does that convey that they have to be written down. the amazing thing and why we make it a celebration today, bill of rights day, we have rights because we are human

beings. as the tkhraeurbgs of independence said we are endowed by our creator with certain inalien believe rights and the bill of rights codifies them and says there are certain things so precious to you that no majority should be able to strip you of those rights. host: when did we start celebrating a bill of rights day? guest: it hasn't been around that long. i don't know that the first official date is but the funny thing about it when it was first ratified it is not like they said we have the bill of rights. it was usually referred to as a bill of right. it was about the time of f.d.r. we referred to them as the bill of rights. host: you have an opinion piece in stars and stripes magazine and you talk about the knowledge of young people of what rights we have and what is in the bill of rights.

i want to show a survey done. this was you asked participants to name the rights guaranteed by the first amendment. 77 could name freedom of speech. this is when it drops off. 40% freedom of religion and 33% right to assembly and 8 said freedom of press is in the first amendment. guest: sometimes our tendency is to say of teenagers why are at the so ignorant. we have two give tell a reason to want to know these. we have to model the debate and engagement that the bill of rights institute we teach civics and that is giving young people the reason to ask why. when we get better at these why would freedom of press matter for a person using one of the social media platforms. we see a problem not just with

young people but americans of all ages in their knowledge and engagement. i think what we are trying to do with the bill of rights and particularly on bill of rights day is to say of the whole of the american people let's come together, examine our history and think about the skills of citizenship that we need to manage this agreement. the bill of rights is about managing this disagreement, not eliminating it. >> if you have a question for our guest you can call by the lines. republicans 202-748-8001. democrats are 202-748-8000 and independents are 202-748-8002. tell us more about the organization and how it does the things you are talking about. guest: it teaches civics. it is right now very difficult thing in america to be a teach anderson we support about 75,000 teachers. think of it you are asked as an

educator say of high school and middle school to take up these contentious topics in a way that gets them interested in the core principles. we point young people back to primary source documents by giving teachers the tools by which they can engage students. so if you think of a curriculum and you can go to it and download any instructional materials. they are free of charge. there's a labor of 4,000 materials including on the bill of rights, constitution, declaration of independence and what we are trying to do is equip students with the knowledge, skills and disposition so they can live and promote a free and just america. host: as you know, school curricula has become polar iced. how does civics education bridge that if possible? guest: it is possible.

we are polarized. 56% of high school students according to one survey reported that they feel comfortable disagreeing with one another in the classroom. that means that 44% are uncomfortable. we as americans not just in the classrooms are walking on egg shells. we don't want to talk about tough things because we are worried about donor. for a high school or middle school this means can i have a debate on friends that is something that is contentious and remain the friendship and we are helping people say yes we can talk about questions that are difficult, questions that divide us. we don't have to be polarized. think of what the founding principles can do. i believe they can act as a unifying thing. we believed what frederick douglass made freedom, equality that human beings have rights that the purpose of government

is to protect rights. if we go back to some of those core continuation i think there's a possibility of not a kind of kumbaya, we are too big and won't agree on a lot of policy things but we have to find a way to manage dose agreement. that is what the constitution allows us to do. host: ready to talk to callers? guest: love to. host: sy is first independent line houston, texas. caller: thank you so much for having shows like this,phobe else will do it about special days that we don't even -- i wouldn't have realized it was today. i want to pick up where you left off. originally there were 12 amendments to the bill of rights. our first amendment was originally the third amendment and the first, first amendment was to be called article the first and that's way want to get to. but the second one is the latest

amendment to be added or 27th about increasing pay for congress. the original article, the first was appropriation of congressmen and i wish you could pull up the text so i don't have to read it in old original english but i think it is interesting and we need to think why do we have 435 members of congress. the answer is actually because that is how many chairs you can fit on the floor. i think we need to look into that. we have electronic devices and microphones and cameras. we have all kinds of technology. we need to remove the visitor gallery and make room for more. originally there was one for every 10,000, then 20,000 and then 50,000 but imagine one congressman nor every 50,000

people and that is -- if you only had to get 25,000 people to vote to be a congressman instead of half of 650,000 which is what it is today that would change everything. we were only one state short of passing that. in our constitution there are two different ways to pass them. we can go through the states if congress do not want to amend the constitution and we should tack on maybe an age limitment we have minimum age for house and senate and president. i think we need to think about an upper end. guest: you are right that the first two amendments, those 12, were not immediately ratified. the second one took a long time until the 1990's but it was adopted as the 27th amendment. that provides for a period of

time for the members of congress cannot vote themselves a pay raise and attack it until an intervening election. your point about apportionment is interesting, but consider if we went back to some original ratios like one member of the u.s. house for every 40,000 americans i think the figure would be about 10,000 members of the u.s. house of reference. that would be a lot. but the questions about apportionment continue. we at the bill of rights institute love talking about the second one and i will give a quick story. a student in college was doing a report and said what were the original two and why didn't they pass. he said that is a good idea to have that intervening time period and pulled it together and started an effort to revive it knowing it was not far from ratification and it was able

throwing. the original report he wrote earned something like a c. once he did the process the teacher said it is probably worth an a. host: gina in kentucky, a democrat, good morning. caller: yes. you think there was making about the 10 commandments when they talked about the bill of rights if they don't it you shall not lie but let me tell you something. educational tv has pushed to talk to kids about the bill of rights in a cartoon like skit. but maybe the bill of rights people should get on the internet and have a program or maybe design a game where kids can interact. nab is the way we could get to it. guest: thank you for that. the bill of rights institute has a great web site. it is my brid org.

but there are things people of all ages can read. it doesn't take about a half hour to read the constitution. i encourage you to read the declaration of independence. we have a number of videos and we engage in conversation. you get out of the bubble and say maybe i ought to reach out to that neighbor with home i disagree. the way it depolarize is not continue to live in our silos. that is what the bill of rights is giving us the right to free speech and petition to grievances appear pieceably protest. democracy is a means to an end and that end is liberty and avoiding tyranny. think of what a remarkably unique thing that is. a lot of nations have bills of rights but ours mean something,

it has teeth. it is upheld but we have to bring young people into believing it like the caller says. the only way it has sustaining power is we believe it and uphold it. host: greg in kansas, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question. it wasn't george mason against the bill of rights -- wasn't george mason against the bill of rights and if they were going to have it in he was not going to be in favor of the constitution. years ago i was a law clerk to the late justice blackman and he lamented that in high school nobody wanted to take government and nobody wanted to teach it either. good day. guest: thankfully, with all due respect to the late justice

there are a lot of people who do a great job teaching government. i will agree there's a lot of students that don't see it because that is we teach it sometimes in a way that do not give tell reason. we have 75,000 educators and every day they get up and do an amazing job coming into the classroom and giving students a reason to be engaged. we have to ask their opinion and take their opinion seriously and have a back and forth. your question about george mason is interesting. george mason feels the leading advocate for not aproving the constitution without a bill of rights. so what he had done in virginia early on feels write into their constitution a declaration of rights. it is from that document that madison, taking a page from mason, said we probably should include that in the constitution to gain the support of fellow

citizens including people like mason. so mason insisted the bill of rights be part of the constitution so we owe him a lot for the existence of the bill of rights. host: you have carlos in delaware can you explain the enumeration of the rights and how and why they are prioritized. guest: to have an enumeration of rights is just to state them and make them very clear. we talked a little how the first amendment wasn't originally the first so i wouldn't put much that within through 10 is not a ranked order of performance. what you have in the constitution is a very clear statement in article one, section 8, stating that there are certain rights -- sorry -- certain duties for the federal government. and the bill of rights you might think of as a limitation.

congress shall make no law. it says there are certain things we don't want the political process to change but you don't want to put to a vote of your neighbors should you or should you not have the right to keep your house. some vindication are so inviolable. the list goes on throughout the bill of rights that nobody can take that away from you. so, that is why we write them down. not every country has a written constitution. the united kingdom, great britain, does not. we have a written constitution and bill of rights to show the american people these rights are to be cherished and protected. host: monty is next independent in phoenix, arizona. caller: good morning. first of all, i used to be a republican but now i'm an independent. i just have a comment on the constitution. i believe it feels a god expired document.

a lot of people talk about having a constitutional convention but the framers in their wisdom showed us the path of how we can make it effective for all of us going forward. that was with the bill of rights or first 10 amendments that were put in there. they did that up front and said there's a pattern of how you can make this document work going forward in the future. that is the only comment that i had to make about that. host: what do you think, david? guest: i think you are right. there was a strong measure of wisdom in saying from the get go we have written something down. the constitution is the product of a couple score people sitting around in the long hot summer of philadelphia in 1787. but we are not going to impose this on the country. we will put it out to the people that we the people can decide whether it should be ratified or not. and we are going to build into

the constitution a means by which it can be amended. it is really hard to amend. more than 10,000 proposals have been made to amend the constitution and we only have 27 so a very high bar but i think that was a a wise decision and something we can celebrate today. host: new jersey, democrat, john, good morning. caller: good morning. when i was in school i was in special ed. and we really never got history but i got that from the boy scouts. one thing that is very interesting about the bill of rights, you have two amendments that are confusing to most people like the second amendment or third amendment. and i think the cause that it still hard to understand is

militia and we have issues with it with a lot of issues today. but one of the great things about the constitution feels that when alexander hamilton and john jay and james madison created it, it was created to be a living document to change things based on the times. that is one of the things i learned about it despite not learning it in special ed. but one thing we need to do is understand different parts of an amendment. host: sorry, go ahead. caller: we talked about the fourth amendment. the fourth amendment came when i took a criminal justice class you have decisions like map

versus ohio in 1961 that talked about the reason for going into a house with a warrant. when you get into those stories they are very interesting. host: let's get a response. guest: i agree, john, that these stories are vital. today marks 232 years, that is a long time. the constitution agencies principles are enduring. it can be amended. the amendment process is the only way that the constitution is living. think of those principles as enduring from age to age. people don't change. that was the central insight of the founders. we have the bill of the constitution that provides a hedge that people often treat each other poorly and we have to ensure the government cannot be tyrannical. second is bear arrangements, fourth is each is a ball washing against overleaning government. we had moved from a monarchy

that had become tyrannical. so the founders wanted to put in place a government and constitution that would for all times protect people and not just change from generation to generation. host: let's go to gene in syracuse, new york, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. what a great subject to talk about. i have a question. are you familiar at all with what seems to me to be a recent phenomena on youtube and other platforms but manly youtube, of people who are kind of nerdy about the bill of rights and they go to publish spaces and they basically stand or videotape and stand somewhere and might ask for public papers forensic from your town hall, they do things that demonstrate

the actual right. then they pay attention to what the responses from the official, for instance, if you go into the mayor's office do they allow you to actually walk in and they videotape it and it is quite amazing that, number one, many people are not aware of their own rights. so, just typical citizens that happen to witness show up on videos and they get explained to, this is your right. this isn't just me. i have this right but you also have this right. when i stick up for your right, you benefit even if you are not hear watching it. so i'm curious if you have seen this phenomenon? guest: i'm not familiar with that particular youtube phenomenon. but i think your broader point is really important and that is the rights have to be universal. you can't pick and choose and

say these are accorded to these people and not these americans. that is what we were escaping. that kind of life, that experience is what so many people across the world special privileges for some, limited rights for others. the bill of rights, the constitution, our form of government says you have rights and those should be protected by the government. that is a fundamental foundational thing. at the bill of rights institute we believe young people can learn by doing. so for example we have a program my impact challenge they choose a problem in the local community and try to solve it using the principles and civic virtues that made the country what it is. in that at the learn about the rights and responsibilities and come to a deeper appreciation wanting to share it and not just say i'm going to claim these rights for myself and myself alone but recognizing everybody deserves the same protections.

host: happy of bill of rights day as