>> where i really got into trouble i got help. another great benefit of being in this business for many decades is to get to know who to ask questions. i'll give you my favorite example. when i get to new hampshire, i realize new hampshire was awfully important. it was so important and i didn't have dhrc volumes on it so i started reading. i came across a reference to a folder at the state archives in new hampshire in concord. i wondered, i did know what it was. was it just bare bones delegate credentials, you know, the town of whatever a point so as a delegate to the convention. or did it include the instructions of towns.

didn't tell something about the proceedings as they debated the constitution. i call the archivist was a very nice man and he pulled a folder out what he seemed rather puzzled by it. and i thought okay, thank you very much. who would know? i remember the men who was just ahead of me at the harvard graduate school, history. he spent his career at dartmouth. jerry would have read that folder. maybe jerry does e-mail. so i e-mailed him and said, jerry, this folder, isn't worth a drive to concord? remember me, jerry, from way back? he did remember me and he answered quickly. i said i'm going to organ but i will be back a few days. hold tight, i'm going to send you some truth answer all your questions. what he said new articles he had written. jerry not only read the folder in concord. he had gone to all these counts.

he knew who lived next to who and how that affected the way the town voted. yet the most intimate knowledge of the politics of new hampshire on ratification that was imaginable. some of these articles i hadn't thought to look for. they were in new hampshire history. i suppose i would've gotten around to doing it, but i was just so grateful to him. then he answered my questions, he corrected what i wrote. why would he do this? he was anxious to have his very special arranged work went into the general and narrative. the extent to which people can afford to help me is still just, it caused me. richard glover, a retired editor volunteered to read the entire manuscript i had friends who read parts of it. somebody i knew wrote in

massachusetts. the way historians read other people's work is different than the ways editors read other peoples work. this is what i do. we flipped it through is a good argument, you have a typo on page 10. he got the name of the town wrong on 15. and you might rethink what you say on 23. and consultation. he went through this line for line. it took me a while to realize he had even gone through the notes. he knew the documentary records so well. at one point he said you quote john jay, yes, you're right. the book you got the quotation from the say what you say. so do know is a wrong but that's not what he said. go to the john jay papers online on the columbia library site. and, of course, he was right. i mean, who could give me this

information? why did he do a? he said this will be a landmark book and he wanted to be -- he wanted it to be as accurate as possible. you get my point. i put a better part of a decade in this book. i was teaching a good bit of that time. only about two years was able to work on it full time. but that's what fraction of this book took. how much time did those editors put in? i think the century would be modest. many of them are my age and they spent their whole life doing it, they are retiring now. this entry seems modest enough. then factor in all the time jerry daniel put him. look, my name is on the title page. tenures is, however, a fraction of how long this book took. it is properly understood a cooperative enterprise. it is built firmly on the labor of others.

okay, so what? what did i learn? what's new? a couple of things. i think i redefine the terms in which the story is told. it's always been told as a conflict of federalist and anti-federalist, and i started writing that way. i am sometimes a bit of a slow learner. by the time i got to the six states, massachusetts, and i read the documents i said hey, the only people using the term anti-federalist our federalist. what's going on your? and eventually i decided that i would not use the term anti-federalist unless it appeared i in the quotation. and there almost always written by federalists. that is, people who supported ratification of the constituti constitution, or if the people so it designated willing to accept the term.

and that pretty much defined me to a group in the upper hudson valley under your. so-called quote anti-federalists or as i call them critics of the constitution and the lower counties of new york preferred to call themselves republicans. and i honor that. once i got away from federalists in anti-federalists a lot followed from it. first of all, to use those terms suggests there are parties involved. this was nothing like parties. that brings a lot of baggage. they were not parties. also, it spurs, it inspires other dichotomy. one side must before the constitution, one must be against it. that also turned out to be wrong. in fact, once i got away from the terms i was able to make, i think i hope and pray, clearer that there were far more than two positions on the

constitution, that, in fact, probably a majority of americans accepted the constitution as better than the confederation. and worthy of being a basis for the new government, but the substantial part of people that said look, as written it just isn't going to work. plus my guys in massachusetts, there were ambiguous phrases and it's missing something that has to have. it needs to be amended before it goes into effect. the other side said let's see if the problems really happened, and then we can amended using the procedure in article five. and then i think we can start to understand why it eventually it was, you know, despite criticism ratified. however, the heart of my story is in the conventions themselves. it isn't political analysis.

just wonderful stories. i take such delight in them. i hope i can share it with you. you have to understand that these were the exciting events of the time. you didn't have the theories, what did you do for amusement, he went to church. the excitement here was the orders were the rock stars of the day, and the conventions brought together all the great political and some clerical orders other day. people crowded in. they wanted to hear these debates. one of the big challenges was how could they find halls big enough, not only for one convention, but for all the people who wanted to listen to the debate. the federal convention just close the door. it met in secret. could you do that for conventions that were making an

important decision and we the people, not. so you couldn't say sorry, buddy, we are locking the door. people should able to listen to this and they wanted to accommodate them. so the excitement, the intensity. i hope it comes through in the book. it requires our imagination sometimes. the documents give us tremendous amount of information. and as i looked at the conventions as a whole i saw there was something of a line of development. that is to say, one way of looking at this is that the federalist federal is, whatever else you think, learned from their mistakes and they really made mistakes. in pennsylvania the first convention they say, they went in with a two-thirds majority. they understood this because the divisions in pennsylvania roughly call a with divisions in state politics.

not perfectly but pretty closely so they knew they had the majority. and then they just rode roughshod over the opposition. in fact they treated them so poorly that any in the minority refuse to accept the decision of the convention. they said it did not, in fact, speak for the majority of people in pennsylvania and he did not accept the decision. they kept trying to overturn a. there was a lot of chaos in pennsylvpennsylvania consequently, even some writing in the town of carlyle. okay, this is not good. and a lot of people got very suspicious as this was, the stores were published they thought hey, what did they try to put over on us what you wouldn't act like this if it really was, if this was a constitution. you could really consider openly. they don't seem to trust open debate. and pennsylvania really made ratification much less likely to happen.

the federalists and shot themselves in the feet but they learned. washington, you can see in the correspondent. washington, benjamin lincoln, in massachusetts. basically, you have to have a victory that was worth having. that is, if a tree in which the minority didn't go away mad. and you could see them doing that in massachusetts. in massachusetts they had no idea, but they treated the opposition with courtesy, even when as you can tell from private letters, they despise them. on the floor of the convention they listened to them, they answered of them seriously, but as result you will get one of the best and most probing, and in some ways most innovative debates on the constitution in massachusetts.

and when that didn't work they came up with another strategy. i mean, they still were not sure -- the federalists said massachusetts would have a conversation, not a debate. what's the difference? they didn't want votes, take a vote until they knew they would win. interesting. all these debates didn't seem to be converted many people so they came up with another strategy. they would suggest that the convention i got the constitution without any conditions, but recommend a series of amendments for consideration once it was put into effect it wasn't going to work unless they could get the right people in line. the person the need with john hancock, the very popular governor in massachusetts. hancock was a boston delegate, and, indeed, the convention have elected him its president but he wasn't attending. he was at home in his

magnificent house suffering from gout. rufus king said he will get better soon enough when he understands how the convention will divide. in other words, he thought it was a political defeat. in any case, what we can see from the documents that these wonderful collections has brought together, the deal they put together, what they said to hancock, the place, his political smarts, how he responded, and then the wonderful scene of wind and cock arrived. the guy apparently couldn't walk. they carried him in, wrapped in flannel. you can imagine the excitement. people wouldn't leave their seats when hancock king. during the noon hour they had a long noon hour for, we college, they probably ate a big meal of the day, they were afraid they would lose their seats.

i think i like massachusetts because there's an account of the delegate who comes from maine, and there's nothing that gives you a better sense of change over time and give step-by-step of an account of what took to come from maine to boston in 1787 it took them in six days. there were ferries, bridges, there were snowstorms. he had to go to church. stopped to go to church. we can do this in a couple of hours now but it took them six days. i love doing that but then there was the vote. the voters in the federal free church. it is stuffed. we were told there were people, they had calories are balconies that would accommodate 800 people. there were 364 delegates, on the floor of the church.

and then there seem to be people's stock into every note and cranny. the so-called seller was filled. the seller was not the seller, the basement i think. i think was an upper floor. even a loft with stuffed with people. but when the vote came, the place was silent. except for -- let me read you my account. the question was put at 4:00. with the convention approved both ratification of the constitution and nine recommended amendments? the names of the delegates were called out one by one. according to the counties and towns they represented, they answered with a !-emadanemac for a nay -- nay or nay. six votes submitted but it was submitted by fives as dumber school reported. we can only imagine christopher gorham and other practice court papers checking the votes against their list of those it

expected to vote for or against. meanwhile, school noted the crowded hall fell into a deep quiet, except for the litany of names and votes. you might have heard a copper fall on the gallery floor, one remembered. there was such a profound silence. when the vote was complete, 187 delegates had voted for ratification, and 168 against. nine delegates were absent. massachusetts had ratified the constitution with the majority of only 19 of the 355 votes. soon, bells all over boston began to ring and the cities people poured into the streets shouting and celebrating what was for them a glorious victory.

virginia, virginia is different. in massachusetts, all the people were educated, famous orators were for the constitution. the other side were farmers and no owners. it was a little lopsided in virginia that wasn't the case. virginia was close. they did know how it was going to go. it all seem to turn on 14 votes from kentucky which was still part of virginia. and virginia didn't -- kentucky didn't seem very happy about the tranny. i think james madison heart was in his mouth through the whole episode. and, indeed, it was roughly divided. if you take oratorical strength, probably the opposition had the edge because they have patrick henry. patrick henry was a magnificent orator. jefferson who really hated him called him the greatest orator of all times.

to get a couple of by somebody who hated him as much as jefferson did give him special credence. once in the 1780s jefferson and madison were in a fight with henry on the other side, in jefferson city medicine, look, we just have to give up. the only thing we can do is earnestly pray for his early death. and they hijacked the virginia convention. that is, it was supposed to go into the constitution line by line, and no such luck. he raced big issues that made them debate them. honorable gentleman, james madison tell you other important lessons which he imagines will result to us and mankind from the adoption of the system, henry told the delegates at the beginning what might've been the high point of his orator coal performance at the convention.

he saw instead the awful immensity of the dangers of which it is pregnant. i see it. i've seen it. anxious, concerning our decision. when he look beyond the horizon that binds human eyes, at the final consummation of all things human, and so those intelligent beings which inhabit the answer your mentioned, reviewing, this is what they do, reviewing the political decisions and resolutions which in the progress of time will happen in america, and the consequence, happiness or misery of mankind, he understood how much we depend on what we now decide. at that point a violent storm shook the hall and forced henry to stop with as if the beings of a higher order in their mansions

screamed out to support henry's subject. look, i couldn't make this stuff up. i've was not imaginative enough, but you can see these wonderful stories. and that's why the conventions the heart of my book. the book goes roughly from -- know, the heart of the book goes on september 177087 when the federal convention adjourned to september 1788 when the confederation congress declared the constitutional ratified and made arrangements for the first federal elections. there were still two states out of the union, but for all practical purposes i thought that is the ratification controversy. is a prologue which looks at the background of the convention, so there is -- is an apple which talk about what happened to the amendments in the first federal

congress and manages to get north carolina and rhode island back into the union. but i couldn't stop. that's what i signed up to do. i had sat in the hall with these guys, and i came to light that. you know, now we know what happened to washington. window would happen, boom, boom, hamilton, we know. i was curious about some of the unknowns, the local politicians who performed so brilliantly. what happened to them? some of them were really heroic. for many, this is the high point of their political career. so a post up called in memoriam that tells you what happened to some of these. into close, i will close year as i close the book, with a story of one delegate from western pennsylvania who was really badgered by the federalist in the pennsylvania ratified convention, but who was

impressive. actually, he bested can he beat so to speak, proved wrong, the chief of the supreme court and james wilson, a leading lawyer with a history of jury trials. so i'd like him. his name is william finley. it turns out he went to congress. had a long and distinguished career in congress after ratification and was known as the venerable family. but finley and 7096 looked back over the ratifying convention and talked a bit about his thinking had change. he referred to the pennsylvania ratifying convention with considerable understatement as one where some circumstances affectation for unfriendly to cool discussion. but later on reflection he

decided maybe the massachusetts solution of ratifying and recommended amendments made a lot of sense, that we need to improve the federal government quickly. and to call another federal convention probably -- better to avoid it. he even fought through his positions and decided that not all of those objections to the constitution were well founded. after the congress recommended in the states ratified some of the amendments that he wanted, he became confident that additional amendments could be enacted when they became necessary. in the and, like so many one time critics of the constitution, william finley embraced the government as my own and my children's inheritance, he knew the constitution had the ethics and there he had plenty of friends. but to -- in his mature

judgment, the constitution was, however, not just good or maybe good enough, he came to believe it was capable of being well registered. and on the whole, the best government in the world. and so i want to close, say, this was a cooperative enterprise. not only with living people but, i'm so grateful to william finley for giving me a way to end my book so well. thank you. [applause] >> we do have questions. spirit we have enough time for about two questions. >> hello. >> hello. >> just to clarify, the ratification is purely yes or no

speak what they had to vote yes or no, right. >> how long was it before the bill of rights was basically kind of accepted as yet, we would accept it but what we all want certain changes that we would like to recommend these? >> it started with massachusetts, states would ratify and recommend amendments. after massachusetts every state but maryland did that. now, don't assume that what they recommended was the bill of rights. other states that ratified and participate in the first congress, only virginia first asset the bill of rights be added to the constitution did what most people want was improvement on representation and some restriction on federal taxing powers. because they thought, well, the major rides issue of the american revolution, no taxation

with representation. and they said the representation in congress wasn't adequate for the purpose of certain taxes. that was the big issue and that frightened the federalists including medicine. what we got it is the amendments that madison proposed were an effort to parry attacks event. and he was actually -- i think he believed in what he was doing, but he was also going a very interesting political game your the amendments, of course madison want to change the body of the constitution. we all know that i trust, and is revolted in the first federal congress. they got changed into a list we pasted at the end because roger sherman of connecticut said you could change the body of the constitution. the people had ratified it. moreover, you had all those signatures, you know? if you changed it would look

like what they agree to was the changed document so it would be very confusing. so we got the list at the end of like the afterthoughts they were, and nobody called him a bill of rights that i can find between september 1789, and february 1792 when jefferson announce that they had been ratified. that 10 of the 12 had been ratified. this is a whole nother subject. i don't fight and take your subject. it would be hard to stop me. i am what you call -- i don't -- >> you phrase the original meanings in your lecture. were you suggesting that there was a consensus finally inked anyone among the state conventions as the various terms? >> i think you'll find points where there is an agreement, or at least a public agreement. i do not endorse the idea -- i

don't say anything about whether, what the meaning for this, the contemporary turpitude asian. as i say i'm not a lawyer. we let the lawyers fight it over. but at least they have here at guide to the event, which reminded, i don't know how many of you reading public who are here. i have footnotes. little numbers in the text. this is a controversial thing. a lot of rich don't like them. i can never understand why. but if you don't like them, just think of some portal are trying to put together a brief who wants to know where some quotation comes from, and we can savor several hours of work by having a little numbers there. if you don't like numbers in the text, i urge you to overlook it, like other non-life-threatening annoyances. [laughter] speak of like music and elevators, you know? >> first of all, i would like to

congratulate taxation without representation as being a major factor for so many of the state ratifications. and i hope someday the district of columbia gets some justice in that matter. [applause] >> but that wasn't my question. my question was did any of the federalists -- excuse me, the feds themselves -- >> they call themselves that. >> i'm talking about congressional people, other, you know, outside agitators so to speak. in other words, that madison go to new york, pennsylvania? or did everybody realize that we best only have local people speaking, or else we will -- >> no outsiders spoke at these conventions, no. only elected delegates. there was one controversy in

massachusetts. a delicate good been at the convention refused to sign, attended and some people of like mind wanted him to speak. just to get some information, a big fight over this. finally, he went home. no, no. only a local decision. it is the people of the state who are making this decision. but you would sometimes have people on the galleries watching what was going on. governor morris of pennsylvania went to the virginia convention. a very clever man. not all the founding fathers had a sense of humor. he did. he wrote just a delightful poetic jingle about what had happened in the virginia convention. of course, i quote it. you will love it. i loved it. >> we are out of time. >> my apologies. [applause]

>> mit american history professor pauline maier is on both tvs in depth next sunday. she's written several books on the american revolution including from resistance to revolution, "american scripture making the declaration of independence" and her latest ratification published last year. watch previous in depth programs at booktv.org where you can also find the entire weekend schedule. next james buckley, former new york senator, under secretary of state in the reagan administration and judge on u.s. court of appeals, argues against the expansion of the federal government and contends that its growth questions the original intent of the framers of the constitution. he presents thoughts at the heritage foundation in washington, d.c.. it's an hour.

>> i suppose the first thing, i'm a little bit uncertain we should do, address you as senator, as judge, as undersecretary of state. which do you prefer? >> very confusing. >> a man of the people. this wonderful book, jim, "freedom at risk," which remarks in speeches and statements, articles which are written over the last several years was a very, a bit of a disturbing title, "freedom at risk" pics i guess the first question that i am sure we would like to have your address is how much freedom is at risk and what do we do about it? >> a tall order. i do believe that freedom is at risk if you're talking about the

economy, the personal responsibility that is at the root of our centuries since its founding. i believe the time is relatively short for us to reassert with vigor the principles that has safeguarded us in the years have passed. back in 1976 when i was running for reelection of the senate, it was my misfortune to have an opponent, the formidable daniel patrick moynihan. he won handily. but first encounter he told the audience that i was really a very fine fellow, but, unfortunately, my feet were stuck in eighteentthe 18th century. in response i admitted that i was guilty as charged i confessed to the values, the

institutions embedded in the declaration of independence of the united states constitution. i neglected to confess my equal fealty to the insight of adam smith's "the wealth of nations." the question then, of course, and the question today as to whether those ideas and institutions and insights have any relevance to the extraordinarily different world in which we now live. i believe they do then, i'd do believe it or today. the fact is that our country was created by a remarkable group of men, people like james madison who have studied the history of experiments of freedom from the most ancient times, the times of greece, athens, on through the

ages. and in just about every instance, freedom eventually failed. why? because of the one factor in human affairs which is a constant. mena, human nature. in this case they are talking about the impulse to excise power, to concentrate power. that is exercise either by an individual desperate for a parliamentary majority. so in constructing the constitution, madison said -- the ultimate responsibility for protecting our freedoms lies with the people. responsible people, self-reliant people. what he called auxiliary precautions are also required. and these were in the case of our constitution, the principle

of the balance of powers between co-equal branches of the government and the principle of federalism. namely, the reservatireservation for the states and localities, those entities closest to the people, most knowledgeable of their problems. reservation to them of all powers not specifically allocated to the federal government in the constitution, which we were largely concerned with things like foreign policy, the military, coinage, currency and so on, which it had inherently to be national if we were to end up with a coherent national government. over the years, the checks and balances worked pretty well. there were constant arguments as between the executive and the

legislature as to which is more equal. and once in a while for better or for worse the supreme court states that s. is it is more equal than the others. but the principle of federalism is virtually been ruled out of existence over the years. encroachment by congress or the executive that have been sanctioned by the court have so diluted the principle that today it is virtually impossible to identify and exercise the governmental authority by the federal government that the supreme court will rule unconstitutional. what has been the effect of this? an extraordinary expansion that concentration of power in washington that the founders feared, and because those encroachments have in

progressive and a lot of them under the cover of public attention, i don't think that many americans today recognize the extraordinary transformation that has occurred in our country in recent years. for the first 150 years, the original plan was pretty much in tact. but beginning with the new deal we saw that more aggressive exercise of the federal presence, and i think this is especially illustrated by the fact that when i went to law school, the united states code which contains the total body of your statutory bill, consisted of three volumes. today, there are 30 volumes. but i think the most telling

statistic has to do with intense of describing the nature of the changes, has to do with title 42 of the code, which contains all the laws relative to education and public welfare. when i went to law school, title 42 consisted of 128 pages it today, it consists of 6200 pages, or 1700 more pages than the entire body of federal law at the time the new deal was started. but that, of course, is just the tip of the iceberg. it was increasingly federal legislation has taken the form of the creation of bureaus and agencies that are in turn endowed with an ever broader responsibility and discretion in

defining the specific rules that will be governing our activities or our lives, and that have the force of law. and, unfortunately, congress in recent years has, first of all, increasing the number of violations and regulations that are criminalized. and number two, waving the constitution -- the common-law requirement that you know you're breaking a law before you can be thrown in jail. so today it is quite possible to be thrown in jail for violating a regulation. the existence of which you had no reason to know existed. but in any event, this accumulation of these trends that i think have resulted in the omnipresence of the federal government, the extraordinary increase in spending by the federal government, preemption

of national income, and the deaths that are towering beyond sight as a result of the entitlement programs took place. so these are the threats to freedom that i think exist today and that are already having it's a fact in constrained the ability of individuals and individual enterprises to exercise a nonthreatening activities. what can be done about it? well, first of all in terms of relying on the balance of powers, there's a conspiracy my say between each branch of the federal government to exercise in common predominance over the states. and federalism is no longer

restraint on power, which leaves us with people. and the vital question today is whether the american people retain that independence, spirit of independence, that spirit of self-reliance, that spirit of responsibility that some was dubbed by the founders, the willingness to subordinate individual advantage to the public good. we are putting that to the test. i think the tea party movement is something that is the vehicle through which we're going to see whether this test works or not. the question is how is that over time for change in the american character that one's surprise

individual autonomy and freedom that it would resist encroachments of our government, or will capitulate to the inducements reduced by the entitlement state? time will tell. >> gym, it seems that you're talking about and putting an awful lot of looking to the people rather than to the states. you mentioned several times not only today but also in your book about the importance of federalism and how we look for that for so long. is it possible that somehow the states might not rise up and help to bring about a greater balance in these checks and balances? >> they ought to. and before the 16th amendment -- the 17th amendment, which made senators not appointed by state legislators, have less influence. but here again because of the

expansion of federal granting aid programs, the states themselves have become more and more dependent on handouts from washington, which unfortunately includes a whole series of federal requirements that have been transforming states more and more into the ministers of federal policies instead of being the originators and applicants of their own policies who have handled their discrete problems in the organized society. and we also have a terrible situation today in which the states themselves have faced formal deficit. over $250 billion to say nothing of power obligations result of

there problem that their retirement plans and so on promise of a temple is there a bunch of stays on the way, mine in connecticut to california, are facing critical challenges. and undoubtedly people are going to come hat in hand to the federal government to bail them out. it's my personal recommendation having gone through the new york city crisis in 1974-75, which ushered my defeat when i decided, when i thought the idea of a federal bailout for new york. i think the kindest thing the federal government can do for the states is to deny a single penny of money to bail out a state. i should also note that the five states in the greatest fiscal trouble today are among the 12 wealthiest states in the nation.

any dog to get back washington it's a fraction of the amount of money that is sent to washingt washington. >> as we said you've had this unique opportunity, and i was trying to introduce -- do some research, how unique are you? are you, your -- how other americans had this opportunity to serve in all three branches? perhaps as a research project. >> i started that research project once, and as far as i know i'm the only one alive. [laughter] >> and very much so. very much so. >> i had some books, existing federal judges, and then i got to james burns, secretary of state, supreme court, justice, and senator.

so can't possibly be that accommodation. >> perhaps we have a latter date james burns year. >> no, too late. >> maybe not. there's an election coming up. we will see. of these careers, do you have a favorite? i mean, among them. >> yes. let's put it this way, if one's primary interest is matters of public policy, there could not have been a more glorious position to have than to have been a united states senator 100 or more years ago. because by virtue of congress bringing more and more madisons concerns within its scope, you have transform the ability to

think in congress. when, in 1970 as present with us that it had just been completed by the bar association of the city of new york, which had concluded that the workload of the average congressional office had doubled every five years since 1935, but once upon a ti time, service in congress, citizen service, you were home -- if congress was in session, five, six and seven months of the year. the activities were -- when debate was occurring on the floor everyone was expected to be there to hear what was being said. you can think things through. there was company among all numbers. there were discussions on and

off the floor. it was relaxed. but with is a doubling and redoubling, the point came when there were no longer enough hours in the day or month in the year to accommodate thoughtful discussion and analysis of the issues. and so it has become, my personal experience, my personal experience it became almost impossible to do a decent job of what the primary responsible is, and that is to think of the question of a policy and to come up with a reason, the solutions to do it. but nevertheless, a -- in the ideal world, the legislative, suited my particular mine in chemistry the best. the others are extremely interesting and awarding, and i

had no trouble recognizing that when i was a judge i had a totally different role. and that was too to faithfully apply the rules and regulations that congress had put in place, and i thought were desirable. >> is there any particular piece of legislation that you are proud of? there was something called buckley versus something? >> that was not legislation. buckley v. valeo has become the most cited case in recent supreme court history. and it involved a challenge to the campaign reform act of 1974. my coplaintiffs and i had the temerity to conclude that the

limitation on the ability of an individual to support a candidate of his choice was not merely unconstitutional, the supreme court disagreed with me and as a federal judge i defer to that, but also very bad public policy. you want me to explain why? >> yes, indeed. i think it's very appropriate. be costly and so this idea of fund-raising. >> to get the full flavor of the case and to understand what is really involved in it, incidentally i should first state that the campaign format placed limits on total spending on the federal election as well as $1000 limit on what an individual can contribute to any candidate, to the $5000 limit to what any individual can

contribute to aipac, a political action committee. the people who join together to challenge the constitutionality of the package involves me, although i was then a sitting senator. i had won an election, the third party, and was the first person to be elected on a third party candidacy in 40 years. i was joined by former senator eugene mccarthy, who had challenged lyndon johnson for reelection and had waived sufficiently a significant initial campaign to cause lyndon

johnson to drop out of the race. there was also another coplaintiffs was the new york civil liberties union, the new york conservative party, stewart would contribute $220,000, to the mccarthy campaign. what was the common element of each group of? they were outside the norm of -- they were insurgents outside the norm of the normal, of the little establishment. it was our concern that this law is kept intact. it was squeezed out, the ability of challengers to come in and confront the political establishment. wee one on one side, and that is the limitations on individual,

what could be spent in the campaign. we lost on the individual contributions, because the supreme court just said that the appearance or fact of corruption supported this restraint. but the effect has been to consolidate the power of the establishment, especially incumbents who have extraordinary advantages of challenges. to elevate tax and to important factors in election. and far more likely to corrupt an individual. and to discourage individual and spontaneous action because the rules and regulations that have

been created in order to enforce these laws. so it has a distorted american politics in a very, very real way. and i think one that is a harmful way. >> you talk about what you do prevail in the senate. perhaps some trace in that when you're innocent some 30, 40 years ago. of course, today i think we really have to bring up, it's pretty hard to avoid it, what's going on right now. are you concerned about that? >> unconcerned about it, and when i entered the senate it used with civility. it was an honor. it was a warm envelope around you. and it was wonderful in terms of making it easier to have we'll fundamental disagreements on matters of critical importance.

but i think that civility is one of the victims of the increasing treadmill, aspects of public service now, to the point where discussion is really impossible. it's one political against another. an issue comes up and it is responded to by political reaction rather than a thoughtful process examining within their willingness to reach out and understand the other was pointed and try to persuade that individual that they were wrong. how we recapture that i don't know. but i think once you -- one way to recapture that, my cost a thing is go back to federalism is to reduce the volume of issues, a number of issues that distract and splinter congressional attention into

thousands of little pieces. >> right. the question of fund-raising we talked a bit about that. i'm just curious, how much fund-raising did you do when you were running? >> my campaign did a great deal of it. i did none of it. one of the things that happens, by limiting what an, what can be the amount of money that an individual can give to a candidate, i'm told that members of congress now spend most of their time after hours on the phones pleading for money. i never telephone anyone asking for a sent. i did attend and might election campaign in 1970, maybe a half-dozen or dozen fund-raising events and made my spiel. but i had a finance chairman. i had a finance committee, and they raised the money. most of the money i raised was

through mail, but before i was able to get into a position where letters could go out across the country, i had to establish that i was a viable candidate. i could not under the present rules have established my viability, because in order to get started i had -- one family, one individual put together upon on his own about $50,000. that $50,000 enabled me to hire some people i need to our to put brochures, needed to hire a respectable headquarters your the one that bobby kennedy once occupied. and i was taken seriously by the president as a result, but after that the fund-raising was done

as i say mostly through the mail. >> i imagine there are probably many members of congress who in the that situation because one hears from the moment on their spending 30, 40, 50, 60% of the time in fund-raising, not to be that kind of legislator they want to be. in the book, "freedom at risk," which we are going have copies available to be bought and signed by the author, you talk about the intrusive bureaucracy, and you've already made mention of that today. and you recommend that citizens the allowed to sue the federal government for damages. >> yes. isn't that reasonable? >> is that constitutional? >> it is not constitutional. incidentally, most people who work in the bureaucracies and certain agencies are good people, intelligent people, doing their job.

they become -- there is a tendency to become so specifically to focus on their particular portfolio, that they often can't understand the consequences of what they think they ought to do on other parts of society and so