because of the cost of four which was substantial. >> host: professor was there any parallels between what happened after world war ii to the size of government to the vietnam war 9/11? >> two make a fundamental distinction between mobilization of total war and world war ii and for what was called limited war which was quite substantial because it implied a portion of the nation's resources would be mobilized but the limited war was of limited it could be applied anywhere around the world for one theater or locale and in the age of the inscription 1941 to 73 with a brief hiatus that met a broad swath of

american men might be deployed overseas for what was called ltd more it created a different dynamic and a sense of obligation. then those up followed are different still because they rely on the all volunteer forces. >> host: was the debt from world war ii paid when? >> never fully paid off. it was paid down in 1980 when ronald reagan entered office. 1981 paid down to low level almost as low as the debt of the new deal. by the end of the thirties. that of course, was another cycle. >> host: here is the cover of warfare state by professor james varo what is this? >> the photograph captures

how america learn to paint during the war. you are familiar with the flag you know, that it represents federalism and the way in which several states were brought together within a union. this is a reworking of that logo out into more that were emblazoned on the side of the bomber owned by the military represent a a national unity. the way she holds her hand painting within the lines shows how america taught themselves to internalize their sense of obligation to the government. >> host: james barrel for nabors year chicago where booktv is on location. the newest book, warfare state.

>> host: on location at the university of chicago where we're talking with several professors of university who were also authors now we're pleased to be joined by david straus, author of the living constitution and teaches law at the university of chicago law school. david strauss-kahn how do you define a living constitution? >> a good question. it is an idea that is controversial but it should be. is the idea of the constitution as it was drafted in 1787 and has been amended since then, it has said it evolves over time in order to keep up with changing circumstances and ideas about how society should be run. >> host: what do you consider a current evolution? >> guest: there are

several examples but here is one. throat the first 100 years through the late 19th century, the idea was the federal government could be very small and federal and state governments could play a limited role to regulate the economy progress the country became a less agrarian those ideas changed of the state legislatures and congress started to play a more active role to regulate the economy. at first the supreme court did not like that has struck down as unconstitutional but came to see the laws were necessary and changed its view gradual lead to the constitutional law that we have now that allows for an extensive role with the state's regulating the economy. >> host: what is original ism one way or another the answer too any issues that we have today

can be found by going back to the time when it was drafted where the amendments former ratified to see what they thought back then to take their ideas to apply them. >> host: does it work? >> guest: i don't think so. it is not a workable scheme for a couple of reasons but it is hard to figure out what they were thinking back then. that is what historians do and they disagree among themselves and sometimes they say they were confused and they were a clear but the deeper problems is even if we could figure out what they brought back then when united states was founded, it was a small country of 4 million people and that was so whole country and clinging to that east coast and a rural country only 5% of the

people lived in cities that is sold different world it would not tell us what we thought about the world. >> host: professor, what is the controversial part of a living constitution? >> guest: what people find controversial and it is a fair concern that if it is in fixed and doesn't mean today then someone is changing its. that makes us nervous because we think whoever changes it will be judges to just impose their own views on the rest of us and that is a legitimate concern. >> host: former university a chicago law professor is seat of friend or acquaintance of yours? >> guest: acquaintance. >> host: he does not agree with your premise? >> guest: that is right that he says he is the original list but as the supreme court justice he

understands that does not work all the time and even says i am the original list but i am not a nut there are times i will part from it if it is necessary to do so. >> host: has a he used the phrase it dead constitution. >> guest: he has to talk about those of us who believe in the living constitution. it is a legitimate concern and those who are changing it and there is a concern that needs to be addressed. >> host: is it important in 2011 to know the founding fathers intent? >> you are looking for the principles that underline the principles of the country with respect to diversity, and then the government that protects liberty but active enough to

do the job of governing. if there at that lovell of principle been absolutely it is relevant and something we all should agree with. when you get to specifics of environmental protection and/or labor relations, and then it leaves you know, where because first of all, it is hard and even if you do that doesn't tell you what they thought of our world which is very different. >> host: do some of the constitutional amendments that have passed, it isn't that a way to make the lead constitution a living document? >> guest: in theory but if you look at how it is amended jumping through the loops it is not a practical way to change things. two-thirds of each house and then you need a three-quarters of the states

to ratify the amendment. we really have not used the amendment process to do a lot of the things we have done to change the constitution. most have come about in other ways and often what happens retainage things and then amend the constitution and then the amendments catch up with the changes we have already made. >> host: duties a living constitution here? >> guest: i teach the law what it is an buydown tried to proselytized one view or another. i just tried to play it straight to show my students this is the law and what it is in these of the things you think about if you are a well informed a lawyer in the 21st century and the questions to ask and the judgments you will try to make. >> host: the cover of your book, what does that signify? >> of a tree in thepr