omme's thesis, "dead right." >> i agree with it. >> that conservatives basically buy off now on -- >> i'm not a conservative. i never have been a conservative. hyack was not a conservative. the book that follows this one in hyack's list, was "a constitution of liberty." a great book and there's an appendix to it entitled "why i am not a conservative." we are radicals, we want to get to the root of things. we're liberals in the truest meaning of the term. of and concerned with freedom. we are not liberals in the current distorted sense of the term. of people whar .. certainly put him very high o the list. he was a great man, there's no question about that. and he was a believer in

freedom. >> but was he a, today -- >> he was not a conservative. >> would he have been a --, a liberal? >> yes. in my sense. >> in your sense? >> not in the corrupted sense of today. >> but what's confusing as you watch today's -- people who embrace him, you have the jefferson-jackson dinners every year for the democratic party. and lincoln is embraced by both sides. what was abraham lincoln? >> he's much more difficult to characterize, because his role in our history had to do with the civil war. and that's not something to be characterized in terms of, of socialist or liberal or -- conservative. >> thomas jefferson a democrat as we know the democratic party today? >> no. >> what would he be today? >> he would be a libertarian. >> a member of the libertarian party? >> not necessarily. i'm a libertarian in philosophy. but i'm a member -- as i say, as

i say, i'm a libertarian, with a small l, and a republican with a capital r. >> now you supported and were close to barry goldwater. >> yes, i was. >> what was he? >> a libertarian. >> in philosophy not in party. >> what is bill clinton? >> oh, he's a socialist. >> defined as being what? >> as somebody who believes that the way to achieve good things is to have government do it. you can't think of a more socialist program than the health care program that he wanted, tried to get us to adopt. >> you said earlier in the discussion, what we're talking about rutgers, that the worst way to go is to take care of the bottom up. >> not to take care of it in giving them a minimum income. but the belief -- that the progress of society is going to come from the bottom. >> so how do you take care of

someone who is in the lower third? >> in my book, capitalism and freedom, i propose something called a negative income tax. of getting rid of all of the welfare programs we now have. but replace it, by essentially a minimum income. >> but you also say that's not going to happen very quickly. >> we're moving toward that. the earned income credit is in that line. >> and what will that do? >> what we're not going to move toward the, the place we're wrong is with all of the special welfare programs we have, food stamps, aid to families with dependant children, there are probably 100 such programs. and what i've argued is that we ought to replace that whole ragbag of programs with a single negative income tax. >> in your lifetime, have you ever had a theory that proved to be wrong? do you ever go back and say -- >> oh, yeah, sure. >> what was it?

>> well, during world war ii, when i was at the treasury, ways essentially a kensian. and i believed the way to control inflation was by controlling government spending. >> i paid very little attention to money. only after world war ii, when i started to work in the field of money, did i come to a different conclusion. now, i believe cains was a great economist. but i think his theory is wrong. >> and his theory basically stated is? >> basically stated, the fundamental element of it is that matters is spendingth and what matters in particular is government spending. and that government must play a major role in guiding the society. he was a liberal in the 19th century sense. but he was also a believer in --

he was also an elitist. and he believed that there was a group of able, public-spirited intellectuals who should be given charge of society. >> when people look at milton friedman 25 years from now, probably still be here. >> i won't be here >> in case you are -- what do you want them to remember? do you want them to remember you as a writer, a teacher, a philosopher, an economist? >> again, i want them to remember me as an economist. >> and what principle do you want them to remember the most? >> well, that's hard to say. because there are quite a number. i mention the theory of the consumption function. which is a very technical book. but which yet, i believe has had a good deal of influence within

the discipline of economics. but -- i really don't know how to answer that question. i think that people 25 years from now will have to answer it. not me. >> milton friedman has been our guestth and he wrote the introduction of this 50th anniversary edition of f.a. hyack's book, "the road to@@

>> next on booktv, christopher phillips hussein to direct to thomas urgently said that the u.s. constitution be revised on a behcet's travels across the country and speaks to several groups of americans about reframing the constitution. this is about an hour and a teen minute. [applause] >> thank you so much. it's a pleasure to be back in boston. the last time is here for a book event was in 2004, when my book six questions of socrates, came out. i started in 1996 at a

philosophical group, hoping to revive a forward inquiry that have been made famous by the greek philosopher and with this idea that the vibrant democracies that citizens willingly consider a wide range of objections of alternatives to their own way of saying things. and socrates café is meant to be a face for friends and foes, intimate strangers alike to gather together and explore thoughtfully in reasonably timely as extensional problems, an explanation that makes people feel bound together more. that was "socrates cafe" and this is "constitution cafe," can have a follow-on in a very imaginative way. let me just ask you a question first. what word does the people's republic of china banned in its blogs and chat rooms, that uses many, many times in its own

constitution? [inaudible] democracy. how can that be? they are a democratic republic they claim and yet they won't allow that were to be used in its blogs and chat rooms. how can that be? off with their heads. however, let me ask you another question. what word is not in the u.s. constitution that she think might be there? speaking of the free world after all, what word is lacking that she might taint? democracy. it's not enough for thousand 543 word document. many scholars even mistake this and call the united states a constitutional democracy when in fact it is a? not just a republic, but a

constitutional republic. so what is that? constitutional republic is a state, country in which the head of the state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional laws that at least theoretically limit the government's power over all of its sent his son. the fact that it can't do teach next this that limits the government's power makes the country constitutional. democracy on the other hand is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. well, what document do you think affects the decisions that they can make in their lives more than the constitution? we will talk about that a little bit more in just a little bit. the framers of our constitution were radicals, at least in this one sentence.

they wouldn't settle for simply reforming their original governing document. the articles of confederation and perpetual union. they decided that no amount of revising the articles would salvage them. and so the united states needed to be constituted a new. not merely with greater power, but also in a way to resolve the underlying uncertainties they believe have been generated by the articles of confederation said the two principal boosters for a new constitutional convention were very unlikely bedfellows. james madison. some of you know the other ones. alexander hamilton. they believed it was time to just totally revise the articles. the articles of confederation of our original constitution had this very hard and fast stipulation that any changes made to attach to be agreed to buy all the 13 state legislatures. but guess what? when the constitutional was

convened, only 12 states showed up. rhode island, like patrick henry of virginia is not iraq, didn't want to have anything to do with it. from the very beginning, when the 55 delegates determined that the articles could not be saved and made the decision to supplant them with entirely new constitution and the argument can be mutated in a sanctioned to do so. it was an illegal action from the beginning. couldn't do it. they did it anyway, but they couldn't do it. thomas jefferson learned from his post as u.s. minister in france. a lot of people think thomas jefferson was fair, but he wasn't. he was across the water in france and he claimed to like much in principle the general idea of framing a government, which should go on in itself peaceably without needing, as the article state, continually recurrence to the state legislatures with all those state legislators had to agree

on just about anything, whether it was coming to a tree, taxes, anything they all had to agree and it was just a mess. even so, that is what they agreed to have. they wanted a highly decentralized government after what they have to encounter with the monarchy. me even after those taking part had been authorized to carry out the creation of a new constitution, you could make the case that for worse or for better they were representative of most americans. the typical dockets of the constitutional convention was a privileged member of the upper class of a hierarchical society and didn't represent directly in any reasonable way and american society as a whole. rather, to 50 feistiness represented faithfully the white adult male affluent or near affluent segment of the population. goodness same thing be said of the founders? of the founding fathers?

after al qaeda statistics feature to sign the declaration of independence rests on the recent native of americans as a whole. one telling difference was that they find a characterization as an expression to set the column is free. the constitution, on the other hand, argue it was meant by those who craft that are random in a bit. only eight signers actually attend the constitution and served as framers for the constitution. even the absence of thomas jefferson and founding fathers, there were still some virtue. for instance, james madison, father of the constitution may not have signed the constitution company was still one of our greatest political scientists according to most political tears today.

even comparable matteson couldn't see the future of the american republic, nor could he draw on mileage that might be gained from later experiences with democracy in america and elsewhere. but the knowledge of madison framers may well have been that best available in 1787 come the fact was that reliable knowledge of a large representative republic was at best maker. and so they were limited by their inevitable ignorance. nonetheless, the framers of the constitution felt certain that the high value was overwhelmingly shared by citizens of those states. there's one hitch to that. the framers never asked their fellow americans what they wanted. and so they never gave them a chance to weigh in on what specific type of republican system they prefer. rather, with matteson steering the proceedings, delegates agreed to keep the discussions

private party supposedly so they could speak freely. as a consequence, there is no public record of the proceedings of the constitutional convention thomas jefferson for one was dismayed by this news and he wrote to john adams, i am sorry that the convention began their deliberations by so abominable a precedent as that of tying up the tongues of its members. and jefferson's estimation, nothing can justify this example but the ignorance of the value of public session. nonetheless on september 17, 1787, the new constitution was approved, but only by 39 of the 55 delegates. we can argue whether that was a good thing or bad thing, but the two years -- more than 200 years after the fact, he has some unsettling question. he asked that we americans ever

had an opportunity to express are considered well on a constitutional system. how many of you have a chance to from express are considered well. just raise your hands? don't be shy. come on. not one? nobody's asked? question number two. how many have participated in a referendum that asked whether they wanted to be governed under the existing constitution? shamir and spirit hominy participated? to say it again. so tao says answer of course is none. we are not alone in all fairness, not even the so-called cradle of democracy to the people have a voice in the creation. in recent years, new national constitutions have supplanted

motived ones in emerging democracies throughout the world from kenya to record her to serbia to the judge in nearly all cases referenda were held so the people themselves could vote on the new comp to to shame. however, it in no instance where regular folks over in i.d. to any table to participate themselves in the framing of their governing document. matter. i will talk to you later about an example. there's one example a note in which regular folks are asked, but we'll talk about that later. winston churchill famously said democracy is the worst form of government can accept all the others that have been tried. it has democracy itself never been fully tried? perhaps paraphrasing gk chesterton on christianity, we might conclude that democracy has not been tried. it has been found difficult and not trade. thomas jefferson he graduated a

few years before i did. are the main factors in government city jefferson and i remember back in my studies at jefferson and 41 derided those who look at constitutions like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be chest. jefferson believed such people ascribe to the men of the preceding age and wisdom more than human. to him a nice love requires man to work out -- to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain under the regiment of their barbarous ancestors. never let it be said he didn't have a knack for overstated panache. okay, so that is how jefferson thought about the matter. but americans then write a constitution for most part. how many of you venerate the constitution? how many of the lake at? already paired them to finish the second class.

americans than at the constitution, even if most of us don't actually know what senate. [laughter] no offense. national center for the constitution and montpelier virginia, for homesick james aniston did a survey that found that younger folks are so satisfied with it. older folks like you just like it is for the most part. what do they have in common? they haven't read it. in a really long time. how many of you read it in the last week? last month? yeah, i see little pickle of a hand. what does mean? how many have read it in the last year? one. well, okay. so we venerate the constitution, but we haven't read it. a lot of us feel its overheads come out of her reach. beyond reproach by mere mortals on this intimidating rto serves to make us feel like a system

that begets can never be changed, no matter how much it contributes to record levels of political apathy and anger. sure we argue over the way elected officials and judges interpret the constitution, but few of us have qualms about the constitution itself. meanwhile constitutions outdo one another in declaring themselves more true to their opponents. they get their solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend not. as dysfunctional as this persuasions believe our government, how many believe it's dysfunctional? theory go. see, we found common ground no matter republican, democrat,, if this functional, right? you're just as convinced that the constitution still works. how many are convinced the constitution still works or at least before i begin talking? most of you. or maybe not.

well, the question is does this? jeffersons anecdote for societal status was to take periodic early as they tally every division of our constitution and see if it hangs directly on the will of the people. those provisions, jefferson felt that turn out not to reflect the people spoke, he believes, should be entirely redone and so he urged his fellow people and said lettice find the one perfect in the constitution by supplanting those powers which timon trail show are still wanting. well, that resonated with me when i studied jefferson way back when and as the system became increasingly dysfunctional, i got more and more about the idea that jefferson had about constitutional makeover. his idea is that it should be done every 20 years at every new generation had to revisit from scratch. it's been well over 200 years since he first proposed it. but i figured better late than

never. and so i started -- i decided to embark on a journey across america to take the constitutional pulse of the nation. constitution café. a space dedicated to the jeffersonian idea of freedom, a broad cross-section of actual and aspiring americans grapple with how to sculpt the u.s. constitution if they could start from scratch. the constitutional articles that participants construct often address perceived flaws, loopholes and omissions in the constitution. at times this has led to significant revisions of existing articles are creation of new ones as they recounted in a boat. in the course of their exchanges, constitution café goers arrive at whether our current constitution props up a mentoring prop it up. are impediments to facilitators of higher democratic hopes and

dreams. and this in turn prompted thoughtful exchanges on whether our constitution as barack obama, former professor of constitutional law maintains has proved sufficient defense against tyranny or whether we need to heed jefferson's advice to engage in a revolution every two or three generations. some make in our case for a new constitution articles in the constitution café products, those taking part reason, persuade, arguing bend over backwards to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to introduce him to try to convince others to support his or her constitutional ideas. as thomas jefferson hobbit, one cannot have his way in all things when engaged in democratic deliberation, but must acquiesce when seeing that of others for palm or at times. indeed, jefferson maintained without this mutual disposition that he maintained that shortly after he became president at the

time when the political risk already were developing among americans. without this, we are just joining individuals, but not a society. so, that is why the constitution café project began, to see if ommon ground, learn more aboutal the nstitution, and maybe gain a greater participation, even on speaking to new conclusions about what articles we want today. my wife and i then 3-year-old daughter, callie, made the sign for me. constitution working group. i took it all over the u.s. in people's park in berkeley to the apple convention at the sony center in san francisco to washington square park in greenwich village, two elementary schools, colleges, universities, mall of america. at one of the most memorable dialogues in this book. we talked about common good and the general welfare.

it all started with bringing the sign inviting people, but also holding dialogues and spaces for people my beyond the reach one place, but stop and fresen tape part in an exchange like this. it's meant to be open. well, i started a constitution café project at the very beginning of the constitution. what's at the very beginning of the constitution? say it again. we the people. and what is that section called? very good, class. i feel like i'm leaving you. let me ask you something. what is the preamble of the constitution supposed to do? and if you have an answer, come up here, please. what is the preamble supposed to do? come on. you don't want to? okay, you tell me and i'll repeat it. don't worry about writer ron.

>> to give the format was supposed to take. >> yeah, absolutely. it is supposed to set the stage for what is coming next. absolutely. so that's where you started this project. i started with the preamble. come if you had to memorize the preamble and regurgitated to a teacher. how many? you ought to do it. i know you did. how many theocrat many? how many of the past? how many of you probably forgot it? and now you know the beginning, but how many of you know all this? >> -- form a more perfect union and established justice insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for

ourselves and our posterity. in this constitution -- i think i said that part. to her day in and establish this constitution for the united states of america. [applause] >> when did you learn that? >> when did i learn it? may be about six or seven years ago i was looking through a history book and i thought to myself, you know you really should be ashamed of yourself when you can't even recite the preamble to the constitution. >> what is your name? >> veblen. >> that's very beautiful. let me ask you this. what you think of the preamble? do you like it? >> yes, i think it informs the general public to some understanding about the constitution because most of us if we read it probably wouldn't

understand all that in it. >> for you think it lays the groundwork pretty well? >> well, i went to high school gave my mom was born and raised in a coal mining camp. i went out there to high school. the late senator robert f. bird was the one responsible for passing a law in which all schools that receive any public funding on constitution day -- when is constitution day? september 17, that you have to study the constitution. i am not so sure that that actually is happening, but it's happening in this class in which i hope the dialogue. we asked ourselves, what would we change come if anything if we could rewrite the preamble from scratch if we wanted to? and i'd like to share with you. is that okay? i want to share with you with a very intriguing response was.

that's one of the reasons i like to trust myself in dialogues, because i never know what's going to happen. i never know what kind of insight, especially with young people. this one young man named william told me when i arrived, we been studying the constitution class today. and he said, i didn't realize the constitution was ratified by the states until two years after he signed by the framers. they were having this dialogue on constitution day. he said that further reading all of that. , last week we said that the declaration of independence. he said that was pretty exciting. thomas jefferson really told off the team. he basically said because you just don't get that were all born free and equal, because you treat your loyal subjects in the new world of difference servitude to you, we are forced to declare independence from you and good riddance. that's pretty good summary of that. i like it very much. he stood mangini says i enjoyed studying the declaration, but

the constitution is so boring. he says it's mostly about how the spoils of power are divided. it hardly says anything about freedom and equality and rights. not until the end, like an afterthought in the bill of rights. and that was added to it two years after the constitution was ratified. and she says, i don't think whoever wrote the constitution even with the declaration. and this prompts a student named margaret to say, why isn't the declaration itself part of the capuchin? everyone in the united states celebrates independence day, the day the declaration was declared. is constitution day is such a big deal, why are there any fireworks to celebrate it, to? to you all have fireworks here for constitution day? i did a google search. i haven't found any yet. not sure what that size. anyway, we should insert the declaration at the beginning of the constitution, make it a

preamble. the declaration should be law. the lodge and all all love. she says the right tickets to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are nowhere mentioned in the constitution, yet all those features paddling in the revolutionary war did so because they were fired up to the rights and freedoms that the declaration promised them. she says there never would have been a constitution if they hadn't caught and sacrificed against the others. and the toughest of times at valley forge, and the troops under george washington refreezing, when they didn't have trinkets or so on their boots and they're running out of bullets, it was the words in the declaration that kept hope alive in their hearts and inspired all of their heroics. not only kept their eyes on the prize, it was the price. yet somehow, she says, it was left out of the constitution. so it's time for us to fix that. she says, the declaration's rights need to be put right up front in the preamble as one

number one. and i ask her. i say, if it's the preamble, with the declaration be allowed, or are the only actualize the constitutional articles that follow the preamble? she says without hesitation, it would be allowed. anything within the constitution would be considered thought. genie says, while the preamble is the introduction is supposed to be, as we said here, i met to map out what the rest of the constitution will accomplish. so what the declaration is the preamble, all the laws that follow a being that make you an inalienable rights in the declaration come true. but when it says now, not all the declaration needs to be inserted in their preamble. we are not declared independence from the king anymore been on the staff that addresses king george is old news. really just a small part of the declaration, the most important

part should lead off the constitution. and maybe scope we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights and among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. another student named by pieces of this section the president of him if said his grandmother used to read to end and inspired him to be a politician. it's also the section that dr. martin luther king jr. said motivated him to start the civil rights movement. he says a lot of others have tried to move mountains when it comes to making people in america more free, also were principally inspired by the section in the declaration. it is like they believe these rights in the declaration already were part of the constitution. dottie says, well, we should update a little bit that part brilliant quotes so it says what? all people. she says all men and women, all humans, in other words, are created equal.

margaret is getting really excited by this, how things are coming together. she says this is great. with this outdated declaration part of the constitution, we'll have to start treating one another equally because as i said, it would be the law with a capital l. the genie says, we are not all created equal. some are born into riches, some into desperation. some have all kinds of talents. some hardly any. some are able to make the most of however much or little talent they have because their parents in the schools they go to have the resources that allow them to. but others aren't in a situation like him even to know they have talent, much less figure out how to make the most of them. margaret is all the more reason to be treated equally. the declaration says that all are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. another where she says, no matter how unequal the

circumstances were born into, no matter how unequal or talents, we are still equal before the eyes of our creator. so we americans should see one another is equally important was equally unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. cannot she says it's whether we have a little talent or not, a little money or a lot more equally deserving when it comes to figuring out our talents are and having the opportunity to do something with them. and i asked now -- i say are these rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, our roads and equally important? williams says so they put it this way. without the rights to life and liberty, you can't pursue happiness. without the right to pursue happiness, life and liberty don't mean much. the pursue display. it is liberty. i asked him how so? he says the pursuit of thought about making something of yourself with markers sorted set. no, jeanie says flatly. it's about having the right to

try to make something of yourself. it's trying to make you happy that makes you feel alive purchases i may never become the olympic track star and want to be, but i'm free to try. having the freedom to try gives me the freedom beyond happy. sometimes she says fine trade in afterschool, i can say to see beyond them and imagine the life and going to make for myself when i graduate from high school and college. i can see myself in medical school at harvard university. there is a university here called harbert, isn't there? i guess she's talking about the same one. i'm coming back here to open a doctor's clinic said no one in these parts ever suffers in silence. then she says daschle tell you what, i can run a lot faster and further than i could a couple years ago because of all this trying. margaret says, you may never make your dreams come true all the way you are your dreams may change over time. but anyway, as long as you have

the freedom to pursue them, whatever they may be at any moment and as long as you have not only the inspiration, but also some of the basic means to do so in the drive, that in itself is a big part of them come true. she says, my parents were unable to do so whenever my age. my granddaddy was injured in a coal mining accident, for my daddy 14 years old had to quit school and start working in the mines. my daddy is that a city work right now. i'm not a leftist a while back in the dead of night. et cetera and how to retrieve the zero. he doesn't complain. he does all sorts of odd jobs to make sure i can stay in school. he's making sure my life is a lot more about the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness than his ever could be. a student named desiree who has been listening intently now says, we need the right to life and liberty, i agree. but the guaranteed right to the pursuit of happiness, who cares

about happy? my mom, she says -- i've never seen her crack a smile. but she's fulfilled in her way. she says, like just about everyone's parents in this class, she works whenever and wherever so my life isn't as tough of visitors. and you can tell it makes her fulfilled. unbuffered monster helper out more and she won't hear of it. she says i can help up best by staying in school and then going on to college and making something of myself. this prompts dottie to say, this happy even matter? can she be free to be miserable, free to be frustrated? should we have the right to be happier not happy? she says, many people i admire are very happy. so not happy at all, but they've made big differences in the world. doctors, teachers, parents. picture made it a possible for other people to be happy if they want to buy giving them more opportunities than ever to pursue happiness.

this inspires bobby to say, you know, people with lots of money who are familiar with on tv don't seem very happy, but people i know around these parts with no money in healthy happy if they have lots of money. he says, there's lots of things more important than happiness or at least than having lots of money if that's what the road of happiness is paved with. happy or not, each person will have the right to lead the life she's proud of. they did the most powerful changes or new career will be a reminder to whether you're up or down, you treat certain people in certain way and you treat herself a certain way with worth and dignity because that is several months on and the right and has the constitutional preamble that they cannot work. because we the people of the united states hold these truths to be self-evident that all humans are endowed by their creator with an animal-rights

that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america in order to realize these truths and preserve and promote these unalienable rights. what do you think about that? pretty powerful stuff. can i read you a little bit about jefferson and how he ties into the preamble? again, jefferson wasn't a favor, yet there he was sort of on the scene. before the declaration of independence was even compose, the virginia house of purchases, the oldest governing body in the new world already anticipating a full-fledged and colonial movement for independence began to in the state constitution to replace its colonial charter. jefferson was not in hand. he was in philadelphia where the congress was at the time. nonetheless, jefferson county relays he's not modest. he recounts virginia's legislators were so impressed by

the preamble he composed and sent to them that it was tacked to the beginning of their document and became part of the commonwealth laws in the land. the text of jefferson's constitutional preamble for the commonwealth of virginia is almost precisely the same as what he later drafted for declaration of independence. did you know that? it's pretty interesting. the fact is jefferson later explained that the preamble is prior competition to the preamble and both having the same unshipped to justify separation from grape and these necessary the same materials. while jefferson was pleased that the virginia assembly had included his preamble, he nonetheless found the commonwealth of virginia's new constitution want to know whole. as he put it, this constitution was formed when we were new and unexperienced in the science of government. and so those who crafted it where it aren't as azeri capital

defects -- less than a year and half after the constitution of virginia was ratified, jefferson was given the opportunity to remedy its defects. what remains intact comes in after the declaration of independence associate, the virginia legislature is jefferson to head a committee responsible for proposing reforms to the statute that they enacted. for three years he was immersed in the reformation of the loss of the constitution and to the new organization principles of our government. he and his fellow revisers as they were called to give an unprecedented opportunity as he put it to take up the whole body statutes of virginia laws to leave out everything obsolete or improper and reduce the whole event as a moderate a as the air into the plain language of common sense. but guess what happened? three years of hard work on the new statutes and in all cases

were far more progressives in what the fellow assembly even cared for, even if the new statues for truer to the spirit of the orchid nation and principles in government and the declaration itself. while this discouraging experience further cemented the political status quo, jefferson was the never say die kind of guy continued to scope a draft constitution. and while it was tailored for the commonwealth of virginia, was also meant to serve as a blueprint for promoting democratic governments on a national scale. and do the framework of the strap sometimes parallels that of the u.s. constitution or the specific particles that comprise the version offered different quite remarkable ways that i remark about in this boat. this experiment -- jefferson reveals a founder of political institutions as well as describe for revolutionary sentiment. what about this declaration? do you think the people way back

when, in our early founding days, do you think that they felt the declaration even though it wasn't officially part of the constitution, do you think they felt it was? that it went without saying it was? how many think they just felt early on, since it was led to everything was part of the constitution. yeah, john hancock, president of the continental congress and the declarations for steiner characterized the declaration is the foundation of a future government. jefferson helps himself consider the declaration of fundamental act of union of these states. to a political scientist, dennis mahoney, jefferson claimed it was not the constitution but rather the declaration that can't dictate the american nation. well, after the revolutionary generation had passed, political luminaries continue to take it as a given that the declaration with the constitution's reason for being and ss was itself part of the foundation. for instance, john quincy

adams -- the cdc from? well, the sixth president of the united states is there to the declaration less than the fundamental elements and principles of american constitutional law. in his new come to declaration and constitution's quote, are part of one consistent whole. founded upon the same theory of government. even abraham lincoln at gettysburg address in 1863 asserted the united states was founded for score and seven years ago. in other words, in 1776 come on the declaration was issued, rather than a 1989 and the constitution was ratified. such evidence supports the view of those who argue the constitution is ruled by the declaration, which may be considered as real preamble. charles l. black, clint scully of constitutional law argues a new birth of freedom the

declarations about how hard the constitution and he contends the declaration as a whole was inactive to shame. and so the rights and freedoms that sets forth not only have the force of the common but are in fact it of law. so today this comic a means of their federal lawmakers obligation to enact laws and give people the inalienable rights enumerated in the declaration, despina disenfranchised as relative equals. black believes the material welfare must be seen as an indispensable part in a general diffusion of the right to the pursuit of happiness. she jefferson, however come the general diffusion of political welfare was all-americans governing as equals with even more important in this book would lead to an overall sense of societal well-being. that is from "constitution cafe." [applause] thank you. so i'm going to talk a teeny

more at the very end, but now i would like to invite questions. please if you can come up here. or can i also use -- would you prefer that they come? they prefer you come up to the mic. any questions? >> the executive branch of the government has been accused of maybe overusing their power. how was that way in the pecans to teach and? >> what? i can't believe it. i'm shocked to even think such a thing. they couldn't care. >> so, you said the executive branch is accused of over sappiness authority. and i am just done. now, can i ask you something? is that working?

okay, do you think that the executive ranch is the only branch culpable? does anyone here think the judiciary branch might be overstepping its bounds? okay, sometimes. and how about congress? all right, let's talk about this. let's talk about the executive branch. president is commander-in-chief is no authority whatsoever to declare war. engages in citizen wars all the time. congress has the authority to declare war, has completely become spineless and allow the president to handle we called them and encouragement conflicts, anything, but they never declare wars. how they declared war is to think we have in our history? [inaudible] five. just five.

the last one was world war ii. all these conflicts since never declared. president overstepping its bounds, congress allowing the president to take their constitutional authority. another sample started in earnest with president george w. bush, this thing called signing statement. when congress enacts a law, the president signs the law, but he issues these things called signing statements. they believe the reporter for "the boston globe" won a pulitzer prize for examining the subject. the president in effect sees the slot and fast, i don't like this element in this element, so i'm going to issue a signing statement so i only approve those elements of the law that i like. effectively making themselves an extra chamber -- legislative change your of congress, making us one person asked her legislative chamber. [inaudible]

you tell me. how do they get away with it? who get away with it? should we get a big near a pier look at it? roulette and get away with it? they declared all these wars with no constitutional authority whatsoever and we write in their constitutional article about that. writing a constitutional article ran in the president's authority. a flick of the judiciary branch. long, long ago in a democracy far, far away, even though it has no constitutional authority to do so, the judiciary -- the judiciary branch gave itself the power called judiciary review. nowhere in the constitution does it give them this power. what it means is they have decided that they are the final arbiters in determining whether any law passed by congress and signed by the president is in fact constitutional.

when thomas jefferson -- when they went up against thomas jefferson, they tried to first declare that they have this authority and jefferson vehemently denied that they had it. he believed that look, the constitution number one, strict constructionist in a different way than people deliver themselves strict constructionist. he believe number one the constitutional given this rate doesn't say a thing about judicial review, that if congress passes a law and the president signs a law and the people don't like it, they can vote the bums out, that the people were meant to be the arbiters for determining who is constitutional review. he believes by the supreme court taking this power from the people, that they have prevented some much-needed debate on many, many issues from gun control to abortion rights. these issues were legislated

essentially no matter what you think about the issues one way or the other, one of the most progressive on the supreme court who is arguably very pro-choice nonetheless castigated the supreme court for taking this authority for wresting it from the hands of congress. his primary concern with these hot button issues need to be debated. we need to talk about it. we need to. one of the reasons i believe there's so much shrillness now in discourse, where we do not any longer celebrate diverse this is because we have been marginalized. political debate has been marginalized and diatribe and dogmatism has one today. they don't have this authority and they don't have clearly enough faith in us to talk with one another. one of the big aspects of the constitution café project is to bring diverse people together in a thoughtful discourse. doesn't mean we have to agree on much of anything.

but we can talk to one another and listen to one another stories and quit stereotyping people before we have a chance to know what they're all about. so often we are just thinking of our next dinner instead of really trying to learn what people's stories are. so this is our political storytelling and using the constitution is almost an excuse in device in the articles to come up with their own ideas. so authorities being served all the time creates record levels of political apathy and anger. and yeah, it's up to us to do something about it. and hopefully this project is meant to start and spark at the conversation then in turn might inspire people to become more cynically engaged call people to curb it. the letters just to be recorded. >> i'm wondering what your opinion is about all of the revolution going on in egypt,

syria and places like that. >> well, i think it's a beautiful thing. my concern is the same concern that we had in our founding is, that the people themselves have not been asked what they want in their new constitution. i plan to expand the constitution café project to go through emerging democracies in stark constitution working group. again, you have the self-selected elite who have decided that they are the ones who are the most capable, the most high-minded and they celebrate the ideals sure. i'm frankly tired of it. i think that i've met so many so called -- never met a common purse and to be honest with you. but we don't have the right forms for allowing us regular folks to reveal our uncommon

insights to ourselves, much less to other people. you know, everybody talks about the tierney of the masses. there could be very little minority and they could go over it. we have working groups that allow us. i see this as a golden opportunity to start the dialogue fair dare discover things ossify again it's not enough to ask people to vote on the constitution up or down. there has to be some means in the mechanism to be informal group that first. but i hope the dialogue here, in which we created a new comp to teach the article. so if we ever get to have a referendum, which we cannot quit the democratic process for choosing the people who are right are new founding document, can't even allow for the process to take place? what is wrong with allowing people to vote for those who framed the constitution? in our nation's founding, there is one state that had genuinely,

for the times it was white males, the white males who had no property and were allowed to participate. that state was the state of pennsylvania. the only state allowed for them not only to vote for those who would frame the pennsylvania constitution -- the state constitution, but they were allowed unbelievably to even run to service the framer. i read about this quite a bit in my book. the pennsylvania came out with this ex-armani document that allowed all the people in the state. they had one year to consider a bill passed by the legislator. they didn't like it. they could just get rid of it. the landed elite in pennsylvania was furious. they waged a demonization campaign from the minute has passed and in a number of years am i but they finally got rid of

the one and only truly experimental and beautiful constitution that i know what that it's ever been created, not just in the united states, but anywhere. the state of pennsylvania. and i urge you to go on google and find this original document. it was amazing the checks and balance is that they had come a far different from the tape we have in our federal document. for most of all, it is amazing the participatory mechanisms have included some of the people could weigh in, not just on election day, but all the time. so you can argue we are more progressive than our founding in many ways and we are now. >> my question is i guess we were talking about the written word -- the written word. and if it's so powerful, the written word, why do we have such a good army -- national as well as local and regional to back-and-forth these words?

wire to a requirement behind the word? to not only that, but in other

words we can't do hotspots around the world. not only that, but we cannot declare war or have it here on our own soil unless congress declares war, something congress is to do on their own circumstances. so, you know, the fear of institutionalized force is what prompted the founders to revolt in the very first place and of course eisenhower's famous statement about the military-industrial complex that has developed leads you to wonder what it be better to have brought down the democratic curtain a long time ago ever reaching the same end of bringing it down by massive rebuilding of the force of this type that can basically insert itself and any conflict not necessarily for democratic

perpetuation or evolution or emergence. >> ahead. >> we are constitutional people, we are people at the same time we have this explosion of violence from those who are in power to use violence and those who are not empowered to use violence. >> what does that mean to you? what does that indicate to you? >> it means that emily dickinson and walt whitman and the great voices of america even though they are still carrying on is overpowered by the blast of the gun and the violence, and even though there were very strong words, what is overpowering those strong words have been to be a guest like a festival

violence. >> is there any remedy that you think can be put to that so that we can do away with that? >> i go out into prisons and do poetry because i believe the words are powerful. >> so is that to say then that we have to retake the initiative and that there have to be many people who are doing things like you are so that we can put the power of the word ahead of the power of violence? >> someone looking for salvation in a word. is devotee think part of that lies in the constitution?

>> the very word you can come out and do violence or love and one of them calms them down. >> i can only harken back to i think there's a lot of anger when it comes to the word of the constitution that people who are elected federal officials and get their oath to obey the constitution are doing anything but. and it creates animosity in many ways, she's and forms there was a lot of debate over the health care bill that was passed. guess what group left itself out of the health care bills provisions congress from the most liberal to the most rugged conservative, going alone come support yourself, live by your wits they all receive the most

wonderful taxpayer subsidized health insurance that money can buy. we pay for that. they receive the best medical care, retirement care, elderly care, everything, child care. they receive these things on our bill, and you ask us -- site seeing a couple conservatives ask reporters why don't you give up? you should say you are against this and you get the public option the rest of us are denied. they stumbled over their words but not one of them has ever lived by the ideals he or she reports. that creates intrigued people because they are not practicing ideals they profess and i think there's a lot of hypocrisy to go around, not by any means with consistent conservatives. there is a lot of hypocrisy of across-the-board going around and they are all very beholden to the corporate dhaka and that also -- they are elected the promise to abide by the will of those who e. elected them and then you don't hear a lot from

them. yes? >> it's unjust building on what you are seeing right now, the last after the supreme court ruled in citizens united versus the election commission and basically made corporations individual based on the first amendment. now, if we wanted to pass some sort of an amendment to the constitution to make that impossible, what would be the most efficient process to actually encourage communication among the people and actually get this done? so, for example would be that california like propositions? what do you think? >> let me tell you this, the last time the constitution was amended was in 1992. the amendment that passed is one that had been originally proposed the end of the 18th

century that dealt with congressional salaries. ever since there hasn't been another amendment ever since. when you factor in the first ten amendments of the bill of rights, then there's only been 17 amendments ever since. so, the framers, even the most pretty staunch federalists thought that surely it would be bin minn did much more as the human mind progress and human values and ideals has progressed. it hasn't happened. a lot of reasons why. many times, you know, congress has the authority to vote proposed amendments out of their chambers, and then they go to the states and then the states can vote them. one thing that's happened this congress now plays an archer a limit on how long the states have to consider amendments. that's what happened to the equal rights amendment. they had a number of years they couldn't get the votes needed that was it so they've been trying to introduce every year and congress keeps it bottled

up. there is nothing in the constitution that says congress has that authority to put our pachauri limits on how many years an amendment can be considered. but they've done it any way. even though its extra constitutional. for many, many years from our founding days like the 27th amendment it was considered for well over 100 years, nearly 200 years. we don't even have that ability anymore because of the arbitrary limits that congress places on any amendment. but the fact the matter is congress rarely allows any amendment the proposed amendment to even leave the chamber said it can be considered by the states. so it is those who would like to have a federal actually put in his amendment. any couple of any gender to be able to marry that gets bald, too. congress is preventing the debate from taking place. i think it's shameful. again this is supposed to be not

just democracy but a participatory in the deliberative democracy. now, you talked about the state of california that has a referendum. there is actually already in article 5 of our existing constitution the means to go around congress and have our own amendment convention. do you know that? i didn't know what will begin the project. to really learn about what this brilliant document has. never been put into effect. we have this in our foundational all right now, arbuckle fight. we don't have to have congress approve an amendment before it can be considered by the states. the states have the authority to have an amendment convention any time they want to. there has to be a certain percentage of the state's and then once even if it is held just to consider one amendment, once an amendment convention is held, they can consider as many as they want to come essentially

holding a new constitutional convention. that is what this offbeat project is trying to spark a new amendment convention. all you have to do, you don't even have to go to the federal government or you have to do is to it at the local level where you have more, where there are more response or less of responsive. get the states to recall to the amendment convention. the states of never done this. they've come one time, one time when the senate, the u.s. senate wanted the u.s. senate for those who are in the u.s. senate to be directly elected by the people. the u.s. senate wanted nothing, no part of that. they wanted to continue to be appointed by the state legislatures that of the existing constitution had appointed. they were not directly elected. they resisted that mightily. but when the state finally threatened to call an amendment convention, the converse relented and they allowed the proposed amendment to go out because they didn't want the

states to ever hold an amendment convention because heaven knows what might have happened. they might have made an update to the constitution itself not just a bad amendment. so that mechanism already is there. it's just people in every state just need to organize and insist that they have an amendment that's their right now. don't have to change a thing. i can't hear. >> would you need a certain percentage of states? >> i believe it is two-thirds of the state's. i believe to call an amendment convention i don't know chapter and verse if you want to can look it up real fast, but yeah. it's not an overwhelming threshold. we can surmount that and then it goes and matter what congress thinks. it used to be when you looked at

provision, prohibition era was started by amendment to the constitution and was repealed by an amendment to the constitution. in other words, the amendment process was a conversation piece where it reflected the morals of the time. that doesn't happen anymore and it's a pity. absolute pity. yes? >> i'm wondering based upon the amount of passivity and various reasons the constitution is no longer coming to you think that nonetheless the people who drafted the constitution and the declaration of independence had some level of foresight which unfortunately was of realized, and i am thinking specifically about the seeming possibility that the end of slavery and the civil rights movement were inevitable almost based on the language. >> well i think the founder signed the declaration certainly were visionary.

even if as most people when they didn't always practice the idea as they profess. it still speaks to people across the time. i believe the framers of the constitution for the most part believe that they have created an organic document that was not in any way meant to be sacrosanct in the we've virtually unchangeable. i think that they felt was sacrosanct is this idea that we can have faith and change in ourselves. it's not that they were more -- they were more high-minded of us, states my belief, but it doesn't mean that we can't repeat the feat. as long as we keep thinking that we can't, i think it can become sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. >> thank you petraeus too one more question. >> one of the biggest problems today is that 46.2% of the people in congress, 535 members

are lawyers and also the gerrymandering that's going on now, isn't that a position today that we face in the changes that we need? >> one of the dialogues are held in the book is that very subject. why don't we have representatives who are representative who represent this face of america itself? well, again, the existing constitution on believe has allowed for one congressman for every 60,000 people or so. but guess what, it used to be the number [chanting] tuna -- you know the number of the supreme court justices it isn't six that always fluctuated widely until recent times. the same goes with congress. they used to gradually increase the members of congress as the population increase and then in the 50's it stopped. hasn't been increased since. so you have unrepresented, and representative representatives.