>> good evening. welcome to alabama and chattahoochee valley community college. we affectionally call to the colleges cdd see. i'm glad canada president of the college. technically i'm still a freshman. it is my pleasure to introduce one of our state does --

distinguish faculty members. brion mcclanahan is that the college since 2005 a faculty member of the social science institute. he received his bachelor and history at the university maryland his masters and ph.d. in history from the university of south carolina and he has been around for any length of time you will soon find out he is an avid game hunter. he has been a member of the faculties of cdd seasons 2005 in previously taught history at jefferson davis community college. some do not associate the community college with a scholarly production of writing and research but dr. mcclanahan proves the addition to academic discussion of history and events is alive and well at the community college. his book will be published and he has appeared on locally syndicated programs in support of those works. in addition he has written and

published opinion pieces on current events from a historical perspective. while doing all of that he and his wife samantha have found time to raise a family. they have a son and three daughters, so i know they are very busy. we need to get on with the reason we are here tonight so i'm pleased to introduce the author of "the founding fathers guide to the constitution," dr. brion mcclanahan. [applause] >> how are you all doing? thanks for coming. i do appreciate it. it's good to see at a bunch of my students here and of course also friends of the community and faculty and your support is welcome. i would also like to thank chattahoochee community college for let me do this here in dr. canon, kelli williams and karen kelly and all the people that helped me put this together and of course also c-span is

here tonight covering the event. and of course i would be remiss if i did not thank my family who unfortunately could not make it tonight for giving me the support to do this and also the support to write a other books and have time to do those things when there didn't seem to be much time to do anything. so they are of course the back on in all of this. now, before i start and i would like to tell each one of my students here that actually this book is a dedicated to you. it's dedicated to my children and to you for the reason being that every semester at sea bbci teach the constitution and as you are all aware when i do that i ask the question how many have ever read the constitution? of course usually one hand goes up, maybe two and sometimes none. every semester i'm confronted with the fact that i go into a blank slate in its unfortunate the coast the constitution of course is the governing document

for the united states and we often hear about the constitution what it means but there really is not much information out there in the american public about it and that is a relatively recent phenomenon because he used to be people talk about the constitution quite a lot weather was in congress when they actually debated, whether the bill is constitutional or not or whether it was in the public through commentary on the constitution. this was a big topic for many years in the united states not so much any more. oftentimes, you hear that the constitution is too old, it's archaic. the last time i checked it was not written in old english, not shakespearean. there is snow vowels and -- so it's easy to understand it if you just sit down to read about most people don't take the time and i think it's because they

are scared. they look at the document and they say okay here is article i, here is article iii and what do those things mean? my job was actually to give people a readable story of the constitution and not just that but i broke it down so that students of the constitution whether they are at cvcc or whether they are in california or maine or hawaii or washington d.c. or across the country would know what it meant to free the constitution what the founding generation said this constitution meant. i also was writing the book because of the charge in the constitution itself. the founding generation lead this constitution through their posterity and that is often a word we don't use but that is us. we have a sacred trust to know what that constitution means, to

understand it, to read it, to digest it and so again by doing this i hope the american people would do that if they were students of the constitution. oftentimes you hear different ideas about the constitution. some will say the constitution is an elastic document. it's stretchable. it has words and you can read these words but we have to go beyond that because that is what the supreme court judge or of this constitutional scholar says it means. and then you have those to say the constitution is a limiting document. the constitution is what it says, you can't go beyond that and so we should interpret the constitution literally. there is this big debate in people get confused by this stuff. which one is it? is it a loosely interpreted document, is in an elastic document or limiting document? and so i actually cut through

all of that. i really didn't care what modern scholars have said about the constitution to be honest with you. really didn't care what the supreme court said about the constitution. a kid with the founding fathers has said about the constitution so my journey began their and in fact when i originally conceptualized this book i pitched it to begin with and those who know the publishing process you often pitch an idea and then you are told you said no and if you were told yes to go from there. so when i pitched the idea i was going to focus almost primarily on the opponents of the constitution and not talk about some of these terms in a minute that is going to focus on what they thought about the constitution and the publisher came back and said no, no, that wouldn't be good because it might turn out to look like an anti-constitution book. i said okay how can we work with this? we we brainstormed a little bit and we decided we would write it book on the constitution based on what the founding generation said about the constitution vote

for the constitution and against the constitution. i have read a lot of material about this but as i started digging through the mountains of research on the subject, i realized i had only scratched the surface and much of what they knew was going to be changed or at least in some ways when i thought i knew about it was only going to be more involved, because as i got through the material i said my gosh this is deeper than i thought. what i had often thought about the constitution is there but there's so much more to it. it's much more complex than even what i have said about the constitution my first book. and of course when you're looking at this document and i say it's a founding father's guide to the constitution because that is what it is. is not just the founding fathers you are familiar with and i will talk about them in a minute but it's all the founding generation's. this is a generational book for the american generation and not just one, two, three or four

people and what they have said. i went a look at what everybody said about it that i could put my hands on and public documents because again this had to be sold to people and i will talk about that in a minute. the founding fathers are important because they wrote it so i thought what source would be better than going to the people who are the documents themselves and had to present this thing to 13 sometimes hostile ratifying conventions and tell people, this is what it means. they had to to go to the press and say this is what, you might be saying the constitution will do xyz but be reassured it's not going to do this. this is the constitution we should be looking at and the founding fathers constitution. this is the constitution as a say in the book over and over again that is ratifying in that process is very important, that whole ratification process. that constitution meant nothing until the states decided to ratify it. so that is the overall subject of the book.

i'm going to read you a quote in a few minutes from a founding father of north carolina and i will refer back to that quote quite a bit. oftentimes, you will get this statement, while the founding fathers were just a combative group of people. what founders are you talking about? we all know some of the big names or maybe you know some of the big names but you have probably heard of alexander hamilton. you have probably heard of james madison and john jay. they are the authors of the federalist papers, the 85 essays that defend the constitution. most people that read the constitution and think that they understand the constitution will look at the documents to maybe look at the federalist papers and say that's it but it's deeper than that. in fact it goes much deeper than that. i argue in the book and they say this in the federalist papers are not as important as you think. they are written in new york and they didn't have much of an impact of new york itself

because the state of new york only ratify the constitution by three votes, three votes. so these 85 people there, the definitive source on the constitution didn't have much impact at the time but there are others and their other members of that generation that perhaps review more important than people like james madison. james madison is called the father of constitution but i say that is a misnomer. there is systolic -- or stored stored -- he did present the virginia plans or at least wrote it and of course it was prevented by the virginia delegation but the constitution we have is not his. it was gone over and over in the philadelphia convention and modified over and over again by a number of important people so some of these people you have probably never heard of like john dickinson of delaware. you're probably saying who the heck is john dickinson?

this was a guy who was the penman of the rebelish in. he was one of the most important men of the founding generation bar none. when he went to the philadelphia convention he looked at this prosecution a james madison -- constitution and he said no no we are not having that. that's not going to work in the c. indymac. or you have someone like roger sherman of connecticut, and man that thomas jefferson once said never said, i'm paraphrasing here, never said a stupid thing in his life. this was also his constitution because again he was it conservative moderating influence. when he got to the philadelphia convention and saw james madison's work he said no we are not having that in these united states. the people of connecticut will never agree to this thing. john rutledge of south carolina, another very important founding father. john rutledge was later served on the supreme court. he basically helps when the

american war for independence from the satellite as governor so a very important in individual needs of know this constitution you have written mr. madison is not going to work in south carolina. we need to modify this thing. so that is what happens in philadelphia and in fact one historian has called it the miracle of philadelphia because no one was sure of this thing would get out of philadelphia to begin with. there were so many different ideas and opinions floating around in philadelphia that they appeared in the constitution was going to die before the middle of the summer of 1787. and the story you often hear about the constitution is simple. it's the large states against small states. dickinson, sherman a rutledge all came from small states. medicine of courses from a very large state, but that's not the real issue. in fact the real issue was what type of government were we going to have? was a going to be a national government or a federal government? today we have a federal

government. in the founding generation they did not call it that. they didn't call it that coming out of philadelphia. for people like dickinson and sherman of rutledge said we don't want a national government. we want to federal government. james madison wanted a national government. what is the difference? the federal government was not a general government meaning it only had general purposes in mind and basically everything else was left to the states themselves and that is what the majority of the founding generation argued for. not a national government which basically put all power in the central authority. they were going to have that. so when you start talking about general versus federal and national versus federal these are important terms and it in fact they haven't gone way. the united states as a nation today so that term is still thrown around but the founding would say it's a general government for founding

purposes. so when the constitution came out of philadelphia said member of 1787 no one was even sure the thing would get ratified. they had written it, they talked about it and they sweated over it and they poured their hearts out in some cases but no one was sure if this thing would make it out of nonstate which is all they required to ratify the document. so that it had to be solved and that sales job is actually what i talk about more and the book than anything else. i do bring up the philadelphia convention because sometimes you can understand the constitution and the language without understanding what they said in philadelphia. but oftentimes you can understand the constitution what they said without understanding what they said in the state ratifying convention all throughout the united states. in fact james madison agreed, this is what he said. piece of the constitution was

brought to life and only found its meaning because of the state conventions which gave it all the validity and authority it possesses. in other words, what we presented in philadelphia means nothing. what the state ratifying conventions that it meant that everything but we don't often hear about these things. in fact or have some most famous supreme court justice ever, charmed john marshall who was a member that founding generation never one time reference the state ratifying conventions in a decisions in there really never reference but those state ratifying conventions where we thing was discussed and hammered out and the states many of these wavering states in support were sold a bill of goods in essence on the basis of what the constitution meant at the time. and that is why he said i will soon write a book based on the constitution what they said it meant that again i bring in both

proponents and opponents olympic talk about those terms, proponents and opponents of document. you often hear the federalist and the anti-federalist. those terms are wrong. and fact -- said it best, they were not there was her anti-federalist. they were rats and anti-rats which is pretty funny. eldridge was very colorful. so you have these when reality what you are talking about nationalists who believe in a strong central authority and they thought more power should be in the central government of any india that the federalists who are often called the anti-federalist. they believe in a federal government where there is a general government and the states had much of the authority. this is the debate, how much authority set central government going to have and how much for the state government have and that is what we get out of the entire process. you hear it over and over again.

again that is the main point of the book, to go through these different opinions about what i found shocked me i expected to write a book that said well, there are a lot of different opinions and so you kind of have to ring this on yourself on which one was right but what i found was this. over and over again the opponents of the constitution who said the government was going to do xyz were told by the proponents who supported it that no, you are wrong, they were arguing on the same positions in the same way so the general consensus was there. there is a founding fathers interpretation and essentially what you have again is a general government for general concern. that's it. i will talk about how that worked in a few minutes and why they thought that was important when we get to an example of the bill of rights. but it was not going to be a national government and it was

not going to abolish the states which some people feared. and so as i dug through these public declarations and speeches and pamphlets in all these things, there was a multitude of volumes on the stuff and again the general consensus began to appear. i put as much of that as a kid in the book because i wanted people to see that. the other thing i heard about in this book over time is that i use a lot of quotations. sometimes i can make it a little dry but i didn't want it to be brion mcclanahan's guide to the constitution want to be the founding fathers guide to the constitution so i put it in there as much as i could because they are better at saying what they meant that i did. is not hard to understand. so the quotes were important to me. i wanted to put as many as i could in there and in fact there are two appendages in the back of the book that are nothing but founding generation stuff that i thought was great but it could

happen in the book somewhere because i did not have space. i actually think those two sections of of the book are in some ways the most fun because you can read what they said that some of that stuff is so easy just want to read it for hours, at least i do. maybe you don't, but i do. what we have of course is a written constitution for the united states of america and that four is important, not of but for, for the united states of america. i want to read you a quote and i will go back to this in a few minutes as they go through these different branches of government. this was said by same l. johnson of north carolina and he said this in the first north carolina ratifying convention and it's important to designate the first north carolina ratifying convention because north carolina refused to ratify the document so they had to have to ratifying conventions. they said this. a parallel has been drawn

between the british parliament and congress. the powers of congress are all circumscribed, defined and clearly laid down so far they may go but no farther. but sir, what are the powers of the british parliament? they have no written constitution in britain. the power of parliament is unbounded. that is important distinction to make and i will keep going back to that. we have a written constitution in the united states and that was done for a reason, because the founding generation wanted this thing to be permanent. not that it couldn't be changed because it could be change. it was an amendment process but what they did not want happening and this is how the thing was sold, what they didn't want happening with people going in and changing it without amending it. changing it judicial opinions or legislative opinions or bills come executive orders or whatever we do now. they didn't want a change in that way. and so when you start looking at

how the founding generation sold this thing it becomes very clear, and i often have debated with people about this. well, you say the constitution says what it means that it means what it says. well that is true. they intended it to be erie specific and that is how they sold it. people said it wouldn't be interpreted that way but that is here nor there. was sold in 1787 and 1780 it would be literally interpreted, not the other way around. so let's start with the preamble. this is the most famous 52 words in the constitution. we the people of the united states, i'm sure many of you can recite it. there a lot of misconceptions about the preamble and there are some things that i want to talk about that may surprise people or things you don't know. one thing of course the preamble says the constitution is going to be set down for their posterity so in that way they intended this thing to be long-lasting and it is the

longest lasting written constitution in the world today. they wanted it to be that way and i thought to the amendment process the could be that way. otherwise you have a new constitution. but they intended it to last for very long time and there were many members of the founding generation is said that. what most people don't know about the preamble is the original preamble. probably nobody is ever read it or very few people have read it but when the constitution was first presented in california this is what it said. we the people are the states of manned -- connecticut new york new jersey pennsylvania delaware virginia north carolina south carolina and georgia. do ordain to establish the constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity. that was the original preamble. you might wonder why the heck did they change it. it's very simple. the man who was in charge of

changing the preamble was named governor morris. he was a nationalist. he was thinking along the same slime as james madison. but they were afraid of some things, number one, rhode island didn't even send a delegation to the philadelphia convention so how you can list it in the preamble when they are not there? number two all 13 states ratified the thing and if you didn't and you listed in the preamble that could cause problems of the constitution was only bonding on the states that ratified it and not everyone ratified it would be binding on them so they feuded of states not as people which was pointed out over and over again. and oftentimes we read into this preamble and think this is what the constitution really means. here it is the preamble and that is what the constitution is but let me tell you what james madison said because this is something as people are never heard the four.

this is a quote from james madison. the phrases used in the introductory oppositions now a source of so much of ingenuity were never meant to be inserted in their loose form in the text of the constitution. weich resolutions preliminary to an eagle -- the legal enactments it was understood that they were to be reduced by proper limitations or specifications into the form in which they were to be operative. that's it. this is a preliminary phrase, introduction, nothing more. i'm just telling you they're going to the constitution for the united states of america. oftentimes one of the most famous is termed general welfare and i will talk about that in a second. the preamble to the constitution even though every school child is required to recite the constitution means nothing. it's a beautiful 52 words but that's it. it sets up the constitution and

that is all it is therefore. i think that shocks people because they think i know the preamble so i know the constitution. it goes a lot deeper than that. the other thing that i think individuals find shocking is the executive branch. of course we are coming up on a presidential election season and we all have our favorite candidate or maybe you support the president support the opponent to the president so we are focused on the executive branch. most americans don't realize that the exact opposite of what the founding generation want us to do and even in history we are guilty of this. as we teach history courses we focus on administration we start with the washington administration go to the john adams and jefferson administration and we do this all throughout history all the way up to the president. but again that is not necessary how the founding fathers wanted to have the constitution

interpreted. because they had just broken away from a very powerful executive in king george iii a little over 10 years before this thing was written. under the articles of confederation, the president was nonexistent. the present was simply the present of congress and they had a committee set up so the executive branch didn't even vector and because there was no executive branch at all. when we got to philadelphia they wanted one. the founding generation that we needed a strong executive but how strong? that was always the question. the president it must be noted is not a king and i think sometimes we don't think that way. but, the founding generation to a man feared executive power over all else.

they didn't care about legislative power or they didn't care about the states. they cared about legislative power because they have seen in the time leading up to the war for independence with that executive could do and of course they all had history on their side in all talk about that in a minute. a great quote from john dickinson. let me give you a couple of quotes about executive power. it's better to put it in their words instead of mine. the governor of new york at this time was a man named george clinton, no relation to bill and hillary. but he wrote about the constitution when it was going to the ratification process and he used a pen name, cato. he said this. compare your past opinions and sentiments with the presence proposed establishment and you will find if you adopted and he's talking about the constitution will lead be doing to the system which you heretofore reprobate as of used. every american whig not long since bore his emphatic testimony against the

monarchical government limited because the dangerous inequality as relative to their rights to property and where and desist president has with his powers and prerogatives differ from the king of great britain? so he was concerned that the executive in the constitution was going to be too powerful that they were essentially creating another candidate. another opponent of the constitution asked this. he wrote under the pen name an old whig and nobody knows who it is but there were a number different people who he thought could have been the author. of course they were riding in pennsylvania so there were great candidates but he said this. if we are not prepared to receive a king let us call another convention to revise the proposed constitution constitution and form it anew on the principles of the confederacy of the republic. so if we are not ready to receive the king don't ratify the constitution because that is what we are going to get.

this great effect on the founding generation because now people who were supporting the constitution had to defend it. they said wait, wait, wait, we are way out of line here. we are not creating a king. we don't want a strong executive. we do but not really. it's only going to go so far. and so, the proponents of the constitution began to write and support of the executive. john dickinson who is for the constitution said this. he wrote, the president will be no dictator because he is removable and punishable for misbehavior and their definition of misbehavior was very loose and effective they were abusing their authority you can get rid of the president. you can get rid of a king. the president is not hereditary. ..

>> doesn't matter which political party you're talking about, tend to think of their powers as more expansive than that. but perhaps the final exclamation point came from alexander hamilton himself. of course, alexander hamilton is one of the most ardent nationalists this the united states. in the united states. and hamilton wrote very famously in federalist number 69 about

the powers of the president, and i'm going to read this to you because he essentially said this is what the president is, and you don't have to worry about the president, because it can't do all the things you're afraid of. so he aid -- said this. hamilton wrote that the king was a hereditary monarch. the president could be impeached, while the king of great britain was sacred. the president has a qualified veto, while the king has an absolute negative. the president has a concurrent power with the senate over appointments and treaties while the king was the fountain of honor, and the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions. the president can command the army and navy, but the king can raise and regulate fleets and armies by his own authority. the president can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation, the king is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets, can lay embargoes for a limited

time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit circulation of coin, one is supreme head and governor of the national church. so in essence, the president is no king, but we've looked at the president for many of those things, but that is not what the founders designed the constitution to do. that is the general consensus. so the executive was much less powerful under the constitution, the founding fathers' constitution, than our own, at least how we think it's interpreted today. but what about the other branches of government? we, of course, have a legislative branch and a judicial branch. the legislative branch was intended to be the most powerful branch of government because for two reasons. one, the house of representatives, which is as close to people as you can get here to

theoretically, and the senate was a representative of the states. that was the federal part of the constitution meaning that the states were represented in washington, d.c. eventually, at the time, of course, when the constitution was ratified in new york or philadelphia. so that's the branch of government that has the most power. if you read the document itself, article i lays out the congress, and it's the longest part of the constitution. it has the most enumerated or delegated powers. and i'm going to talk about that term "delegated" for a second. and i mentioned this in class and, of course, this is very important how you look at a delegated power. a delegated power is a power that's given because you have the authority to give it. by delegating it, you can always take it back. and so the idea was as we were writing this constitution the states and the people of the states are delegating authority to the central government, and if we want it back, we can always take it back. you don't have it forever. we can take it back ourselves. that, of course, is the crux of the tenth amendment which i'll

briefly mention at the end of the discussion. so you have this article i, and then, of course, you have an article i, section 7 and section 8, section 8 being the most important part because that's where all the enumerated powers lie. but why is this senate important? and i want to mention that for a second. i mentioned the senate as a representative of the states. and the founders were very concerned about having a government that was too far detached from the people and then, also, too far detached from the states to be operative, to really represent them. and think about this. in the constitution itself, it says that the representative ratio in 30,000 to 1 meaning there are 30,000 people to every one representative in the house of representatives. that was in 1789. today it's 700,000 to 1. and when they were discussing the constitution, they said you

know what? we're concerned originally it was 40,000 to 1. that's too high. some people thought it should be 20,000 to 1, maybe even 10,000 to 1. so when you look at 700,000 to 1 you think, my gosh, how far have we come from that? but that was no problem to the founders in a certain way. if we had a general government for general purposes, that would be a nonissue. but the opponents were quick to point this out. they said, thus, it appears that the liberties, happiness, concerns of the whole united states may be dependent upon the wisdom and knowledge of 25 or 26 men. how adequate and unsafe for representation. inadequate because the sense of views of three or four million people over such a territory comprising such various climates, products, habits, interests and opinions cannot be collect inside so shawl a body. so what they're saying is unless

you have a fair representative ratio, these people if they're going to legislate for all of us in minutiae, in minute dell tail, they -- detail, they can't do it. it's physically impossible. so we need to have a general government for general concerns. james wilson of pennsylvania who was one of the greatest proponents of the constitution, later served in the supreme court, said this: to sport with vigor a single government over the whole united states would demand a system of the most unqualified and the most unremittent despotism. it's impossible, they thought. and you're talking about three or four million people -- we're now 300 million people. so that's why a general government was more important to them. because a general government, again, can only do general things, and in that way it p wouldn't matter if you only had 535 representatives. because the people could be better represented in their states.

so we often hear this general welfare clause, and i've mentioned general a number of times. what does general welfare mean? what is the general welfare of the union? well, roger sherman wrote the clause, and this is what he said it meant. the objects of the union were few. first, defense against foreign danger, second, against internal disputes and a resort to force, thirdly, treaties with foreign nations, fourthly regulating commerce and drawing revenue from it, all other matters, civil and criminal, will be much better in the hands of the states. that was the general welfare. so congress' defense, if government handled commerce and defense, and that's all they did, then the states or the people of the states would be guarded in their liberty. another member of the, of pennsylvania listed all the things that the general government could do and what the state governments could do.

this is interesting, and i had never seen in this before when i wrote the book. but as i went through all this stuff, i found this, and i thought, wow, that's, that's important because if we're going to say, if i'm going to argue in the book they favored a general government, well, here's exactly what they meant by that. cox was a political philosopher, he was a very important man in pennsylvania during the war for independence and, of course, served in a variety of elected positions. but this is what he wrote about the constitution and the general government. he said, the general government cannot interfere with the opening of rivers and canals, the making or regulation of roads except post roads, building bridges, erecting ferries, libraries, religious or manufacturing societies, erecting or regulating the police of cities, towns or boroughs, building lighthouses, public whatevers, nor -- what

are wharves, nor can they do anything civil or ecclesiastical. so, in essence, they can't really do anything. and then he said this about the states. the states can create corporations, civil and religious, prohibit or impose duties on the importation of slaves into their own ports, establish seminaries of learning, promote and establish manufacturers, clear rivers, cut canals, regulate dissents and marriages, license taverns, establish ferries, establish poor houstons and houses of ploilt, etc., etc. basically, everything of a domestic nature can be done by them. so there you have it. that's what the founding generation meant by general and federal. so he's arguing for the constitution saying the general government can't do all these things, the state government does all these things. but we've kind of looked at it the ore way here in the modern era. the state governments often do

this. most people point out that the state governments would be the first they'd miss or the local governments because that's where most business is done in the united states, but we seem to put more focus on the general government or the federal government than any other. so i found that very interesting. when i was going through this, i didn't realize the depth of that and how in depth they had gone to explain these things. because, you see, general welfare, people talk about this, and you hear it every now and then, but the founding generation explained it. in detail. and there are several other quotes about the legislative branch. that if i had time, i could go through. and, of course, their found in the append cease. but the fact is this general government that the founders designed was for general purposes. now, last but not least, the

judicial branch. we often put our faith today in the supreme court, and, of course, the problem with the supreme court as we see over time, it doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum you're on, they might agree with your opinion in one case and disagree in another, they can change their mind over and over again. this happens throughout history. so which decision is correct? this is a problem. and the founding generation actually dealt with the judicial branch, and what they didn't want to do, there was a general consensus that the supreme court may, in fact, declare federal laws unconstitutional. in fact, the opponents of the constitution hoped that could happen. but what they didn't want to happen was the federal court system declaring state laws unconstitutional which thousand they do over and over again. so that was the real concern. again, this is people like john rutledge and john dickenson and roger sherman brought this stuff up. we don't want the federal court system killing the state courts. that was a real fear. and so often times you hear, well, the supreme court is the

final arbiter of everything, but that wasn't so clear in the founding generation, and they weren't necessarily sold on that. they weren't necessarily certain about what they could do about it, but the idea the supreme court was the final arbiter of every legal decision was not set in stone in 1787 and 1788. and be coupled -- and coupled with the fact that you have the bill of rights. we often talk about the bill of rights. the bill of rights were restricting clauses as the preamble to them said, so these were restricting on the federal power. and the most important of the bill of rights was, actually, the tenth amendment. people don't realize that. it was number one coming out of the state ratifying conventions when we said we want a bill of rights, you have to give it to us, we won't ratify. so they were promised a bill of rights so they'd ratify the document. so as we look at the bill of rights and the tenth amendment, of course, it says all powers not delegated to the central

authority, and i'm paraphrasing, are reserved to the people in the states respectively. and this was to go straight after what patrick henry called the sleeping clauses in the ratifying convention, and these were the general clause, the supremacy clause and the necessary and proper clause which i devote a lot of text in the book to. what they, what they wanted to insure with the tenth amendment is the way that the constitution was being sold to the states, that it was going to be a general government for general purposes, that it was going to be a limited government, that it was going to be -- what it said in the constitution was what it said, you can't go beyond that, was codified in the document itself. they didn't necessarily trust people like alexander hamilton and james madison when they swore up and down or james wilson, they swore up and down this thing was not going to be abused. they didn't trust them, so they wanted that tenth amendment, and again, it was first in almost every proposed bill of rights. james madison made it tenth because he wanted to minimize it. but everyone knew that was the most important amendment of the

bunch. so again, it's a general government for general purposes. now, i want to conclude with a quotation from john dickenson. john dickenson, again, was -- this was his constitution in so many ways. and this actually gets back to that point i made before that we have a written constitution rather than an unwritten constitution. and people ask me, well, why are the founding fathers important? well, we have a written constitution, they wrote it, they ratified it, so we should listen to them, and this is why we should listen to them. l during the philadelphia convention when things were get canning out of whack and john dickenson thought we were going too far to the nationalist extreme, he said this: experience must be our only guide, reason may mislead us. it was not reason that discovered the singular and admirable mechanism of the english constitution, it was not

reason that discovered or even could have discovered the odd, the absurd load of trial by jury. accidents produced these discoveries, and experience has given us sanction to them. this, then, is our guide. so he's saying, look, we have a constitution -- what he would say now -- experience has proven through our understanding of history whether it was roman history, greek history, they talked all about this stuff. experience proves that we're trying to do here would be the best form of government, number one, the people of the states would accept but, number two with, that would last s. that's what they wanted to do. they didn't want something torn asunder and taken apart. they had just gone through a war with the british. they didn't want another. they didn't want to see another revolution in the united states. they hoped that a general government could absorb all the different people in the united states. and as we all know, even to this day, people are different from different parts of the united states. and so they hoped that this general government could say, oh, well, we have different people from the south or the

north or the hid atlantic states or the west or wherever we're talking about, but if government doesn't regulate their every move, they can be best served in the states with the laws they think need to be passed. and people often say, my gosh, the states aren't very receptive to that. actually, that's not true. if you look at the issue of, say, religious freedom, virginia was the first state to codify religious freedom even before the bill of rights. other issues of civil liberties that we often discuss today you have more of those in states than you do at the federal level. so people can often be frustrated by the general government, but the state's much more responsive to your wishes. you have a much more adequate representation here in the states, and this is the same thing the founders would say. that's how they argued it. it was a general government again. so the question is, where do we go from here? why write a founding fathers' guide to the constitution? well, i wanted to start the

discussion. i wanted people to be able to take the constitution and look at it, break it apart and say, well, this is what the founding generation meant. i wanted to start the education process. through things like this. through writing the book, through discussions, public discourse, through meetings. i want people l to talk about the constitution again. and thankfully, that's happening. but they need to be armed with the words of the people who wrote it. because if we don't do that, we're failing in their charge of giving this constitution to their posterity. of bringing the blessings of liberty to their posterity. so i'd like you to think about that. as you, hopefully, read the book, as you read the constitution, as you listen to candidates -- doesn't matter what party they're from or where they're from -- if you listen to them talk about things, ask questions about the constitution. well, i want to know what do you

think about the constitution? they all swear to uphold and defend it, so ask them about it. i mean, if their opinion jibes with yours, if the their opinion is in line with your opinion, then great. let's start the discourse. i hope the founding fathers' guide to the constitution is part of that discourse. and be i thank you very much for your time this evening. i will take questions. if you would like to ask a question, please, come down to the microphone and ask. i mean, i hope that you have some. [applause] >> yeah, brion, can you hear he? >> most definitely. [laughter] >> thanks very much. aye been reading -- i've been reading your book, and i've found it very important and well written. so thank you for that. >> thank you. >> [inaudible]

and you mentioned john marshall about the state constitution and what people -- [inaudible] why do you think that the judiciary early on seemed to ignore that? was it a power trip? why -- [inaudible] >> sure. >> [inaudible] which i think is a terrible decision. private property rights. just goes to show you how the judiciary can be a tyranny. >> sure. sure. yeah, thanks. john marshall's an important guy, of course, a member of the founding generation. in fact, in the virginia ratifying convention he swore up and down the supreme court may declare laws unconstitutional, but they would never do that to the states. and he lied, essentially. i mean, he was not being honest. so when he became chief justice, john marshall was by this point, of course, you had politics infused in everything, ask john marshall was with what they would have called a federalist, and you had the jeffersonians who he called terrorists, so he

was very concerned about this revolution that was in so many ways taking over the united states. thomas jefferson had just been elected president in the 100 election. -- 1800. he then was chief justice, put on the bench by john adams, the outgoing president. so what john marshall wanted to do was undo the entire jeffersonian revolution in any way he could. this was politics. so what he decided to do was with use the bench to do it. it's that simple. now, marshall was afraid of democracy. he was very much anti-democratic as well, and i think what he saw in jeffersonianism was this push towards more democracy, and he didn't like that. but, of course, marshall set the precedent that everyone followed whether it was marbury v. madison in 1803, i mean, this sets the stage for every supreme court decision that we've had from there on out. and he was being very disingenuous, but i think for marshall himself he was playing

politics more than anything else, and he really didn't like the jeffersonians, and he worked against them this any way he could. other questions? don't be shy. come on down to the microphone so we can get you on tv. >> [inaudible] >> okay. >> have you ever -- [inaudible] >> i have not. um, primarily because in a survey course, you know, you focus on the general things and move from there. but, yeah, i just, i haven't. and we're, we have a textbook, and that's about it, you know? we try to stay in that, in that very general terms in a survey course. other questions? >> [inaudible] >> sure. >> ?awbl.

[inaudible] >> three. one hasn't been published. it'll come out in may a, but three. >> [inaudible] >> well, thanks. >> [inaudible] >> well, i mean, the mechanism was there to change it. i think, you know, the founding generation, of course, they wrote two constitutions. one was to to the articles of confederation, the other was the constitution. they would say, of course, the will of the people was determined to write a new constitution, then call conventions and do it. i mean, that was discussed. in fact, they openly discussed

having another convention after the philadelphia convention to write another one. so that was a possibility. what they didn't want to have happen is essentially what has happened where we don't write a new constitution, but we have a new constitution in that we're reading between the lines so much and expanding it in ways they didn't see possible. and that's the way it was sold, they would never do that. no one would ever expand the constitution without amending it or getting a new constitution. so i think that they would be receptive if people wanted to have a new constitution, they could call state conventions and do it. but don't go about it the way that americans have ultimately gone about it, and that's changing it without actually changing it. i think that's where the fear would be. any other questions? all right. well, i will be signing books in the lobby if y'all want to -- if you have a book that you'd like

me to sign, i'll also be selling books there, you can purchase one. but i do thank you all for coming out tonight and, you know, appreciate your support and have a good evening. [applause] >> for more information visit the author's web site, brion mcclanahan.com. >> and now more from shreveport weekend here on booktv. >> i'm sean, i'm one of the assistant archivists at the memorial library around dives and special collections at ls us. i have been involved with the parish records for the last two years. recently, we have finished process ago large portion of the records, and we have many people like to e review these including researchers from all over northwest louisiana.

in particular, i'd like to highlight one of our more unique cases that's in the caddo parish coroner's office records, it's the death of a 16-year-old girl in 1934, may giffin, at the hands of the so-called butterfly man, otherwise known as frank lockhart, brutally murdered -- [inaudible] in 1934 in shreveport. so we're going to take a look at one of the records. and here we go. this is a copy of the actual coroner's file on the death of may giffin. this is an original report. um, this was prepared by dr. willis butler, the caddo parish coroner. it describes her death at the hands of fred lockhart who was his alias, daniel napier was his

actual name, and that she was found dead on april 15, 1934 to the right of fetzer avenue in shreveport. the time of her death was fixed thursday afternoon, april 12th, 1934. this is fairly typical, a coroner's report that you'll find in the our files from this time period after the cover sheet, um, you'll find dr. butler's statement as describes the scene where her body was found as well as evidence that was scatter ored around the area -- scattered around the area. he also describes the girl's appearance -- the appearance of fred lockhart, the suspect, in caddo parish jail to find any physical evidence that was present on him. there's reports of the deputy sheriff involved in the case, burt stone. we have statements of other

witnesses that were present that -- at the scene, in this case mr. will marion said that i had been fishing up on the lake two or three years off and on, and albert green and me went fishing yesterday between 8:30 and 9 a.m. we were walking through the woods, and i saw something piled up in a cluster of brush, and i told albert, i see something. and he says, well, what is it? and i said, i don't know until i get there. and albert said, it looks like something dead. i told him to wait, and we would go over there and see. i went over there, and i saw that there was a girl that was murdered, and she had a cluster of leaves and rotten woodpiled on top of her, and she was lying on her side with her legs spread open. so when albert walked up, i told him don't come any closer than 10 feet of the body. and then he goes on to describe how they contacted the sheriff for the murder scene. again, the report goes on. we conclude with a hand-drawn

sketch of the crime scene. this is fairly unique in that you have an actual rough sketch there a well known murder or that accompanies the file. his nick name, the butterfly man, came from the fact that although he was not from here, he appeared to have no fixed, fixed income or employment. he would make small paper butterflies. this is a representation of one of them. and he would sell them on street corners for small fees. and it appears that that is how he met may giffin, was after her death the coroner noted that there was multiple, um, paper butterflies pinned to the wall in her bedroom. so she had probably run into him once or twice before on various street corners selling his paper butterflies, hence his