the war. but when he came home, he was torn and suffered a lot, and he was injured, and i remembered that old, you know, that old thing that you don't question, you don't talk about it. so what's your thought on that? because i really wanted to reach out to my son, but i just was instilled with that boundary of you just don't cross. >> host: chris kyle. >> guest: well, as far as the not talking to him about it, you know, i think a lot of these guys that are having problems, you know, i think ptsd is something that no matter how much you talk about it, i don't think ptsd is going to go away. it's something that you're going to have to learn to live with and work around, but it is definitely something controllable and something that could be put to the back of your mind. ..

och no matter what you have seen or what you have done, i am here for you because you served for me and now i am going to serve you. as far as the rest of your family thank you so much for everything your family has done and i am really sorry that your son has gone through and made such sacrifices but i definitely wish him the best. >> here's the book. select the 12, the autobiography of the most lethal flight carrying u.s. military history. we have been talking with the

author, chris kyle on booktv. thank you, mr. kyle. >> we would like to hear from you. tweak as your feedback at twitter.com/booktv. >> booktv attended the virginia festival of the book held annually in charlotte'sville. christopher phillips discusses his book "constitution cafe" and talks about reactions he received when he spoke to americans about revising the constitution. this is about our. >> we're talking to christopher phillips about "constitution cafe". make sure your cellphone they're turned off.

before you leap wills -- please fill out the evaluation. it depends on how you do things and we always point out the virginia foundation festival of the book is free of charge but not free of cost. we hope you will go on line or make a contribution to the festival. when we had done a presentation we will still book "constitution cafe" and chris will be happy to sell it for you. let me ask during the question and answer period please raise your hand and we're going to give you a mike because we are being filmed by c-span and charlottesville. let me welcome christopher phillips and talk about "constitution cafe". chris has been working for a number of years to encourage civil discourse in conversation about issues that are important to us. in 2001 he authored socrates' cafe which was an african

dialogue on questions of philosophical and other social import. and unquestioning and discussion. there are 600 socrates' cafes operating around the world where people gathered to discuss important philosophical issues. "constitution cafe" began as an effort to address constitutional literacy and apathy. what chris refers to as the untouchable nature of the u.s. constitution. jefferson would be appalled by the fact the we made the constitution scriptural. jefferson in talking about the constitution says this. some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and been one like the arc of the covenant too sacred to the touch. they ascribe to wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. but as new discoveries are made

and new truths disclosed and opinions change with a change of circumstances institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times. jefferson certain we fought that a republic works when people are engaged in their own government including the finding their own constitution. he famously suggested a constitution should be rewritten every 19 years until the ever practical james madison told him that might not be a good idea. nonetheless jefferson as chris reminds us tells us a little rebellion now and then is a good thing and we need to be aware of our own constitution. let me turn it over to christopher phillips in discussing "constitution cafe". >> thank you very much. how are you all doing today? did any of you happen to see the article in the new york times last month where they did a study of constitutions that have been developed in modern times

that shows that the u.s. constitution is no longer the model that is being used? it has fallen out of favor? anybody see that? you did. okay. that was perfect. my moderator's read it. supreme court justice ruth better ginsberg said if i were writing the constitution today i wouldn't use the u.s. constitution as a model either. most pointed to the constitution in canada as a more relevant model today. i am just wondering before i begin my formal presentation, how many of you today think that the u.s. constitution would serve as a good model for constitutional creation in other nations? anyone? a lot of you. a whole lot of you. can you tell me why? is the microphone out there?

i saw a lot of hands go up. right over here. >> it has been around 2 is 36 years. >> so the fact that it has been around a long time means to you that it works. okay. i will use you as a foil for a second. how many of you think our government on the federal level is working fine and dandy these days? oh dear. not one hand goes up. how many of you think our constitution works just fine? hands are going up? is there a disconnect their? who says no? tell me why? can you tell me why? i already have the microphone.

[inaudible] >> going on in the national dialogue. even if you are on opposite sides people speaking out. in the end someone will win. this has been a very stable country for the last -- we did have a civil war of course, but putting that aside this instability in the united states has been a blessing to the rest of the world ever since. >> federal government woefully dysfunctional, constitution find. government stable. okay. anybody else? >> i will address two questions. one was is it a good model? there are some themes in the constitution including separation of powers that are

excellent and worth considering for any new entity making a constitution. in terms of a possible disconnect between the constitution and functioning of the federal government i am not sure that the two are perfectly linked. by that i mean the individuals and the issues that create or functioning of our federal government are not necessarily because of our constitution. >> not necessarily. >> it does not mean the constitution is perfect or cannot be improved in any way, but why are you blinking or

suggesting a link between the constitution and for functioning? >> i didn't. i am trying to see if there is one or not. >> that implies -- >> you think it implies? i am not so sure. how is that for socratic. yes, ma'am? >> several months ago i heard discussions on npr with a scholar who has written a book about the james madison that says james madison intended that the constitution act in the way it is currently doing. back and forth between differing philosophies was something he had consciously set up. >> one other person wanted to say something. >> he said what i am going to say but the problem is we don't go by the constitution.

we have a president taking orders that violate freedom. we have a national defense appropriations act which violates our freedom and our representatives don't seem to be standing up and protecting us from that. >> i saw a lot heads not in. but you agree that is the problem. we are not going by the constitution that we have. how many people agree with that notion? a lot of folks do. you just pointed to legislative branch. how about the executive branch? this thing called executive power which they wheeled, the legislative branch has pretty much seated to the -- legislative branch has pretty much ceded executive power to declare war. the last declared war was when? world war ii. all these other things are not wars. even if we call them that they are not because congress hasn't

declared anything and yet they are being funded. the judicial branch has this power called what? judiciary review. you see anything in the federal government that gives them this power where they determine matters of constitutionality? nowhere to be seen and guess who the president was who threw down the gauntlet about that and said they don't have that power? thomas jefferson. he sure did. but again, we can go back in a minute to our constitution again, but i was very fascinated by this new york times article that indicated that our constitution which for so long had been the template from which other open societies developed their own models, it has fallen

dramatically out of favor and i was looking at some other constitutions around world and there were some interesting things written. one constitution that was just approved in april of 2009 has this statement says the state south's -- of substantially guarantee all citizens genuine democratic rights and freedoms and happy, material and cultural lives. if a constitution can guarantee that to which people, ours doesn't. maybe that is why people -- why our constitution has fallen out of favor elsewhere. can any of you divine where the statement might have come from? i will read it again. the state shall substantially guarantee all citizens genuine democratic freedom, right to freedom, and happy, material and cultural lives. that came out in 2011. april of 2011.

where? egypt. anybody else? any guesses? from the great open society of north korea. i see a look of astonishment. can that possibly mean constitutions don't always live up to their billing? how about this one? level give you another one. this constitution was ratified in 1973. it says the completion of this constitution crowns our people's struggle on the road of the principle of popular democracy. i will read it again. the completion of this constitution crown our people's struggle on the road of the principle of popular democracy. >> zimbabwe? zimbabwe. >> anybody else?

iran? close. syria. isn't that amazing? i will be you one more. this is a constitution approved in 2008. among its basic principles include the flourishing, the flourishing of a genuine disciplined multi-party democratic system and enhancing the eternal principles of liberty, justice and equality. this is the essential bowl. now you are a little gun shy. afghanistan? iraq? me and mark, formerly known as burma. what does that mean. all these societies that

consummate the closed-this one mentions democratic but refused to allow them in blog. china. at the scene my presentation before? constitutions don't always live up to their billing. what our constitution is supposed to do? what are they supposed to achieve? what is their function? offering a guide? what else? constrained the government? what else? set goals? standards? could they even saet verges?

give rights? state constitution specify virtues for constitution -- people running for office. so most of you think the constitution is basically ok but there are other problems in the government. jefferson did have a rather considered zany in his time, tried for this idea again and again that every 19 years or so we should take a tally of the existing constitution and go through it, starting from the preamble and work our way down and ask ourselves, empower ourselves in his way of looking at it, not to say we had to make any changes but we should go through and ask ourselves is this still the best reflection of our ideas and ideals when it comes whar form of government or

should certain articles >> and if so, why? this was an idea that never gained traction in his time. people across the political spectrum have been calling for a new constitutional convention. are any of you familiar with republic lost? he has been prominent in calling for a new constitutional convention. i would say not so fast. not so fast. there is a reason for that. i want to take a poll. how many of you think if you had your druthers and were empowered to make changes how many of you, not through the amendment method but if you could start from scratch as jefferson proposed and take a tally of the how many would think you would want to make some changes to the constitution? a very small number. how many of you by and large would keep it as it is?

most of you would keep it as it is. let me ask one more question. how many of you have read the constitution? this is good. how many of you read it in the last week? last month? last year? that is a big part of the constitution -- the "constitution cafe" project was based on the fact that most americans have not read the constitution. 4,000 some odd words. we have widely varying interpretations of what some sections of that amount to, a concise document, fairly accessible and intelligible even as we differ in our

interpretations of its. but i believe that you can't really -- constitutional literacy is absolutely vital. it affects every aspect of our lives. the late senator of west virginia robert byrd introduced legislation which passed overwhelmingly that says all schools public and private debt receive any modicum of federal funding have to study the constitution on constitution day but lo and behold a comprehensive national survey by the constitution in monday earlier, former home of james madison shows most americans have not read it. the federal government, they are not doing what they're supposed to even on constitution day. didactic construction occurred to me.

one reason i started the constitution project and gallivanting for two years across the fruited plain, and if you could change the constitution what language would you put in various articles and why? twofold objective, with this imaginative project to the framers of the so-called new constitution it inspires us to immerse ourselves in the existing documents. even -- is one thing to look at the existing constitution and argue back and forth over varying interpretations. it is another matter when we use that as a springboard for discussing what language, new language if any we will introduce today. we use interpretations of language for impotence will be

like today. and in berkeley to the mall of america and the food court section of the mall of america in minneapolis to monticello and virginia and where i graduated from and jefferson graduated from a couple years before me. and so for me one of the things i realize is i have not immersed myself in this document as i should. so i became curious about the constitution. what americans thought about it. are any of you familiar with my socrates' cafe project? a lot of you are familiar with that. i started that in 1996. a second term in the clinton administration when americans were polarized. any sort of public discourse quickly devolves into a lot of intellectual browbeating and interrupting outthrust. i felt democracy could not thrive if that was the only

monologue we had so i tried to start socrates' cafe where we investigated pressing philosophical conundrums in public places where we didn't know where we were going to get together the means for developing dialogue virtues that many of our founders had where a celebrated difference of point of view. can you imagine? they listened to one another. they were passionate about their views and try to support their views imaginatively but they also had empathy and wanted to know what other people fought as well so that is what the socrates' cafe project was. i tried to take that dialogue to bring them over to the "constitution cafe" project. when socrates cafe started clinton looked like he might be impeached. we didn't know but americans were screaming at each other. 16 years later americans have come together as one. is that right? you are laughing. you are laughing. wire you laughing?

you mean we are more polarized than ever? oh dear. what about -- let's use the constitution as a way of bringing americans together, vastly disparate points of view and to celebrate difference in perspective. what we try to do and a typical "constitution cafe" gathering. i have a website up. constitutioncafe.org. i try to put myself in places where the chances are good that we're going to have very different points of view and where we don't just agree to disagree but take time to listen not just to where we're coming from but where we have to thoughtfully say why we are coming from where we are coming from as we develop our notions of what a constitutional article

book like. the difference between socrates' cafe and this besides the fact we are not discussing philosophical questions is we really try to typically have two thirds participants agree on what new language we would devise if we did develop a new constitutional article to supplant any existing one in the constitution itself. that takes time. it doesn't always work. didn't work with the second amendment. i right about that. anywhere i went i tried to write a new second amendment, freedom to bear arms groups were almost evenly divided every single time. never the twain shall meet. the division was based on their interpretation of existing second amendment. it was atrociously written so you can read into anything you want. great exercise. even as they want to make a

language more clear they nonetheless differed very markedly on that. what was interesting is almost every time we looked at constitutional article at least 60% to 80% of folks want to make significant changes to the articles. i don't know if that speaks to the fact that if we did get together we would make significant changes to that. may be over time that would lead to a new constitutional convention. i am not sure but i do believe any calls for a new constitutional convention today are very premature. that before we even consider such a notion we need to read our existing document. all of us. we need to appreciate it very much. >> the difference between what is actually written in the constitution you start out by saying not so fast. just repeated that.

and all of the encrustations in terms of the governing bodies that have grown up that are not really part of the tradition and change evolving but not really embedded in the constitution. >> i like that term encrustation. just like barnacles on a ship. it would be a really long book if i had delved into that. and wish i had used that. we need to distinguish between statutes that developed as a result of the constitutional articles and lots of books have been written about that and really take a very close examination of the articles as they exist now hand as was pointed out here a lot of people believe that if we really practice and operate our government in a way that reflected what was written in the constitution rather than these, everything would be

working fine. one of the participants pointed out people are pretty active these days. and yet so many things have been read into the constitution. so many vacuums in the constitution have been filled that were never intended. even the most conservative framers i would think would be very surprised today at how few changes have been made on our constitution since the bill of rights only 17 amendments since then. how many of you think it is a good thing that they're only been 17 amendments? okay. four think -- the last constitutional amendment -- have a look this up lately -- number 27. the twenty-seventh amendment. that was passed in 1992. it has been a long time. that amendment, that proposed amendment made its way through congress in what year?

do you know? 1789. it made it out of congress in long time ago but it took until 1992 for that amendment to the past would have to do with congressional pay raise. that would be an impossible -- impossibility today that had its way out of congress even 15 years ago much less over 200 years ago. do you know why? because congress now on the very rare occasion that it does allow a proposed amendment to make it out of chambers and be considered by the state's it now imposes arbitrary time limits on how long those amendments can be considered. guess what? the constitution mentions nothing about time limits.

people argued before the supreme court which has taken its power of judicial review that the constitution doesn't give it and asked them is this constitutional that congress imposes arbitrary time limits and the supreme court using and constitutional powers as yes. they do have that authority. what happened with our last amendment can't happen today. was a big controversy with the equal rights amendment. congress impose an arbitrary time limit. they came close to having it passed. they asked congress to give them a little longer. congress gave the logger but not much. they couldn't do it. some states rescinded their approval. but ever since then any amendment that made it out of congress has been given an arbitrary time line. that is something a lot of people when i have "constitution cafe" gatherings in which we look into rewriting the labyrinthine process for

amending the constitution-how many of you think down the road it might be a good idea? somewhere down the road as we do become constitutionally literate let's say we did become literate on a very pervasive scale, think it might be a good idea to have a new constitutional convention five years or ten years? a good number of you. can i ask you why? why do you think that might be a good idea? >> if you have a well-informed political body, well-informed citizen body then that is definitely your best opportunity to create a lasting document, document that is more applicable

to today's environment. >> if we did have a well-informed body it would be a much more palatable idea to consider? >> it would be a better opportunity to do so. >> and others agree? >> i go with one view that those to the point of view the country has a well informed background in history which i don't think this country no longer has. there is too much emphasis on the hard sciences rather than the dead and moldy history so-called that some people say repeats itself and other -- basically no one pays attention to it and there are reasons to get into it. you have more people into history than the educational system and that is a big issue and a change.

>> maybe if we did in verse ourselves. my hope and expectation is maybe these gatherings of "constitution cafe" will let least get people much more curious about their past and look at things in context and really understand. i came to a much greater appreciation of our framers as i engage in these "constitution cafe" gatherings. half of you think if there's a well-informed public, maybe if we had a much keener sense of our history it might be a good idea down the road. let's say we did have a new constitutional convention. what process would you want for choosing our framers for a new constitution if we did have a new constitutional convention? would you want the same process we had for choosing our original framers? what is that process? what was the process for choosing the framers of the

original federal document? excuse me? they had a -- they had to go about choosing them. states -- did the people have any say so whatsoever? none. they were self elected, self selected. was held behind closed doors with jefferson found anathema. there's no public record of the proceedings. if we had a well-informed group of regular citizens to they would you want a democratic process for choosing the framers if we ever did hold a new constitution? yes? >> we may be -- let's say we are well informed but if we remain that doesn't mean we won't remain as polarized as we are and in that case the people who will be pushing hard to be at the constitutional convention will be the ones who have a

vested interest in getting their position. that message would not prevail. >> this interest. heaven forbid. >> vested interests are necessary but -- >> is there some process? is there some process that make sure that the vested interests that sir on a constitutional convention would be reflective of the american populace as a whole? >> and democratic front. as long as it was not something like a supercommittee that was -- supposed to take care of our deficits. >> he didn't like the supercommittee? that was one of my favorite things. just kidding. i hear that quite a bit. let's come back over here. i don't mind in theory a new constitutional convention or democratic process but i don't want those tea party people part of it and the tea party, don't

want those moveon.org folks having too much say. is there some way to have a democratic process for choosing our framers or just having a process leaders will leave out the word democratic. if we are framing a new constitution you might not want a democracy. you might wonder what we have to take? our constitution doesn't mention the word democracy or democratic. it is not just a republic but a constitutional republic which means those in office whether elected office or running government are supposed to adhere to the constitution. you can have a constitutional republic that is supremely open but you can also have one that is supremely closed. what would your suggestion be? >> the solution might be a parliamentary system. i am going back to jefferson's

brilliant weaving -- those are -- of the ideas of his time, went on lock set whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends of the people it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. >> in the declaration. >> at the constitutional convention benjamin franklin based a great deal of his insight on the iroquois democracy which were simply council based. and of course very much smaller communities. but recognized elder because of experience and potential, the potential of young people.

>> you are already envisioning a new form of government. i am just trying to get -- i am looking at just choosing the framers who will decide what the scaffolding would be. >> doesn't unparliamentary system allow for more frequent election of those who would frame our government as we move along? >> let's look at that. how many of you can think of a process you think would be fair for choosing those who would decide whether we would stay with a type of government we have now or change it dramatically? is there some sort of process that you think would work for selecting the framers? is there some sort of process? voting process? suddenly gone from here -- it is difficult. we might even assume that this is a sort of you might want the process to the democratic.

how many of you would actually want more of the elites from society? the better educated? how many would want that? you would. how come? >> if you're building a rocket to go to the menu don't want -- [inaudible] >> if you're going to build a rocket you don't ask the average american how to do it you go to a specialist. the original founders were great thinkers. james madison is one of the greatest political thinkers that they couldn't possibly have envisioned a vast constitutional republic we have today but you nonetheless think we should get mostly experts. now there's lots of constitutions so more room for

experts. >> i agree we need experts but there have to be some fundamental changes in the way those experts take their pedestals. for example it seems these days the way congressional districts are drawn every ten years, it is a very partisan exercise. rather than voters selecting candidates and their representatives almost as if the representatives are selecting their voters. the other one is it seems recently that money, outside money has become a very big issue. if those two were to be cleaned up perhaps we have more statesman and then going to the experts might then be a good method. >> perhaps so. it was interesting inventions that. in one of the dialogue the recount in my "constitution cafe" book and a lot of

jefferson's thinking is related to the constitution even though he was not in the constitutional convention is very visionary. the existing language in our constitution says when it comes to moving or -- choosing members of congress we could have one member of congress for how many folks? [inaudible] >> not less than 30,000. >> do you know our existing constitution says we can have one member of congress for every 30,000 constituents. right now. no change is needed. how many constituents does your average member of congress have? hundreds of thousands usually. i had a constitution cafe dialogue with one retired member of congress who didn't want to

be retired the was retired in a primary process and a sitting member of congress where we talked about that. what do you think? the number of members of congress was increased gradually for the longest time as did population in the united states increase and all of a sudden it was cut off. 435. has been that way for many decades. one member of congress said let's go back and have one member of congress for every 30,000 constituents. do you know how many members of congress that would be? >> more than you want to pay for. >> let's talk about that. about 10,000. so how many think that is too and will be to have 10,000 members of congress? we have 435 now and each one has an army of 24 staffers so you

multiplied at and guess what you get? you get the same number. what if -- let's eliminate the staffers and have one member of congress, no staffers for every 30,000 constituents. i personally like that idea. they might even get to know you by name. they might not have to spend all their time after they are elected raising money for their next election. to me it is not that far-fetched an idea. it is an idea you wouldn't have to make any changes to the constitution that is it exists today. one member of congress fought in an ideal world and we are using our imagination, visualizing a democracy in which our representatives are truly representatives. what would be so bad with having -- eliminating the army of staffers and actually having a bonafide congressperson instead of a staffer. it would be a nice idea.

remember, what some consider the cradle of democracy in ancient athens the first five thousand or so folks were corralled into the stadium and they were the legislatures. it is not like it would be a big stadium full of people. with internet and cyberspace you think we could create ways of intimacy that would not make it such a difficult proposition today. that might be an idea that would first begin with choosing framers for a new constitutional convention. i will read to you a dialogue i held about this very subject. what we were looking at was what i thought we were looking at was examining the existing article that talks about how to ratify the constitution because the or original constitution -- how many original colonies had to

approve the constitution? nine? guess what. is exactly nine of the original states did approve that constitution. you think they knew at the outset that is how many they needed? i think they did. i think they knew exactly. let me read you -- this section from my book is called love, buy and for the people. i thought we would look at the section in article 7 of the ratification of nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of the constitution between the states so ratifying the same. one thing i like about constitution cafe dialogues is it takes unexpected directions. at the green dragon tavern. the know who met their? the original tea party types. not to confuse them with tea

party years today even though they do link themselves to that. that is where they gathered. the very first participants. i always assumed the constitution says somewhere that hours is a government of, by and for the people. this is a woman who works at an organic farming gardening cooperative who took part in this gathering with me. it turns out that that phrase that i thought was the soul of the constitution was actually in what? lincoln's gettysburg address. that is one of the nice things about "constitution cafe" gathering. a lot of things we assume are in this aren't but we can go back and check them learn about it and she said it was in the gettysburg address and lincoln told 15,000 people who came to hear him speak at the union victory ceremony that the civil war hadn't been thought just to preserve the union but to launch a new birth of freedom.

lincoln claimed with the civil war won a, quote, of the people, by the people and for the people would at last be created and shall not perish from the earth. there has never been such a government in the united states. there never will be unless the framers of the constitution themselves are democratically elected. it is not enough for the first word of the preamble to be we the people because this doesn't gloss over the fact that our constitution was created by 55 wall of white males who met behind closed doors. they created an article for how this constitution would be ratified that virtually guaranteed it would become the law of the land. article 7 require the approval of nine of the original 13 colonies and she says exactly nine states voted to ratify.

and typically by conventions tended by well-off white property molders. this prompts a woman named sylvia to say if this constitution cafe project is to feature a government of, by and for the people in has to include an article detailed and democratic process for ratification. but even more importantly there needs to be in this separate new article, a spell out process for how framers are drafting the constitution are chosen. our existing constitution doesn't have an article addressing this because they simply point to themselves. it is not just a form of government created that determines whether it is of, by and for the people but the process by which the form of government is decided upon and this requires totally open process for choosing framers. i asked what kind of specific

process would you recommend? a woman says we could create an article that deals with how to choose framers and how to ratify the constitution they construct. it might say something like each state shall name by democratic voting procedures x number of delegates to take part in the constitutional convention. upon construction of the constitution, by the convention delegates, final ratification will require the approval by a majority of voters in each state, only then shall the constitution be deemed established between the states. it would be better if delegates to the framers that a constitutional convention are chosen randomly just as people are picked to sit on juries. that way the framers would be representative of the populace as a whole.

some you like and some you are dismayed. jenny who made the original proposal set by democratic voting process for delegates i assume you mean a conventional election which -- with transitional campaigning followed by a vote in which people choose from a list of candidates. if that is so than those with the most money to campaign and get their message out would likely be elected as delegates. that would mean those elected to the framers would not be those who are most representative of americans. the advantage of a selection process for gathering delegates at long as the random sample is large enough is it a shores there will be a true cross-section of americans serving as framers. sylvia says i was a member of students for democratic society in the 1960s. anyone here was a member? she is referring to the new student activist movement found

in 1960 and she had with her a copy of the original sts constitution. this preamble approved at our convention in 1962 states that ours was a, quote, and association of young people on the left that seeks to create sustained community of educational and political concerns and maintains a vision of a democratic society where at all levels the people have control of the decisions that affect them and the resources on which they are dependent. she goes on the sbf constitution claimed its masson -- mission was to create government of, by and for the people even though it makes clear the believe that just a subset of americans -- again refers to the spf constitution began liberals and radicals leaders and activists and scholars of this little students and faculty are the most adept at realizing what the constitution described as a democratic society where at all

levels people had control of the decisions which affect them and the resources on which they are dependent. she says i have often wondered in all the years since can one small segment, no matter how well-intentioned whether the framers of our original constitution or students for democratic society constitution can they ever create a government of, by an for the people with most of the people left out of the process of creating the constitution itself. this brings rafael to say i am not sure that a constitution has to include participation of potentially everyone or even a random sample to create a government of, by and for the people. he says what matters most is that final product//people or two hundred million people

details how to make such a government come true. it goes on the constitution -- the justice group by worked for was created by two people. it describes itself as an organization which all involved in our group in any way made decisions as equals so it claimed to be of, by and for the people. all those working for the organization and those being served by the organization and in the policymaking and program implementation process everyone's vote counted equally. he goes on but only staff members got to those. raw file says i propose the staff meeting that we change our policy for how we decide policy. i suggest if our group is going to be with its constitution claims than the people we serve must play an equal part in the decisionmaking process.

that would be real empowerment. really democratic. my fellow staff members accuse me of being too idealistic as if that is an affliction. those opposed to my view argue that the people we serve were due down and out to make decisions on their own behalf. my opinion was you want to make them down and out let them decide with us as equals. they thought i was not so i left the organization soon after words. then he says now i am thinking sylvia's suggestion is right on target. and a constitution weather for nonprofit or gated community or radical movement or country has to be created by all those who are impacted released genuinely representative or random sample of those who have to live by its dictates. that way will be a product of we the people and i am starting to come around to this view.too.

the constitution created by a randomly selected group of framers called for a type of government in which all those involved make decisions as equals there will be a greater likelihood that that will become reality. that is a snippet from the dialogue but here's the article they came up with. it was near unanimous agreement. each state shall appoint to a constitutional convention delegates authorized to construct a federal constitution. the delegates in each state shall be chosen randomly. in order to have a viable random sample the number of delegates chosen respective state to the framers shall be 50 times the total number of members of congress. win said constitution is completed by the framers it will require the ratification of a majority of voters in each of the states and only then shall be sufficient for the establishment of this

constitution between the state so ratifying the same. >> 8 to cut this off but we're running out of time. 26,000 constitutional boundaries but i want to give people a chance to ask one or two questions but we have to cut it off. we have to be done at 11:00 which is three minutes from now and we have a book signing. >> if you let the experts run things it would make lawyers in charge of the whole deal. if you don't want guns legally ignore the duty to them. and that was the thing that would get you into power and they will put a green way through and make you do something you don't want to do with your property and that is

like mitt romney -- and we have a mormon white house. >> one thing i write about following this dialogue is the fact that one of our original 13 states there in fact was a democratic process of choosing the framers for the state constitution. you know what that state was? the state of pennsylvania. not only could property holders vote for delegates -- framers but any white male whether he takes taxes -- they couldn't run. was the only state that not only had a really democratic process for the time but ordinary people who didn't pay taxes could run to be a delegate. they chose ordinary framers by and large to be delegates to the constitutional convention to the framers. they came up with a radically inclusive participatory democracy the likes of which we have never seen since and i right about that in "constitution cafe" and i hope

you will take a look at that. it is an amazing process that only lasted a short time until the oligarchy did away with it. for a very short period of time there was an inclusive democracy in the state of pennsylvania. the one person who wasn't ordinary at all who shuttled between the federal constitutional convention and the convention in pennsylvania was ben franklin. he liked the radical wing close of participatory democracy framed in the constitution of pennsylvania. >> another question in the back here? >> i believe basically in the constitution but i would also like to know if you change the constitution, would eventually phase out the old constitution completely? >> my short answers i don't

know. depends on what people would want. do you think that would be a good thing or bad thing to phase it out? >> not to phase it completely out because the basics which is important. some basic guidelines about freedom. have a hard time explaining. the balance of power. how would that be handled? >> the state constitution in pennsylvania actually had a fourth branch, the people. the state legislature passed any law that people found anathema they had one year to ve