most of all, i really want to thank all of you for coming out. time is the only resource that we have and the only people that we really have is each other. i thank you all so much for coming. i think i like new york. i might come back. thank you very much. go and purchase the book. i'll be here to sign some copies. thank you. for more information, visit hue man bookstore.com. >> and now brian mechanic -- brn mechanic and

>> good evening. welcome to alabama and chattahoochee valley community college. we affectionately referred to the college by an acronym. i have been president since july last year of the college. technically, i'm still a freshman. it is my pleasure to introduce one of our distinguished faculty members. doctor brian mcclanahan. he has been at the college since 2005. he's a faculty member in the social sciences division. he received his bachelor's degree in history in maryland. his masters in history from the university of south carolina. he has been around -- if you've been around for any length of time, you'll find out that he is a bright mind. since 2005, he previously taught at jefferson community college.

some do not associate the community college with. .. >> how y'all doing? great.

thanks for coming. i do appreciate it. it's good is he a bunch of my students here and, of course, friends from the community and faculty. your support is welcomed. i would also like to thank of course cattahoochee valley community college for letting me do this here, and doctor cannon, kelli williams and karen kelly, and all the people that helped me put this together. and also c-span who's here tonight covering the event your and, of course, they would be remiss if i didn't thank my family who unfortunately couldn't make it tonight for giving me the support for doing this. also the support to write my other books and have time to do those things when there didn't seem to be much time to do anything. so that are of course the backbone of all this. now, before i start i'd like to tell each one of my students, actually this book is dedicated to you. it is dedicated to much of an dedicated to you for the reason being every semester at cvcc i

teach the constitution. and as you all are aware when i do that, i ask the question of how many of you have ever read the constitution and, of course, usually one hand goes up, maybe two, sometimes none. so every semester i'm confronted with the fact that i go into a blank slate. it's unfortunate because the constitution of course is the governing document for the united states. we often hear about the constitution and what it means but there really isn't much information out there teaching the american public about it. that's a relatively recent phenomena because it used to be people talk about the constitutional law, whether it was in congress, when they debated a bill in question was constitutional or not, whether it was in the public through public discourse, through commentaries on the constitution. this was a big topic for many years indiana state. but not so much anymore. and oftentimes you hear that the

constitution is too old, it's archaic. the last time i checked he wasn't written in all things. it's not shakespearean. there's no -- is east understand if you just sit down to read it but most people don't take the time. i think it's because they are scared. well, they don't bring a witness. they say his commanders article ii, here's article iii. what do those things mean quick so my job in writing this book was to ask a gay people a readable story of the constitution. and not just that, i went to clause by clause and a broken valve so that students of the constitution, whether they are at cvcc or whether they're in california or maine or hawaii, or washington, d.c., or across the country, would know what it meant to read the constitution, what the founding generation said this constitution and. meant.

and also is motivated to writing the book because of the charge in the constitution itself. the founding generation lead this to the posterity. that's often a word we don't use. we have a sacred trust to know what the constitution means. to understand it, to read it, to digest it. and so again by doing this i hope the american people would read that if their students of the constitution. now, oftentimes you hear different ideas about the constitution. some will say the constitution, you can read into, it's stretchable. and passwords, and you can read these words but we have to go beyond that. because that's what this supreme court judge or this constitutional scholar says it means. then you have those specific

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. and there's this big debate. people get confused by this over which one is it. is it loosely interpret document, is it an inelastic document or is it a limiting document? and so i thought to cut through all that. i really didn't care what modern scholar said about the constitution, to be honest with you. i really didn't care what the supreme court said about the constitution. i cared what the founding fathers said about the constitution. and so my journey began there. and, in fact, when i conceptualize this book i pitched it to begin with, those of you don't of the publishing process can be patient idea in the neutral gesture know, and you were told yes, then you go from there. so when i pitched the idea, i was going to focus almost primarily on the opponents of the constitution. i will talk about some these terms in a moment, but i've come

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 but. i said okay, well, how can we work with this? so we brainstormed, decided we would write a constitution, a book on the constitution pace over the founding generation said about the constitution. both for the constitution and against the constitution. i had read a lot into it about this. but as i started digging through the mountains of research that is out there on the subject, i realize i've only scratched the surface. much of what i knew was going to be changed, or at least in some way, what i thought i knew about it was only going to be more involved. because as i got into the material i said my gosh, this is deeper than i thought. what i'd often thought about the constitution is there, but there's so much more to it. it is much more complex than even what i've said about the

constitution in my first book. and, of course, when you're looking at this document, and i say it's, it's not just the founding fathers that you're for me with. i will talk about them in a minute, but it's all founding generation. this is a generational book for the american generation, not just one, two, three people and what they said. i went and looked at what everyone said about it, and that i could put my hands on, and public documents. this thing had to be sold to people. i will talk about that in a second. the founding fathers are important because they wrote it. and so i thought wouldn't this worst be better than going to the people who wrote the document itself, and who actually had to present this thing to 13, sometimes hostile ratifying conventions and tell people this is what it means. they had to go to the presidency this is what you might be saying the constitution will do x, y and z, but no know be reassured it's not going to do that. this is actually what it means.

so that's the constitution we should be looking at. that is the founding fathers constitution. that is the constitution as i said in the book over and over again, ratified. that process is very important that all ratification process. the constitution meant nothing until the states decided to ratify it. so that's the over all subject of the book. and 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. but often time you will get the statement, the founding fathers which is combative group of people that didn't quit eating. what founders are talking to as well as some of the big names. or maybe you know some of the names. you part of alexander hamilton. you've probably heard of james madison and john jay, the authors of the federalist papers. e85 essays in defense of the

constitution. so most people that read the constitution and think that they understand the constitution look at the document and maybe look at it for newspapers and say that's a. but it's deeper than that. in fact, it goes much deeper than that. i would argue in the book, and i say this in the federalist papers are not as important as using. they were written in new york, and he didn't have much of an impact in new york itself. because the state of newark on the ratify the constitution by three votes. three votes. so these 85 essays that people say are the definitive source on the constitution didn't have much impact at the time. but there are others and there were other members of that generation who perhaps were more important than people like james madison. james madison was often called the father of the kosygin but i say that's a misnomer. the historical scholarship on that subject has kind of come around to that. overtime. he did present the virginia plan, or at least wrote it, and,

of course, it was presented by the virginia delegation at the philadelphia convention. but the constitution that 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 probably never heard before like john dickinson of delaware. you're probably saying who the heck is john dickinson? this was a guy who was called the payment of the revolution. 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 constitution for james madison had written, and he said no, no. we are not having that. that's not going to work, in these united states. or just someone like roger sherman of connecticut, a man that thomas jefferson once said never said, i'm paraphrasing, never said a stupid thing in his life. this is also his constitution because again he was a

conservative moderating influence. when he got to the philadelphia convention and he's a james madison's work, he again said no, we're not having that in these united states. it's not going to work. the people of connecticut will never agree to this thing. or john rutledge of south carolina, another very important founding father. john rutledge of course would later serve on the supreme court. he basically helped win the american war for independence and south carolina from the saddle of the gun. and he said no, this constitution that you've written, mr. madison, is not going to work in south carolina. we need to modify this thing. so that's what happened in philadelphia but, in fact, one historic call to the in philadelphia because no one was going to be sure if this is going to get out of philadelphia to begin with. there were so may different ideas and opinions floating around in philadelphia that it appeared the constitution was going to die before the middle of the summer of 1787. and the story that you often hear about that constitution is simple.

it's the large states against the small stick to the people i just listed all came from small states. madison of course was my very large state. but that's not the real issue. in fact the real issue was what type of government we going to have. was going to be a national government or a federal government? and so today we have this term, we have a federal government. in the founding generation they didn't call it that. they didn't call it that coming out of philadelphia. the people like dickinson and sherman at rutledge said we don't want a national government. we want a federal government. james madison wanted a national government. there's a difference. the federal government was a general government, meaning it only a general purposes in mind and that basically everything else was left to the states themselves. and that's what the majority of the founding generation argued for. not a national government which basically put all power in the

center of 40. they weren't going to have that. so when you start talking about general versus federal and national versus federal, these are important terms. and the fact they haven't gone away. you still hear the terms the united states is a nation today, and so that term is still thrown around. the founding generation was a is for general purposes. i will talk about that in the preamble in a few minutes. so when the constitution came out of philadelphia in september 1787, no one was even sure that the thing would get ratified. they had written it, talked about it, sweated over it. they have poured their hearts out in some cases but no one was sure it would make it out of nine states which was all required data all that was required to ratify. so then had to be sold. and that sales job is actually a talk about more in the book and anything else but i do bring up the philadelphia convention because sometimes you can't understand the constitution and

the language without understanding what they said then in philadelphia. but often times you can't understand the constitution and what they said it meant 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. he said the constitution only 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 present in philadelphia things nothing. what the state ratifying conventions said it meant means everything. we don't often hear about these things. in fact, perhaps the most famous supreme court justice ever, john marshall was a member of the founding generation, never one time reference the state ratifying conventions in any of his decision. they really are never

referenced. the state ratifying conventions where everything was discussed, everything was hammered out, in the state, meaning of them waving states in support, were sold the constitution, sold a bill of goods in essence on the basis of what the constitution meant. and that's were i said i was going to write the book based on the opponents of the constitution and what they said it meant, but again i bring both proponents and opponents. so let me talk about those two terms, proponents and opponents of the document you often had our two groups, the federalist and anti-federalist. those terms are wrong. in fact they were not federalist and anti-federalist. they were rats and anti-rats. which is pretty funny. he was very colorful. so you have these federalists in mlb which are talking at many times are nationalists. they believe in a strong central authority. they thought more power should

be in the center government, and then you have the federalist who were often called the anti-federalist. they believe were there's a general government and in the states have much of the authority. this is the debate. how much authority is that sentiment going to an out of the state governments going to have. that's what we get out of this entire process. you hear it over and over again. and again that's the main point of the book, to go to these different opinions, but what i found shocked me. i expected to write a book and say well, yeah, there were a lot of different opinions, and say kind of have to bring this out yourself, which one was right, but what i found was this. over and over again the opponents of the constitution should the government was going to do x, y and z if you pass this thing were told by the proposal, those who supported it, that no, you're wrong, they were i to on the same position 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 concerns. that's it. i'll talk about how that worked in a few minutes why they thought that was important. and a but it was not going to be a national government. and is not going to abolish the states which some people feared. so as i dug through these declarations, public decorations and speeches and pamphlets and all these, multitude of volume of stuff. the general consensus began to appear, and i put as much of it as a king above because i wanted people to see the. the other thing that i've often heard about is that i use a lot of quotation but sometimes that can make it a little dry. i didn't want it to be brion mcclanahan's guide to the constitution i wanted it to be the founding fathers guide to the constitution pixar put as

much of them into as a good they're better at saying what meant that i am. and it's not hard to understand so the coats were important to me. i want to put as many as i could in there. and effect there's actually two appendices in the back of the book that are nothing but quotes, stuff that i thought was great but i couldn't invoke summer because i didn't have space. i actually think those two sections of the book are in some ways the most fun because you can actually read what they said. some of that stuff is just so needy, you just want to sit there and read it for us but at least i do. so, what we have of course is a written constitution for the united states of america, and that four is important to its fourth united states of america. i want to read you a quote and i will go back to this in a few minutes as i go through these different branches of

government. this was said by samuel johnson of north carolina. and he said this in the first no skill and ratifying convention. it's important to designate the first north carolina ratifying convention. because north carolina essentially refused to ratify the document. they had to have to ratifying conventions. he said this, a parallel has been drawn between the british parliament and congress. the powers of congress are all circumscribe, 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. power of parliament is unbounded. that's an important distinction to make. i will keep going back to the. 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 change, because they thought it could be changed to an amendment process.

what they did and what happened, and this is how the thing was so, what they didn't want happening with people going in and changing it without amending it. change it to judicial opinions or through legislative decisions or bills, executive orders, whatever we do now. they didn't want it changed in that way. and so when you start looking at how the founding generation so this thing, it becomes very clear. and i often have debated people about this. you say that constitution says what it means and it means what it says. that's true. they intended it to be very specific. and that's how they sold a. people said it wouldn't be interpreted that way, but that's neither here nor there. it was sold in 1787 and 1788 that it would be literally interpreted. not the other way around. so let's start with the preamble, the most famous 52 words in the constitution. we the people of the united states, many of you could recite

it. there are a lot of misconceptions about the preamble and again this is something i will talk about that may surprise people, or things that you don't know. one thing of course the preamble says is the constitution is going to be set down for their posterity. so in that way they intend this thing to be long lasting but it is the longest lasting written constitution for the world today. so they wanted it to be that way. and i thought to the amendment process it could be that way. otherwise you have a new constitution. but they intended it to last forever longtime and there were many members of the founding generation that said that. but what most people don't know about the preamble is the original preamble. probably no one has ever read it or very few people have ever read it. but when the constitution was first presented in philadelphia, this is what it said. we the people of the states of new hampshire, massachusetts,

rhode island, connecticut, new, new jersey, pennsylvania, dell, north to live in south carolina and georgia do establish the following constitution for the government of ourselves and our prosperity. that was the original preamble. you might want to wonder why the heck did they change it. it's very simple. the man who's in charge of changing the preamble was named gouverneur morse, a nationalist. he was thinking along the same lines as james madison. but they were afraid of some things. number one, rhode island didn't even send a delegation to the philadelphia convention site can you listen to the preamble when they are not there? number two, when all 13 states ratified this thing, and if they did and you list them in the preamble, that could cause some problems. so the constitution was only binding on the states that ratified it. not everyone ratified it, it wouldn't be binding on them.

it 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. that's what it says. that's what the constitution is. but let me say what james madison said about the preamble because this is something most people have never heard of before. this is a quote from james madison. in general terms or phrases used in the introductory propositions and now so much constructed ingenuity were never meant to be inserted in their loose form in the text of the constitution. like resolution for preliminary to illegally engaging accounts it was understood by all that they were beat reduced into the form in which they were to be final and offered. that's it. so this is a preliminary phrase, an introduction, nothing more. it just take the constitution

would not states of america and and that's if it's oftentimes we list things out of that one of the most famous is the terms the general welfare but i will talk more about that in a second. but the constitution, the preamble to the constitution is the every school child is required to recite it really means nothing but it's a beautiful 50 keywords. but that's it. it said that the constitution. and that's all that it is therefore. and i think that shocks people because they think i know the preamble so i know the constitution. well, it goes a lot deeper than that. the other thing that i think individuals find shocking is the executive branch. of course, were coming up on a presidential election season and all the stuff is flying around. we all have our favorite candidate, or maybe even support the president or the opponents of the president so we are focus on executive branch. but most americans don't realize it's the exact opposite of what

the founding fathers wanted us to do. and even in history were guilty of this. you focus on administration. we start with the washington ministration can go to the john adams, jefferson, we focus on the said ministration and we do this all throughout history. all the way up to the present. but again that's not an essay the founding fathers wanted to the constitution interpreted. because they just broken away from a very conflict in king george iii about tenured or little 10 years before this thing was written. under the articles of confederation, the president was nonexistent. the president was simply the president of congress and any committee set up. so the executive branch didn't in fact in because there was no executive branch. of course, we got to philadelphia, they wanted to. the founding generation thought we needed a strong executive, but how strong? that was always the question.

the president it must be noted is not a teen. i think sometimes we don't think that. but the founding generation to a man feared executive power over all else. didn't really care about legislative power. they can care about the power of the states. they cared about executive power because they had seen the timing up to the american war of independence, what that executive to do. they also had history on the side and i'll talk about that in a second. 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 what is going through the ratification process, and he used a pen name,

cato, he said this. compared your opinions and sentiments with the present proposed establishing and you'll find if you adopted, talk about the constitution, that will lead you into the system which you heretofore reprobated as odious. every american week not long since bore his emphatic testimony against a monarchical government. though limited because of the dangers any court that he created among citizens as relative to their rights and property. and women does this present invested with his power differ from the king of great britain? so he was concerned that the executive in the constitution was going to be too powerful. but they were essentially creating another king. another opponent of the constitution asks this. as he wrote under the pen name an old way, and no-brainers who is. there were a number of different people who thought could have

been the author, of course they were riding in pennsylvania so there were some great candidates, but he said this but if we're not prepared to receive a king, let us call on another condition to revise the proposed constitution. so if you're not ready to receive a king don't ratify the constitution because that's what we're going to get. ..

>> one of the most interesting arguments for the president for the executive branch came from south carolina. an ardent supporter of the constitution, he wrote one of the original drafts. he said you don't have to worry about this president because his powers are so circumscribed that he can't go beyond him. it doesn't fade in the constitution, the president can't do it. that is not how we think of the presidency. it doesn't matter what you're talking about, the president

think their powers are more expensive than that. perhaps the final! came from alexander hamilton himself. alexander hamilton is one of the most ardent nationalist in the united states. hamilton wrote famously about the powers of the president. i'm going to read this to you because he essentially said this is what the president is. you don't have to worry about the president because he cannot do all the things you're afraid up and he said this, hamilton wrote that the president served a four-year term while the king was a hereditary monarch. the president can be impeached and removed from office while the king is sacred and invaluable. the president has a concurrent power with the senate over treaties while the king must be

a fountain of honor. the sole representative of all transactions. the president can command the army and navy, but became a can declare war by his own authority. the king can prescribe the art of commerce and, regulate rates and measures, -- [inaudible]. in essence, the president is no king. don't worry. when you read what he said, and you think about executive power today, you look to the president for many of those things. but that is not what the constitution is to do. that is the general consensus. the executive was much less powerful under the constitution -- the founding fathers

constitution than our own. at least how we think it is interpreted today. what about the other branches of government? we of course have a legislative and judicial branch. the legislative branch was actually intended to be the most powerful branch of government. for two reasons. the house of representatives is as close to people as you can get, and number two, the senate was founded to represent the states. that was the federal part of the constitution. meaning the states represented in the in washington dc when the constitution was ratified in new york or philadelphia. that is the branch of government that has the most power. if you read the document itself, and article one lays out congress and it is the longest part of the constitution. it has the most enumerated or delegated powers. i'm going to talk about that term delegated for a second. i mentioned this, and this is very important -- how you look

at a delegated power. a delegated power is a power that is given because you have the authority to give it. by delegating it, you can always take it back. so the idea was as the constitution was written, the people of the states are delegating authority to the central government. if we want it back, we can always take it. you don't have it forever, we can take back ourselves. that of course, corrupts the 10 amendments, which i will discuss at the end of the discussion. you have article one and you have article one, section seven, section eight -- that is where all the enumerated powers lie. but why is the senate important? i want to mention that for a second. i mentioned the senate is representative of the states. the founders were very concerned about having a government that was too far detached from the

people and too far detached from the states to be opportune -- to really represent them. and about this. the constitution itself says that representative ratio is 30,000 to one. that means that there aren't 30,000 people to everyone representative in the house of representatives. that was in 1789. today, the ratio is 700,000 to one. when they were discussing the constitution, they were originally talking about 40,000 to one. some people thought of should be close to the 20,000 to one. that was an appropriate representation of ratio. we look at the 700,000 to one, you think 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 that it appears that

the liberties, happiness, and concerts of the united states may be contingent upon the virtues and wisdom of the united states of 25 men. how inadequate? inadequate because three or four millions of people [inaudible] -- habits, opinions and interests cannot be collected in so small of the body. they are saying unless you have a fair rubbers and the ratio, the these people -- that they're going to legislate for all of us in minute detail, they physically can't do it. it is impossible. 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 said to support the government of the whole extent of the united states, the demand of the system is the most unqualified good you cannot have one single government legislating for us all.

it's impossible. when you're talking about three or 4 million people or 3 million people. that is why a general government was more important. a general government can do general things, and in that way, it would not matter if you only had 535 representatives. the people could be better represented in their states. so we welcome this general welfare clause. what is the general welfare? robert sherman wrote the cost. this is what he said it meant. the objects of the unit were few. first, defense against danger, [inaudible] -- fourthly regulating foreign commerce and drawing revenue from it, all other matters are much better in

the hands of the state. if the government did commerce and defense, and that's all they did, then the people of the states were being guarded in their liberty. another member of pennsylvania listed all the things that the younger government could do and what the states could do. this is interesting. i had never seen this before when i wrote the book. as i went through all the stuff, i found it and i thought, wow, that's important. if we're going to say -- if i'm going to argue in the book they favored a general government, here's exactly what he meant by it. this is where [inaudible]. he was a political officer who was a very important man who served in a variety of positions. this is what he wrote about the constitution and the general government the general

government can interfere with the roads, building bridges, establishment of state seminaries, libraries, religious, manufacturing society, regulating towns, boroughs, creating state offices, county jails, markets or other public buildings -- nor can they do any other matter or things pertaining to legislative, judicial, civil or ecclesiastical. in essence, you can't really do anything. then he said this about the states. the states can create corporations, prohibit or religious, [inaudible]. regulate marriages, establish poorhouses, hospitals, etc.

basically everything of a domestic nature can be done by them. there you have it. that is what the founding generation meant by general and federal. so it are going for the constitution, it says government can't do all of these things, but we have looked at it the other way in the modern. most people point out that the states governments would be -- or the local governments. but we seem to put more focus on the general government or the federal government than any other. i found that very interesting. when i was going through this, i did not realize how in-depth they had gone to explaining these things. you see general welfare and you hear it every now and then, but the founding generation explained it in detail.

there are several other quotes about the legislative branch. if i had time, i would go through them. of course, they are found in the appendices. of course, this general government is 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. of course, the problem with the supreme court as we see over time -- it doesn't matter which political spectrum you're on, they might agree with your opinion in one case and disagree with another. they can change their mind over and over again. it happens throughout history. which decision is correct? this is the problem. 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 come in fact, declared federal laws unconstitutional.

proponents hope that will happen. what they didn't want to happen with the federal what system did bearing state laws unconstitutional, which now they do over and over again. that was the real concern. again, this was -- people like john rutledge and roger dickinson brought this about. we don't want the federal system killing the state courts. that was a real fear. so oftentimes you hear -- 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 that the supreme court was in charge of every legal decision was not set in stone in 1787 and 1780. coupled with the fact that you have the bill of rights. we often talk about the bill of rights. the bill of rights have restricting clauses. these were restricting on federal power.

most important of the bill of rights was the 10th amendment. it was number one coming out of the gate ratifying conventions when they said that we want a bill of rights to ratify the rain. you have to give it to us. we will ratify. they were promised a bill of rights to ratify the document. as we look at the bill of rights and the 10th amendment, it says that all powers not delegated to the central authority -- and i'm paraphrasing. this was to go straight out to what patrick henry called sweeping clauses. the premises cause and a necessary and proper clause. what they wanted to ensure with the 10th amendment was a way that the constitution was being sold to the states. it was going to be a general government for general purposes. that was going to be a limited government. it was going to be what it said in the constitution -- codified in the document itself.

they did not necessarily trust people like alexander hamilton and james madison when they swore up and down at this thing was not going to be of use. they did not trust them. they wanted the 10th amendment. it was first in almost every proposed bill of rights. james madison made 10th because he wanted to minimize it. everyone knew that that was the most important of the bunch. again, it is a general government for general purposes. i want to conclude with a quotation from john dickinson. john dickinson, again, this was his constitution in so many ways. this actually dates back to that point that i made before -- that we had a written constitution that was an unwritten constitution. people ask me, why are the founding fathers important?

they wrote the constitution, and this is why we should listen to them. during the philadelphia convention when things were getting out of whack, john dickinson thought that 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 or even could have discovered the odd, the absurd mode of trial by jury. accident produces discoveries and experience gives us sanctions of event. this is our guide. he is saying we have a constitution -- what he would say now. experience has proven her understanding of history, whether it was roman history, greek history -- they talked about it all. experience in what we are trying to do here. number one, the people would accept, and number two, they

didn't want something torn asunder and taken apart. they had just gone for war through war with the british. they did not want to see another revolution in the united states. they hoped for the general government to help all the general people in the united states. to this day, people are different in different parts of the united states. they hoped that this general government could say we have different people from the south or north coordinated layer. but if the government doesn't regulate their every move and the general government -- they can be best served in their own states. people often say well, my goodness, the states aren't very receptive to that. actually, that is simply not true. if you look, the issue say religious freedom. virginia was the first they took out by religious freedom even before the bill of rights. other issues of civil liberties that we often discuss today -- you have more those at states

level than the federal level. the states are much more responsive to your wishes -- they have a much more adequate representation of the states. this is the same thing that the founders would say and that's how they argued it. it was general government. the weston is where we go from here? why write tranny? well, i wanted to start a discussion. i wanted to break the constitution apart and start the education process to things like this. to writing discussions, public discourse, meetings. i wanted people to talk about the constitution again. legally, that is happening. but they need to be armed with the words of the people who wrote it. if we don't do that, we are failing in our charge of giving

the blessings of liberty to their posterity. i would like you to think about that. as you hopefully read the book, as he read the constitution, if you listen to candidates -- it doesn't matter what party they're from or where they are from, if you listen to them talk about things, asked questions about the constitution. i want to know what you think about the constitution. they all swear to uphold and defend it, so ask them about it. if their opinion jibes with yours, if their opinion is in line with your pin, great. start with discourse. >> i hope the "the founding fathers guilde to the constitution" is part of that discourse. think your time this evening. i will take questions. if you'd like to ask a question, please come out to the microphone and ask. i hope that you have some

questions. [applause] >> [inaudible question] >> [inaudible question] >> [inaudible question] >> sure. john russell is an important guy. in the virginia ratifying

convention, he swore up and down to the supreme court could -- he lied essentially. he was not being honest. when he became chief justice, john marshall was -- by this point, of course, you had politicians -- he was a federalist. and you had the jeffersonians who you called terrorists. he was very concerned about the jeffersonian revolution that is taking over the united states. thomas jefferson was then chief justice, put on the bench by john adams, the outgoing president. what john marshall wanted to do was undo the jeffersonian revolution in any way he could. this was politics. what he decided to do was use the bench to do it. it is that simple. marshall was afraid of democracy. he was very much anti-democratic i think what he saw in

jeffersonian at him was a push for more democracy. he did not like it. whether it was -- [inaudible]. this sets the stage for every decision here on out he was being very disingenuous. but i think for marshall himself, he's playing politics more than anything else he really did not like the jeffersonian. >> anymore questions? don't be shy. anyway we can get you on tv. >> [inaudible question] >> i have not. primarily because in the survey course, the general things and move from there -- we have a

textbook and that is how it is. we tried to study at in very general terms during the course. other questions? >> [inaudible question] >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible question] you did a wonderful, wonderful job. [inaudible question]

>> well, conventionalism is very contentious. they wrote to constitutions. [inaudible]. the will of the people was determined provided by the constitution and called upon the convention to do it. that was discussed. in fact, openly discussed after the philadelphia convention. that was a possibility. what they didn't want to have happen and what had happened was we wrote the constitution but we have a new constitution, and we are reading between the lines in ways that we need to see possible. no one would ever expand the constitution without amending it or the new constitution. if the people wanted to have a new constitution, they would call state conventions and do it. but don't go about it the way

that americans ultimately have gone about it. >> thank you. >> and the other questions? any other questions? >> all right. i will be signing books in the lobby. if you all want to -- did you have a book, if you don't have one you can purchase one. thank you all for coming out tonight and i appreciate your support and have a great evening. [applause] >> for more information visit brion mcclanahan.com. you are watching the tv on c-span two.

>> on the contrary, global warming actually stopped or flattened out over 10 years ago. we are entering a period of cooling. i think we need to remember that if you look at human history and look at what man has done in

terms of cooling as opposed to warming, society -- civilization flourishes in times of warming. we are designed for warm weather. it is not that we cannot cope in colder climates -- we are very adapt to it. we have a blues and things like that. i was telling you earlier that i would like to live in california. there is a reason i would like to live in california. it is the weather climate. we are drawn to warmer weather. warmer weather solves two of our main problems. how to shut ourselves and how to feed ourselves. the first part of my book covers the science of climate change. but i am not a scientist.

this is the part that really interests me about this whole debate. it is where these ideas come from. it is the politics of climate change, if you like. if the science is flawed, how many so people will believe in a? i think one of the reasons that i think it is built into our dna -- this innate catastrophism, i think every generation believes it will be the last. but it will be the one that so shapes the world that it will destroy it through its own evil. if you look at religion through the ages, what it is about, what they are all about in one way or another, it is atoning the sins