strategy that said we have to thought that the high-tech china. the information is classified. i can't tell you what we know or don't know about china in the south china sea, and taiwan, france, anti-ship missiles. i'm not saying it not justified. i'm just saying coincidently iraq and afghanistan and now were going to spend that money repositioning ourselves in perth australia into philippines and a not yet visible threat. i say before you go down that expensive path reproducing our budgetary balance is. show me what the evidence because for some reason i can't see it. [applause] >> david could go on.

via book and no sign it. thank you for coming. he sold out their shares to help our staff. >> maggie koerth-baker up next on booktv. a more energy-efficient world will not be a utopia, but will it be better if no action is taken. it's about half an hour. >> hi, tina mack for coming out here. i wanted to start off this evening by talking about a name you probably hadn't heard of before. hj rogers. he's not well known, but he

turns out he's actually one of the major forces in the history of electricity. present very real reason. in 1882 was one of the richest people in appleton wisconsin. he had a paper mail and was literally building a mansion on the hill and matt made a decision where he went on a fishing trip for the edison electric writing company. at the time to hj rogers had never seen the electric lightbulb. he actually owned by gaslight utility and electricity was an up-and-coming competitor for him. he came back the proud honor of the rights to license these edison technology and ended up being the beginning of the end for him it is a successful businessman. i like this story a lot because it really goes again the narrative i think most of us learned when we were in junior high and high school, vat that

thomas edison invented the electric lightbulb in 1879 and everything kind of comes together perfectly like electricity is this killer app that solves the problem whenever it should adopt immediately. the reality is a lot messier than that. in reality the incandescent light bulb was invented in 1879. it was invented in 1804 by eight humphrey dacey who became the first person to run the electric current through why you're coming heeding the fire out to the point where began to glow in produced way. he's better known as a chemist and the guy who discovered the elements of potassium and sodium, but also the guy who invented the incandescent light and between humphrey davis and thomas edison and you've got 80 years of different inventors tanking around a technology that is never quite ready for prime time. even by the time hj rogers came along in 1882, electricity still wasn't a sure thing. i think it's important to know because we're in the middle of this energy crises.

we have climate change bearing down on us or limited amounts amounts of fossil fuels and infrastructure that hasn't been at it in 30 years and all of those things will require technology to solve our problems. at the same time we like to tell ourselves stories about technology that don't match up with reality. we like to talk about times where one guy had one idea and a completely change the world and that's really not what success normally looks like. if that's all we know, we're doing ourselves a great disservice. if you don't understand the electric grid we have today is in a perfect thing, not in a jail system, has a lot of flaws, the damage -- but is that risk even beyond renewable generation, you're not quite understand what our energy problems are and what solutions actually are either. that's one of the reasons i wrote my book, train the button. i was told stories of how people understand how the technology we base our entire lives around

works and how it's going to be affecting what we can and can't do with that energy of the next 30 or 40 years. she told the story have to start in the state of things. in 1882, thomas edison was putting together the first centralized electric grid in the entire world in new york city. at the same time, hj rogers is working on his electric grid in appleton wisconsin and became very close to meeting at ascend to the punch. edison opened his grid in august of 1882, to the et cetera that tender, hj rogers grade came online. the second centralized grid in the entire world. the first hydroelectric power plant in the entire world and more importantly apple 10, wisconsin was the first place him another 10 thomas andersen without shema geniuses working around 10 try to take this technology and applied in the real world and failed miserably. when you understand why hj rogers failed communal have a better understanding of power grid works today and why there's

some problems with it. hj rogers first problem with a technological problem. specifically he has no idea what he was doing with that knowledge he purchased. there was no such thing as electric linemen in 1882. no such thing even as electrical engineers. does the job it is thomas edison was inventing and none of them had come west with the generator that hj robbers spot. he bought the type knowledge it but hadn't paid anybody to come in and told what to do with it. that matters because the greatest a lot harder to manage than he realized. i like to talk about the electric grid is being a lot like a lazy river at a water park. the greatest at like one wire that connects you to a power plant. it is a circuit of wires that connect power plant to consumers and back around again and you have to have the complete loop or you're going to get

blackouts. likewise the grid has to operate in a specific parameters. electricity that flows along has to move at a comp to speed, which is analogous to what engineers call for engineers call frequency and has to move at a constant that analogous to what engineers call voltage. how you maintain a constant speed inconstant does this by maintaining an almost perfect balance between electric supply and electric demand. if that gets out of whack by a fraction of a percent, what you get are blackouts. hj rogers did not know this and he made the mistakes because of that. i told you he owned the paper mill in appleton and the paper mill was powered by waterwheel appeared so he thought he could save some money by having the same water with a powered his paper mill also power his electric generator. the problem with this is the paper mill had a lot of demand for services. the electric generator had exactly one customer, hj rogers

himself. so one day as the paper mill was running at full capacity, the generator was producing way more electricity than a little grid needed and throughout hj rogers mention electric light bulbs with turnout and everyone of them cost the equivalent of $36. so that quickly became an expensive mistake. but even as hj rogers had been technically competent and there were people technically competent to set up a really good, there's a good chance he still would have failed. that is because the business problem. in 1882 there is exactly one thing you could do with electricity. and that was like a light bulb, but you couldn't make enough money from lighting light bulbs to recoup the cost of building the structure necessary to let delay pulled. this was a huge problem up until the 19th century, very few american businessman had any kind of experience dealing with businesses that require you to

build the massive expensive infrastructure before you could even get started. it is something affecting a lot of different industries at the time. what you saw where companies failing over and over. hj rogers eventually went bankrupt. the people about the utility applets and from him went bankrupt and soda to people about the electric utility from them. it was not until the 1920s that anybody was able to make on an electric utility a profitable business and even then it was only because electric utilities set out to create their own demand. they set out with concerted effort to invent a people produce electricity for along the way they created the electric toaster oven and invented the electric curling iron and from lots of different things to do with the murders. i'm sure some of you seen history books where you can see it in small towns have a great big of electric streetcars.

a lot of those owned by utility companies trying to find something for people to do with electricity during the day. so that worked to make electricity a profitable business, but only worked in cities, only in places where you could build one infrastructure and serve a lot of people at the same time. it didn't work in real communities. for many many years rural america was not elect to fight. they didn't have the same kind of maternity the rest of the country did. it wasn't until the 1930s to mid-1950s when the federal government stepped in and started spreading the cost of the infrastructure for the entire country that you are really able to get everybody up to the same beat on a technological basis. so i think there's a few important things we need to learn about the history of electricity. the first thing is the electric grid we have right now abolished. it wasn't designed and often evolved in the hands of people

who absolutely no idea what they were doing and it shows still today we don't have storage on our electric grid. that's a big surprise to a lot of people because we have batteries all throughout our lives, but there are batteries on the electric grid. so the balance between supply and demand for still has to be maintained is something that has to be maintained manually by people and great control centers all over the united states. they were 21st day, seven days a week and they have to maintain the balance on a minute by minute basis all throughout the day. the second thing we need to learn is that his technology can fail for a really long time and still end up becoming something completely ubiquitous to the way we live. i think there's a lot of analogies between the history of the life of an history of solar power because i've had people tell me, while solar cells were invented in 1840s, people out pushed this is the energy solutions the 1970s, but they're still expensive and so not really widely used, so

clearly they are a failure and we should move on. if you look at the history of the label, you can see technology can fill on a technological basis for 80 years hentgen fail for another 40 and still end up having something we are completely dependent upon today. finally, we need to learn that it changes the completely sweep the nation are not necessarily things that happened individual by individual. we don't have an electric grid system today because individual people decided they wanted to rate their house up for electricity. it's a lot more complicated than that. it was something that involved private investment, public investment and how all of those things allow people to make individual choices en masse. that is something that really affects the way we have to think about the future of electricity today. so one of these things have been telling you about, how the grid

works and what it's for a sign where it came from, these are things that experts in energy or do you know. but they are not necessarily things that the general public knows that even the people who have to make decisions about her electric infrastructure now and i think that's a big deal. i set out to write this book partly because of nepotism i guess. my husband is in energy efficiency analysts, so what he does is figure out how to make no things as energy efficient as possible for the least amount of money. after he got this job, he started coming home and talking to me about the stuff he was learning instead he was trying to explain to clients. he kept talking about how there were these things that were completely basic information to hand to the point he didn't take their worth talking about that his client had no idea about and it affected decisions they made any mistakes they made and i really wanted to bridge that gap between the bubble of expertise and everybody else.

i think the bubble of expertise is something really, really easy to get into and i know that because i've made the same mistake. i have a background in journalism and i wrote mostly for print magazines seles started working in 2000 i didn't realize i got myself into a double until yesterday ready for boing boing. this is because you don't a lot of feedback is a journalism in print magazine. you might get an e-mail from somebody, but it's usually crazy person who writes in all caps and it's really angry at you. and boing boing was the first time i actually had conversations with readers in the comments section and started to actually see real-time responses to what i wrote and what questions people had them what they didn't understand. i got out of this bubble that kind of trapped myself in and i started to learn about how i could better communicate science to people and what i was doing wrong with the site

communicator. one of the things i learned was there were words i didn't realize were charging that were actually charged in. but in the comments, i realized most of my readers, educated people, people excited about science didn't know what peer review meant. half of my readership thought it meant a paper had been deemed to be completely correct and should not be questioned. half that was a good old boy system that favored peoples friends and kept out new ideas and very, very few seem to realize that this is complicated process that was really all about editing -- scientists editing work in figuring out ways to say, this might not be correct information, the way you said you're probably doing the science correctly. probably not missed making mistakes or ridiculous leaps of logic even though we don't know whether you're right or not. that is a hard thing to explain to people. it's a hard thing to remember to explain to people and we don't

do a good enough job right now i science communicators at remembering their names that we know that other people don't know. we have to get outside of our bubble and i think the internet is an amazing job of forcing me to do that for us in other writers to do that as well. i think the internet does an amazing job of communicating science. one of the things i learned last summer was preparing to do a presentation at a convention of science museums with sound statistics about how americans understanding of science has changed over the last 30 years. there's a guy at northwestern and john miller his entire specialty is studying public understanding of science and sociology and he's been doing this for 30 or 40 years and in 1988, he found that tempers and of americans understood science well enough to understand what they read in "the new york times" science section. he did the same survey in two

name and the number actually gone up to 20% of americans could now wonders and "the new york times" science section. there's a possibility that has to do with the site section getting dumber, but i kind of like to think it has to do with how we communicate science changing. 30 years ago the only place you would read about a new paper was then a newspaper, which has a specific talent to the way they write. he had very specific audiences they reach out to them they could go online. you could find so many more different ways people are talking about the same paper. it might be doing it seriously, sho, as a video, interactive discussion. each one of those things is a different way for somebody to get interest in science who might not have thought about the science to begin with if you're in a newspaper. it allows you to bring a new audience is and reach out to people and their own cultural

language to talk to them about step that was only one niche 30 years ago. that has helped immensely. i'm incredibly proud to work on the internet as a side strain on us and strain on us and i think it makes my science writing better and i think it really was an incredible part of making be able to write this book. but that is what i wanted to talk to you guys about today and am extremely happy to take questions or talk to you guys about anything from communicating science to boing boing to the book sells. >> well, thank you very much, maggie. [applause] so for the q&a, we have a microphone here and we'll pass it around. if you could wait until you get the microphone so you ask your question. >> hello, maggie. i just want to know, do you have

any ideas about how to combat the anti-science campaign going on right now quite >> i do, actually. one of the things i ran into in the course of writing this book was an incredible story that made me think about communicating these controversial topics in a way i'd never thought about doing before. there is a nonprofit in the state of kansas that actually started doing these focus groups in 2000 the 18th, where they were talking to people in wichita and kansas city about what you thought about climate and what you thought about energy. they kept running into the thing over and over with that one guy that climate change is a socialist plot, but when he came around and asked him what he thought about energy company changed out that the owned a previous, was excited about wind power and that's because he had other reasons to care about energy address climate change. there were different ways you could get to the same conclusions. one of the things that i think

would be really helpful in this discussion is trying to kind of break down some of those walls of i'm undecided you're not tied and we can't talk to each other. i think there is a lot of opportunities for me to say, you know, i've seen evidence that shows that climate change is happening. i'm not going to tell you it's not. i know you have reasons to care about energy, thoughts of a conversation and talk about what compromises you can come together and what we can agree on. i think we need to do more of. one of the things that is to support and be a little about environmental writing online is that it tends to be very preaching to choir. i think we need to do a better job of talking to more people about this stuff and making an effort to reach out to communities and individuals who might not be drawn in by the same message that i'm drawn in by. so that is something i taught about in the book and something i think it's a good way to start

to get around the anti-science messages they circumventing it entirely. >> tanks for explaining the lifecycle of an idea and how long it takes. going to ask the question. it's a nice of solar power and wind power stuff is going to be fine, but it's just going to take a little longer. my wife's family owns a tiny beach cottage and a tiny beach town and these guys of approach that town and said we're going to put energy captures a mile off shore and one's ever going to see them will fit the energy and a wire into your town and bingo, its electricity. however, this requires a wire to be brought from the wave generated machine to the town, which is going to go under somebody's house or somebody's neighborhood and this is so incredibly horrifying that the whole idea just is really getting off the ground. so how does that kind of -- that

capacity if energy to get generated turn into actual energy into house this? >> this is some being interesting. before i wrote this book, i did research on the dsm in the backyard idea. whether there is anyone thinking of ways getting around that. i ran into some interesting research. in europe they had a lot of solar and wind development and ways to get around this problem. a lot of events that coming down to having community participated in these objects rather than having problems. if you build a wind farm you have to offer the community of the persons whose property built on a 20% stake in the wind farm. suddenly nimby is then disappears. and i think that is a really

great idea. i have no idea what it take to get something like that implemented in the u.s. because it's really different from how we traditionally thought about infrastructure development. the idea of this interact a participatory infrastructure development is really, really different and you end up running into institutional inertia like we've never done that way, if we don't want to because change is scary. it's almost nimby is some as opposed to on the part of individuals. i think there's a lot of potential to solve those problems that will take us think about how we do things in a different way. >> hi. other than the horrible inefficiency, can you talk about more of what's wrong with the grid and what we might do to fix that? >> yes, absolutely. one of the things wrong with the great is the fact that we have

to manually balance supply and demand minute by minute. if we had storage or some of the technologies that take a what people talk about when they talk about smart grids, we could do a better job of keeping the stuff that we're completely dependent upon every minute of our lives more reliable because right now were at risk of a lot of different things that can cause great failures. texas actually learns that last winter they had cool stamps that were anticipated in such a demand for electricity rising but they weren't expecting it to rise that much and then they had the cold freezing pipes at coal-fired country power fire plants so they had it when the demand is rising in ukiah lockouts. that is something you could circumvent and have a better chance of getting around if there were storage on the grid. it's not just about how we make

the world safe for wind and solar and how we build a utopia. it's how we actually prepare ourselves for the 21st century. we have a lot of this hasn't changed since the 1970s. i can't think of anything else i depend upon that much that uses the 1970s to elegy. so that is one of the biggest thing i think is making this grid more stable and something that has less inherent fiddling around that has to happen to get it to work. it's not as stable as it looks and we could do a better job of that. [inaudible] >> it's a lot of different rings actually. one of the things people talk about is demand response. so right now, these guys that control supply and demand on the grid and keep it balanced have only one way to control the demand side of that equation and

that is by customers called demand response customers. the organization uses electricity to affect jury and they are paid a premium to be on call support controllers can call them in the middle of the day and say we have too much demand and not enough supply. you need to shut off your power for a little bit and they can dial back the amount they use or shut off completely until they get the grid balance that against the people don't have blackouts. one of the things we talk about when i talk about smart grids is expanding the market out to smaller businesses and individuals and basically make it something we can all participate in, usually using smart appliances so appliances can communicate with great controllers or sense changes on the electric grid and respond to those. it is usually steffy don't actually have to have drawing electricity out of time to get the benefit from it, so your air conditioner doesn't have to be

on constantly to keep your house cool. it can be off for a couple minutes and then back on. same thing with refrigerator. there have been really good study said this in a pacific northwest national laboratory and they've done this in real-world test cases and may give people the option of being able to ought in and out of that whenever they want. they have a control panel in the house. they can say want to be on demand response today. i don't want to be on it tomorrow. when you do that, not only did they not notice their appliances are going on come up but they also never opt-out. as long as they have the ability to do it, they don't necessarily do it. giving people the ability is important because you again how the issue of having participatory action with infrastructure rather than having infrastructure have been to you. that is one of the big dings

smart grid refers to. there's a whole host of other technologies, found that affects and son he would never know have changed. but it's more than once thing and that's part of the confusion. [inaudible] >> yes, absolutely. that is often part of making sure you can produce -- if you want to be an electricity producer, that is about helping you work with the grid in a reasonable way. if you're an electricity producer and not solar paneling arrest and put electricity in the grid, controllers can see you. they know there's electricity in the grid but they don't know coming from and they don't have any ability to cut it off. and so that is one of the big things the smart readers with enabled them to do is have a good criticism.

>> is there a nephew in electric cars would need to produce -- >> i don't know that's going to happen. in fact, let your cars have the potential to be a source of storage on the electric grid and one of the problems of the ideas people don't think they're going to get rolled out fast enough to supply the stories we want fast enough. the problem is it takes a really long time for the u.s. electorate -- the u.s. beat a turnover. think people turn that 40 years. we've had tons of creases be sold, but it's still only a drop in the bucket compared to the number of cars that they are and i think we are more likely to not have that happen as quick read -- so quickly that it threatens the grid. if anything, we use some

distortion that will actually help the grid. cool, thank you all for coming. i really appreciate it. >> for more information, visit the author's website, maggie kb.com. >> my job in writing the book was to give people a readable story of the constitution and not just that, how they broke it out so that students at the constitution, with the cbc or whether they are in california or maine or washington d.c. would know what it meant to read the constitution and what the founding generation says this constitution meant. and i also was motivated to write the book because of the

charge in the constitution itself. the founding generation let it to their posterity. that's often a word we don't is, but that's us. we have a sacred trust to know what the constitution means, to understand it, read it, digest it. and so again by doing this, i hope the american people would do that if they were students at the constitution. often times you hear different ideas about the constitution. some will say the constitution is the last of document. read into it. 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 with this constitutional scholar says it means. then you have those who say the constitution is the limiting

document. the constitution is what it says. you can't go beyond that. we should interpret the constitution literally. then there's this big debate and people get confused by this stuff. which one is that? is a loosely interpreted document? for is a limiting document? and so, actually got to cut through all of that. i really didn't care what modern scholars have said about the constitution to be honest with you. i didn't care the supreme court has said about the constitution. i cared with that if others have said about the constitution. so my journey began there. in fact, when i originally conceptualized this book and i pitched it to begin with and you all can pitch an idea and then you're told yes or no and if you're told yes, you go from there. so when i pitched the idea, is going to focus on what was primarily and i will talk about this in a minute that is going to focus on what they thought about the constitution and the

publishers said no, that would be good. because they might turn out to a click in and constitution to. i said okay, how do we work with this? we brainstorm a little bit of me decided we were writing a book on the constitution based on what the founding generation said about the constitution, both for the constitution and against the constitution. now, i've read a lot of material about this, but as they started going through the mountains of research on the subject, i realized i'd only scratched the surface in much of what i knew was going to be changed or at least in some ways what i thought i knew about it was only going to be more involved because as i got to materialize in my gosh, this is deeper than i thought. but i'd often thought about the constitution is fair, but there's so much more to it. it's much more complex than what i said about the constitution and my first book.

and of course, when you look at this document and i say it's the founding fathers guide to the constitution and it's not just the founding fathers are familiar with a notebook about them in a minute. but it's all funny generations. it's a generational boat for the american generation. it's not just one, to commit three people are for people and what they said. by what much of what everyone said about it and i could put my hands on it because again, these things has to be sold to the final talk about that in a second. the founding fathers are important because they wrote it. so i thought, what source would be better than going to the people about the document itself and you actually have to present this thing to 13 hostile convention and tell people this is what it means you have to go to the press and say this is what you might be saying the constitution will do, but he reassured it's not going to do that. this is actually what it means.

that's the constitution we should look at. that's the founding fathers constitution. that process is very important again. the ratification process. the constitution meant nothing until it gratifies. that's the overall subject of the book and i'm going to reach you a quote in a few minutes from a founding father of north carolina and all refer back to the quote quite a day. often times to get the statement signed fathers are just a combative group of people who didn't agree on anything. what founders are you talking about? beyond the sum of the big names are maybes know some of the big names, but you probably heard of alexander hamilton. you've probably heard of james madison and john jay. he the authors of the federalist papers. so most do whatever the

constitution and think they understand the constitutional look at the documents and maybe look at the federalist papers and say that's it. but it's deeper than that. it goes much deeper than that. the federalist papers are not as important as you think. they're written in new york and they didn't have much of an impact in new york itself because the city of new york of new york when they ratified the constitution by three votes. three of those. so 85 essays people say are the definitive source on the constitution didn't have much impact at the time. but there are others of the founding generation who perhaps are even more important than james madison. of course james madison was often called the father of the constitution. but i say that's a misnomer as a historical scholarship has come around to that over time. he did present the virginia plan or at least wrote it and of course it was presented to the virginia delegation, but the

constitution we had is not his. it was gone over and over the philadelphia convention and modified over and over again by a number of important people. some of some of the people you never heard of before that john dickinson of delaware. probably saying who the heck is john dickinson? this is the guy called dependent of the revolution. he was one of the most important men of this generation bar none. when he went to the philadelphia convention, he was at this constitution that james madison had written and said no, we're not having not. that is not going to work in these united states. or you have someone like roger sherman of connecticut, a man that thomas jefferson once said and i'm paraphrasing here, never said his depicting his life. again he was a conservative moderate in influence. when he got to the philadelphia convention and saw james madison

vetoed said no, we're not having that in these united states. people of connecticut will never agree to this thing. or john rutledge of south carolina, and other important founding father. john rutledge would later serve on the supreme court. he basically helped win the american war for independence of south carolina. so very important individual. he said this constitution you've written, mr. madison is not going to work in south carolina. we need to modify this thing. so that is what happens in philadelphia. no one was even sure if this thing was even going to get out of philadelphia to begin with. so when it ideas and opinions floating around today. the constitution was going to die before the middle of the summer of 1787. at the store you often hear about the constitution is in pole. its large states against small states.

the people i just listed all came from small states. not a fan of horse from a very large state. but that's not the real issue. in fact, the real issue is what type of government are we going to have? was it going to be a national government for a federal government? today we have a federal government. in the fine generation they didn't call it that. they didn't call it that coming out of california. people like dickinson and sherman of rutledge said we don't want a national government. we won a federal government james madison wanted a national government. there's a difference. the federal government only had general purposes in mind and basically everything else was left to the states themselves and that's what is generation argued for. not a national government which put all people of central authority. they were going to have that.

so when you start talking about general versus federal and national versus general, these are important terms in a hammock on the way. you still hear the term the united states as a nation today in the term is still thrown around. the founding generation to see the general government for general purposes. i'll talk about in the preamble of in a few minutes. so when the constitution came out of philadelphia in september 1787 and no one was even sure that they would give ratified. they'd written it, talked about it, sweated over a come apart their hearts in some cases, but no one was sure if this thing would make it out of the united states, with his father required to ratify the document. savanna had to be sold. the sales job is what i talk about in the book more than anything else. sometimes you can't understand the constitution and the language that understanding what

they said. but often times you can understand the constitution what they said without understanding all throughout the united states. in fact, james madison agreed, this is what he said. he said the constitution on this brought to light and only found its meaning because of the state conventions which gave it all the validity and authority of possessives. another is what we presented in philadelphia means nothing. what a state ratifying conventions says ms. anything. we don't often hear these things. perhaps the most famous supreme court justice ever, john marshall, a member of the generation number one timer from the decisions. those ratifying conventions for everything was discussed and

hammered out and many of the wavering states that support were sold to the constitution on the base is what the constitution at the time. and that's why celebrated both based on what they said and meant it but again i bring up proponents and opponents. you often hear there are two groups. the federalist and anti-federalist. those terms are wrong. in fact, all restraint massachusetts said it best. they were federalist and anti-federalist. they were back then anti-rat, which is ready funny. so you have these federalist when reality which are talking about a nationalist do believe that tom or power should be in

the central government or the general government are you the federalist called the anti-federalist who believe in the federal government where there's a general government and the state said much of the authority. this is the debate. how much authority the government going to happen much with the state government have. and that's what we get out of the entire process and hear it over and over again. that's the main point of the book, to go through these different opinions. but i found shocked me. i expected to read a book and say there's a lot of different opinions so you kind of have to bring it out yourself and which one was right. what i found was this. over and over again the opponents he said the government would do x,y and z were told by their proponents, those who supported it at home, you're wrong. they're arguing on the same position in the same way for the general consensus was there. there's a fine father interpretation and essentially

what you have again as a general government for general can parents. that day. i'll talk about how that works in a few minutes and why they thought that was important we get the discussion of the bill of rights. but it was not going to be a national government and it is not going to abolish the states, which some people feared. so as i dug through these declarations, public declarations of speeches and pamphlet, and there's a multitude of volumes on the stephanie can the general consensus began to appear in if it is much of that if they can do both because i want people to see that. the other thing i've often heard about in this book over time as i use a lot of quotations. sometimes akin make it a little try. but i didn't want to be brion mcclanahan's guide to the constitution. so i put as much of them and as they could beca