[applause] >> it is such a pleasure to be here tonight. good evening, ladies and cinnamon. thank you so much for coming. i cannot think of an event that would rather be moderating more on my first day on the job as the new president and ceo of the national constitution center then this wonderful discussion of breaks new search -- superb new book. a stalwart of the constitution center. he has provided intellectual and historical guidance. he gave me some much device and as i began the exciting process. i am just thrilled to be here with them. rick embodies, for me, the best

of what the national constitution center mission is which is to provide a platform for bipartisan debate and conversation about constitutional issues. the great strength of this book is that there is no ideology in it. it is told in a narrative weight, and it brings to life the constitutional debates that animated the early republic. he does this by sharing the personalities and temperaments of the founding fathers to my distress is the role of leaders and contingency. one thing that emerges from this great book is that it could have come out differently. it did not have to be this way. the fact we have the constitution had to do with the leaders choices, particular people at a particular time. we regard to have a lot of you debate over the coming months and years. this is national and international san -- for debates

about the constitution. rehearses since that can set aside politics and come be exposed to the issue and make up their own mind. i know that our conversation tonight is going to be a model for that sort of discussion. so thank you. let's just jump right and with the wonderful portrait that you paint of individual framers. the book begins. cast of characters. the main players. the beautiful little portraits, these image paintings, the temperance and characters of the leading framers help us understand. so, you know, we can begin anywhere, but i have to begin with john pickens, but because he was such a stalwart of the philadelphia delegation. he did not appear in signers all. found out franklin, but no john

dickinson. in your reading telling, his choice, his moral dilemma, as patriotism was really central to the whole constitutional story. >> i am happy. >> how many of you have ever heard of john dickinson? ago. did you know, i think if i went to any other city or any other state in the united states there would just be a couple of people this is before i talked about john dickinson. this is supposed to be a serious, critical-minded discussion. i really must say that as someone who is devoting more than ten years of his life to the constitution center before it opened in july of 2003, i am just so delighted jeff rosen is

coming in as ceo. we have a constitutional scholar of the first-rate who also has a passion for reaching out to the public, all of our discussions about the prospect of leaving or at least leaving for most of the time, the really easy life. and run a place like this. just so inspiring to all of us who spoke with them. we have really got some terrific minds here at the constitution center. [applause] so john dickinson, john adams who are really do want to say quite a lot about tonight, john dickinson called him the piddling little genius. he was john adams chief adversary during that 22 months

between september 74 and july 4th of 76. dickinson was, when this book begins, and the book essentially initially begins with the boston tea party because that really was the kind of event that really takes the british off and convince them that they had to do something to put these americans down. the main focus of the book really is the 22 months in which the continental congress met. half the time the continental congress met john dickinson was probably the most respected political writer and thinker in america. his letters from a farmer in pennsylvania really spelled out the american constitutional position and the denial of the right of the british parliament to tax them. he was in every respect john adams polar opposite. he was then, rather reserved in

manner. and it a man of great caution both in his thought and speech and really important and decisive and difficult moments in his life. july 1st and july 2nd. 1776 in which going against most of the college of the tunnel congress he spoke link fleet and passionately against independence. for a variety of reasons, one was that i do think he was a devout believer in the true principles of the u.s. constitution and was not ready to cast it overboard quite yet. but the other reason was that he was not all sure that americans were prepared to win a war against the british. they had not forge an alliance with the french or the spanish

at. and so earning a good many of his fellow delegates, dickenson voted against independence. but two weeks later he was leading eight italian @booktv battalion of soldiers to fight for the pitch freeway. so dickenson, for me, a really a model of principled opposition, but ultimately coming together for the common good. ultimately, although he really was not willing to sacrifice his principles to vote in favor of independence, he supported it very much. and in 1787, in fact, he did serve as delaware's representative to the constitutional convention. he was not present on september 17th to sign it because he was ill back in delaware, but his name is on the

constitution. >> that is a revving story. reliably informed that you do a good quite -- memorable impersonation. >> i do. >> can you share it? >> in no, i'm sorry, but i can't i am not in constant. i just retired, but until recently i had a modest research project at the universe -- university of pennsylvania, part of which i used to get accustomed to address as figures in american history. so, for example, i dressed in full but stan to dubai davy crockett imitation -- i'm sorry, not imitation. it impersonation in the american history survey course until my legs and i was able to walk across campus carrying out rifle. they stop me from doing that.

and i -- one of my favorites. and there i dressed kind of as a philadelphia arson. but one of my favorites here at the constitution center is done dickens. and to be john dickinson i have to be more reserved than my normal personality. i also do jonathan edwards. your of going straight to hell, make no mistake about it. [laughter] >> dickinson, as you tell the story, although he voted against independence, nevertheless had a sense of patriotism and was drawn behind so that his vote did not count in the final tie about independence. could that kind of civic minded is and devotion to country exists nowadays? is there an analog in modern politics? >> not too many blood that's for

sure. i have been writing and speaking on the founding fathers, lessons for our day. there are a lot of lessons that we can learn. i really do believe that the most important of all is humility. and dickinson genuinely believed in his principles and was not ready to sacrifice by voting in favor of independence when he is so fervently opposed to it. but he knew that the people of pennsylvania favored independence, and he was the decisive voice in the pennsylvania delegation, so buy it drying himself behind the bar, you walked into the assembly room of independence of today and see the bar that gives visitors from walking into with the founding fathers were doing their deliberation. he left that part of -- you

know, the main part of the assembly room and withdrew himself behind along with his colleague. majority of pennsylvania delegates voted in favor of independence and to make this the unanimous declaration of the united states of america. i really do think that that humility and that understanding ultimately for the need to come together is something that a good many of our congressman, not to mention our supreme court justices could benefit from. >> i know your next book has the working title, the founding fathers are spinning in their graves. and you are interested in questions about channeling or translating their principles into the modern era. what is different nowadays that allowed a john dickinson then to

make this principled decision for his own sake and at the same time to put the interest of the fate first and foremost and make it harder for leaders to break party lines today. >> i think there is -- delegates of the continental congress and the constitutional convention the liberated in secret. nothing we could do today. imagine one of these bodies convening today and every day the delegates walked out and cnn, fox news, and as nbc microphones in their faces. and i think what that causes today is delegates to take a hard positions that are even hardened by their public defense of them in front of the media. whereas, back in the 18th century, these folks were deliberating in secret. they did not have their a gives

as much on . most important of all. i say this is a digression, but this piece that i give on the founding fathers 1787, lessons in political leadership. have given it all over the country, but the most anxious moment i had was when i gave it to the 100 chiefs of staff of the 100 united states senators. in which basically the speech is how rotten their bosses are compared to the founding fathers of 1787. and it was actually at a very, very abelian dinner party with lots of good food and wine. but i'll look down at them and said, you know, one of the problems is you're not drinking enough. and honestly, it really was the daily conviviality of these men, particularly the delegates to

the continental congress of 7476. this gathering was, and john adams' words, a gathering of strangers. at one point he said the dozen ambassadors of the dozen most belligerent powers in europe have more in common than do the delegates to this continental congress. and that -- that was their situation as they came together in september of 74. but day after day after day after the deliberations, first and carpenters' hall and then in the pennsylvania state house, they go to the city tavern and eat and drink and get to know one another. and with a few exceptions, john adams never really respected john dickinson. with a few exceptions it really did come, even when they disagreed on important issues. to have some respect for their colleague.

i'm old enough to remember a time in washington whenever dirksen and lyndon baines johnson might disagree on the senate floor but then get together in the evening and work out a deal work tip o'neill and ronald reagan even. so there is something, i think, that we could do something about, not have these folks fly home every thursday afternoon to raise money for their next election campaign. >> end provide that the senate compulsory alcohol. >> that's right. [laughter] >> this is actually an important typical of the supreme court leaders as well. >> my favorite story, if you allow me, it sounds like he did the exact same thing, persuaded his colleagues to live together in the same boardinghouse. they would discuss supreme court cases over marshall's favorite drink which was at the era, and all the buses as -- justices would get buzzed and all the cases were unanimous. and then, of course, the famous

moment that the justices vote only with him when it rains. our jurisdiction is so broad command must be raining summer. so this principle, the principle is important to leadership and a founding era, and yet we don't want to commence five. he shows so vividly, not all of your main players are convivial. john adams was in late obnoxious and disliked as we learn from 1776, my favorite musical. ideals and emotions are always on display. he left us with these recounts. >> i really should be grateful to john adams because if john adams consistencies violation of the rules of secrecy in his letters home to abigail let us know as much as we do about what was going on in the continental congress. they really were down by the

rule of secrecy, but john adams never abated. that is helpful, and it is also the case that his emotional commitment to independence much earlier on than most of the delegates drove all of that forward. now, believe me, there were times when his fellow delegates just wanted to wring his neck because he really could be obnoxious in his passionate advocacy of his own points of view. and there will say, you know, two of our founding fathers, thomas jefferson and john adams have these dozens and dozens and dozens of volumes of correspondence. so we know what they thought about everything. and in the case of john adams and know what he thought about everyone. and he did not like you, he would let ibm know about it. and so therefore we historians know about it. this book is not an anti david

mccullough book. but -- and i loved the hbo series on john adams, but i really did feel that it was looking at john adams through the eyes of john adams. [laughter] a favorite point of view. >> yeah. that's right. and in particular, since adams and dickenson were always -- adams was always being on dickenson, dickinson was too frail really to beat up on adams some of this book instigates the quieter personalities like the consent, some of their due. >> patrick henry, the fiery virginia orator considers america's connection with great britain dissolved in the colony now living in a state of nature. the question i had a three-year break description of patrick henry, nowadays we have been tea party or occupy wall street? >> i'm so glad you asked me because i forgot to do something.

i do like to imagine which politicians today these folks in 74 to 76 would be most like. and i just have to go back to john adams. barney frank. [laughter] barney frank, intelligent, passionate, abrasive. john adams i don't think. but other than that -- i mean, i really think that john adams was -- r. 21st century congress. i think that patrick henry is ron paul. i think truly that the two-party would love of patrick henry. he -- in the opening days of the first continental congress he made this speech arguing for representation and the congress,

which he was defeated, saying we're not just virginians are new yorkers. we are all american. that gives an impression of the continental minded politician. what he was mainly concerned about is protecting the interest of the most populous colony in america, the colony of virginia. all of his career, his primary devotion was to defending the interest, first of his colony, and then of his sovereign commonwealth. so i think he gets along really well. really think of all the 18th-century politicians, though one consistently through his career who is most consistently supporting the tea party ideals is patrick henry. >> what distinguishes temperamentally dickenson, the compromiser, the person willing to set aside ideological terry

and the service of legitimacy and henry, i guess you'd call him the ideologue who just won't compromise on all. >> but also, henry, the virginian as opposed to dickenson all to valley not just the pennsylvanian, but the american. and that, i think, is the other -- another important part of the story that i'm trying to tell. these folks not only came together as a gathering of strangers, but as representatives, as delegates from their individual colonial was ledgers. and they were very much bound to do what their legislatures told them to do. so, for example, the new york delegates and the conduct of congress were not a will to vote in favor of independence until five days after the declaration was adopted, july 9th, because the -- new york legislature had not given them permission to

do so. but over the course of those 22 months i really do believe that most of these delegates began to think like americans. so, although the continental congress is a congress, it is an extralegal body. it has absolutely no legal constitutional legitimacy. but over time they really do. and by the way, a first call themselves a general congress, whatever that meant. except, by the way, congress, the term congress itself, i'm sorry. at the constitution center. i have to get into some of these sort of, you know, mythic the constitutional issues. a congress, by definition, was a body of delegates representing individual sovereign states. it was not like our federal congress today which represents we, the people. it really was representing the various colonial legislatures.

but over time -- so it was called the general congress, a collection of delegates from these individual colonies. then they started calling it a small see continental congress and then say we are calling it a capitol c continental congress and have evolved into being americans first, national congress speaking for the people of the united states, whether the first time it was officially used, of course, being in the final paragraph of the declaration of independence. >> the visiting narrative here is that independence is not inevitable. and that it came about because of particular people and particular events. what were some of the tipping points? >> again, going to go back to john adams. on july 3rd he wrote to the letters the day after the vote

in favor of independence. one of his letters is quite famous in which he predicts that july 2nd will forever be as celebrated as america's great anniversary festival, missing it by today's. he also said to abigail that heaven has dictated that these two countries will be foundered forever, implying a kind of divine, you know, inevitability. and certainly american politicians, from that time forward on july 4th in their speeches often speak about the inevitability of american independence. i knew most of us. i will confess. my activists would just as me for this. i believe that our history is a unique one and it is a history

marked by unusual amounts of freedom, an unusual amounts of opportunity. but in the mid 18th century americans did not feel that way. they loved their king. they loved their identity as subjects of the british king. they had framed portraits of king george the third in their dining rooms. and so this remarkable development between 1763 when that conflict for the british first begins in 1776 by which ultimately thomas jefferson is calling george the third a devil and a tyrant, it is really an audacious move forward. >> use of vividly shows how these americans are divided. i love this detail. you talk about benjamin rush, the greater philadelphia physician goes to london, goes

to the house of lords and sees king george's turn and decides that he really wants to sit on it. i felt as if i was walking on sacred ground. in an active on common bullishness the astor died if he might be permitted to sit on the throne. the gatt initially told and that was out of the question, but such was the intensity of his appeal that they eventually agreed to allow him to do so. [laughter] take that for tsa security. [laughter] when he first sat down he is overwhelmed with a feeling, a crowd of ideas. a golden pyramid of world demands wishes. he goes to the house of commons and feels only anger because this is the body that passed the detested stamp act which shows out these are people who thought of themselves. >> and the conflict. in england at the constitutional conflict in the colonies and the british parliament in particular

, he is very angry. when he goes into the house of lords and sits on the throne and is so overcome with emotion, i think that really such a wonderful example of the process that americans would have to go through in the coming years. so it was not an easy decision to make that break. >> could it have gone the other way? was there one or two moments? >> well, people of the british west indies did it. the people of australia did it much, much later. it was not the only solution. it is the case that you really do have steadier relation of the conflict. when there are three groups of 50 mohawk indians tossed and 92,000 pounds of tea in the

boston harbor, the british parliament has pretty much had it with those fanatics. they pass the coercive acts which really does up the ante. that is what precipitates the calling of the continental congress and then, of course, april 19th, 1775 is not a trivial date. once americans are engaged in military conflict with the british then reconciliation certainly becomes more difficult , but what really is so striking is that right up until seven in january of 76, most americans are doing everything that they can test find that path toward reconciliation. and they have already reached the constitutional jumping point. i think the recent constitutional jumping point by october of 1774 when they were

denying all parliamentary authority. it was really the psychological leap. it was the different one. >> less talk about jefferson and several of the declaration in making that permanent. you have a reading chapter on the drafting of the declaration. what were some of the differences between jefferses decker -- declaration, the first draft and what you call ultimately america's declaration >> jefferson is a relative newcomer to the continental politics. he is not elected to the continental congress in 1774. i think he finished something like ten or 11th in the voting in the house of burgesses. he is not one of the top figures. over the course of the next year , through his writing, he does get our water reputation as a very smart guy. and as somebody who is beginning to articulate a new conception

of america's relationship with their mother country. a relationship actually not all that different from the one that was initially worked out between canada and the british sovereign . so, he comes to the congress in may of 1775. he had been in monticello for more than six months before that time. he is -- the delegates' votes to elect to the committee that is going to draft the declaration of independence. and jefferson receives the largest number of votes, which is interesting because he was really -- had not set almost anything in the town of congress before that time. >> there is supposedly this back-and-forth conversation between john adams and jefferson

in which jefferson says to adams, you do it. you do it. back-and-forth. back-and-forth. jefferson and a letter later says, excuse me, but both. i was the one -- i was the chairman of the committee and now was going to drafted and that drafted it. >> one of my favorite parts of the show. >> i love 1776. it's wonderful. but certainly if you have that conversation with jefferson, there was no conversation. he went just a couple of blocks from here to do that. and is first draft of the declaration goes very heavily on the virginia constitution. in fact, jefferson is seriously considering not coming to philadelphia but going to williamsburg in may of 1776 because they were drafting their

own constitution. jefferson was a virginian as well as an american at that time he drafts and elegant first draft of the constitution. it is altered slightly in a few days' time as benjamin franklin, livingston, adams, and sherman make a few changes in the document. >> you give us the very first draft of jefferson's in which he wrote we hold these truths to be self-evident. all men are created equal and independent, that it from that equal creation date to arrive rights inherent in inalienable, which of the preservation of life and liberty and pursuit of happiness. you, of course, suggest the final version was a bit more elegant. this is the question i have always had which bears deeply on

the difference between jefferson's declaration and the constitution. what is the significance of jefferson's language and the language of the fifth amendment to the constitution which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. what is the difference between the pursuit of happiness and property. >> well, of course the original treatise on government was life, liberty, and property. jefferson was certainly trying heavily on that intellectual tradition. but the phrase pursuit of happiness, i do believe. the declaration of independence is a revolutionary document. it is a document designed to inspire the american people. it is, as i think a very distinguished lawyer in our audience tonight has frequently

said, and i frequently have stolen this line from an. the preamble to the declaration of independence reads like pure poetry. the u.s. constitution reads like a prenuptial agreement. it is purely a legal text. and so the fifth amendment -- i mean, not only the body of the constitution. you're going to write that down. >> it's a good line. let's just try our preamble. we, the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice , ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity. >> you read the rest of the constitution to this audience. [laughter] >> i agree with you. now, i have to go off message. that one of the things that i frequently said in arguing that

the founding fathers of 1700 state come together to create a body with energy with deaf power to do those things in the preamble of his those words in the preamble. what i like to say, if you ask the tea party with the constitution means they will cite the second amendment, the right to bear arms, the tenth amendment reserving all power to the states command the first five words of the first amendment, congress shall make no laws. and i think, no. but the founding fathers were about is articulated in the preamble, but i have to say, the writer of the preamble, not everybody in that convention would have agreed with his vision of the government. >> we do have a sense, though, from jefferson's natural law -- background, he and a fellow founders believed that these rights came not from the government, but from god. jefferson was a deist and thought that these are natural

rights and that the bill of rights may have declared these fundamental rights, but did not create them. in that sense they a little bit more about the relationship between the declaration and the constitution. >> well, first of all, let me say something about the role of god and all of this. the deities are of opec -- deasy looked a couple of times. the first greatest joining of the declaration of independence said that thomas jefferson deified nature and naturalized got. so i think jefferson did not believe in an active hand in god. one of the interesting things in the final passage is the declaration. the divinity is is up a couple of times. those were added by the congress

in editing of his draft. it is actually interesting. in the big changes in the declaration occur now when jefferson beach with his committee of five, but when they deliver to congress the declaration on june 28. manley it was debated and edited on july 3rd and july 4th. congress makes some serious efforts to the declaration. jefferson had in the list of specific grievances, this a very long, really long winded denunciations of the safe trade and of the institution of slavery. and if you read that, it does not sound anything like the rest of the declaration. there is a lot accessibility. he is struggling, i think, with his own issue on the subject of

slavery. then there is also in the closing paragraphs of the declaration, this budget denunciations of the british people, not just the can, but the british people. the members of congress say, wait a minute. we are all british or we work. so cool that. if you look at jefferson's draft, all of these lines through the last paragraph, although they did add got a couple of times in the last paragraph. i know i did not answer your question. >> we will talk about it after the show. not -- a lot of great questions which i want to give to you and a second. we cannot close without a discussion of the first schism and most popular former insiders all just by the fact that his hands are shinier than everyone else's because everyone likes to come up and rubbed the hands of benjamin franklin. >> the stolen spectacle dozens

of times. >> some historians have questioned his role saying he was on both sides of the conflict with great britain. what was his role? >> a couple of quick things. first of all, i gave fourth generation californian. i have lived in philadelphia for 45 years. my first three books were on virginia. when i first moved here i thought of franklin as kind of a character, this kind of, you know, rowley polianite, a lot of funny jokes and things but not as serious person. over the course of my 45 years here and really have come to believe that franklin was the best and wisest of our founding fathers. his role and independence is a fascinating . from 1767 to march of 1775, he spent all but about two years living in london and lump --

loving living in london. and loving living and hobnobbing with british aristocrats and politicians. you know, the second amendment right to bear arms does give one the permission to shoot anybody. [laughter] sorry. and i've won't say his cell phone went off. [laughter] [inaudible] >> so in the wake of the boston tea party, when parliament is getting really annoyed with the americans, franklin is called in to what is called the cockpit, one of the anterooms of the british parliament and is given this very public dressing down and literally called a traitor. and franklin is a proud man.

i really believe that that was the moment in which franklin, who was always playing the role of diplomat, trying to up form the basis for the accommodation of reconciliation between the british and americans. france and became an american. three months later he sailed home to america. among other things on the voyage home my editor cut this from the book. i will tell you about it. he is such a great man. [applause] he saves the gulfstream. sailing along the gulf stream. taking all of these elaborate notes which she later publishes. the man's intellectual curiosity new know wind. he did play conciliatory role in the continental congress. he was one of those who brought the delegates together.

he was never crack great speechmaker. but talk about the power of the delegates getting together and the dining room over good food and drinks. that is some of his greatness. yes, in his written sense of humor, very, very important, but that sense of humility combined with intense intelligence really did make him an indispensable figure. >> beautiful. we are trying to have to have something for all future evening functions. [applause] but even without that stimulant we have a series of excellence audience questions, and i will read into the now. would willingness to allow representation for american colonies have reconciled the colonies to remain under british rule? how is it the possibility historically? >> great question.

in fact, in 45 years that i have talked about the american revolution this subject comes up as early as 1765. i say to my students, okay, let's put this movement toward revolution to a halt. let's resolve the issue of giving americans adequate representation and the british parliament. end 45 years students have never come up with a solution for providing americans with adequate representation. so -- and, indeed, one person who ultimately becomes a tory and much despised in america and particularly in philadelphia, joseph galloway on september 28, 1774, presents his plan of union in which a grand council will be created, a council consisting of elected representatives from the

american colonies on one hand also elected delegates from parliament. on any issue affecting the colony's this grand council would meet and try to come to an agreement upon them. it sounds good so far. it really sounds like a method of getting americans adequate representation on any piece of british legislation affecting them. but his plan of union and king george the third set and assistance was that ultimately the king of parliament would have a veto power over any piece of legislation or any agreement reached in this grand council. so ultimately it is a question of sovereignty. ultimately who's the boss, and the british were not willing to make american representatives co-equal. and the other possibility is let's give each colony five representatives in parliament.

you know, a parliament of 400 members on any issue of the americans are going to get out voted. so i think it was and irreconcilable issue, which is why not only the americans ultimately result it -- revolted, but why every revolution for self-determination has tended to be successful. >> it wasn't king george's fault? >> nobody has come up with an answer to that. i am -- you know, king george the third is not going to be -- he is probably not going to win any, you know, i.q. awards. but he is not down. he is very, very conscientious, maybe to conscientious. maybe he would have done better if he had left things aside. he was not the devil and the tyrant that the americans define him as in 1776.

>> since september 2001 we have been in and the fact a state of war without boundaries of space or time permitting be executive to take in his singular opinion all appropriate actions which has included taking lives when u.s. citizens, incarcerating people indefinitely without trial. what the founders say? >> oh, boy. yap. well, i want to say two things. i want to say two things. we have not -- congress has the power to declare war. has not since world war two. i think that is a failure of congress and ultimately the failure of we, the people, to insist that congress stepped forward and exercise their right so hopefully i do think we, the

people, the ones to rein in actions that some might regard as unconstitutional. i happen to believe that will war on terror can potentially be one of the greatest threats to american civil liberties that we have faced at least since the civil war when abraham lincoln suspended habeas corpus. again, i think the way to put an end to that is for we, the people, to reach some kind of consensus on how we achieve what tom paine who has once again not gotten his due in philadelphia. what he said was, we are the ultimate aims of government, freedom and security in finding that proper balance. >> i cannot resist a follow-up because it is such an important question. what the founders thought about

drones' obviously has a hypothetical feature. the supreme court oral argument about video games were justice elliott was asking about the understanding. patiently said well, he was a note if what the founders thought about video games. and he said, no, i want to know what they thought about free-speech. nevertheless, i get a sense from your book that not all of the framers would have agreed. he suggested that patrick henry might have filibustered against the drones. would dickenson or john rutledge have supported them? >> you know, as jeff and i were talking my next book has a working title of the founding fathers are spinning in their graves which is a kind of reflection on the relationship between the values and views of our 18th century founders and the issues that we face in the

21st century. and i think -- i'm sorry. there are some issues where they just faint. you said in 1847 in front of james madison. [laughter] actually, i think -- james madison was a kind of a nerd. i think he would have fainted dead away. now, patrick henry might have been more excited about that. i don't know but it seems to me that the evolution of technology is something that the founding fathers would have had to think long and hard about. they certainly did not believe in granting full civil liberties to loyalists during the american revolution. they did not mind pumping out from behind trees and boulders to shoot their british soldier

to enemies. >> nor did many mind prosecuting their critics for sedition. presumably -- were as madison and jefferson objected strongly. i get the sense that there was not a unanimous view. >> i am certainly not an original list in my view of how the constitution should be interpreted. it is not because i don't respect the views and boundaries of our founding fathers. but the diversity of opinion among them on these fundamental issues of relationship between the federal government and the state government, separation of powers, so diverse that i think it would be arrogant of us to believe that we could -- we have some insight into how they would have viewed some of the very

complicated issues that we face today. >> all right. here is another good one. who would be today's contract and? >> wow. can somebody give me some help here? seriously. give me an nomination. >> we heard ted kennedy. okay. i don't think we have a consensus on that one. can i hear a couple more? that is what i would have said. [inaudible conversations] let's face it. he was -- he is a guy who works toward getting things done, getting things accomplished. he has a good sense of humor. the extra curricular romantic

lives. you know, i'm sorry. my favorite moment between john adams and benjamin franklin, they are serving in france together and negotiating the treaty of peace. and adams, a newfoundlander, is up every morning at dawn, getting ready to go to work to protect the right of new england , off the coast of newfoundland. franklin is out late drinking and partying with all of the lovely french women, and john adams goes into franklin's better at about 11:00 in the morning. franklin is naked in the best from, surrounded by beautiful women who are giving him shampoo , drinking a glass of champagne. and adams goes home in a diatribe about the late franklin is. of course, franklin knew how to

negotiate. a way that adams did not. you know, let me just -- i need to make a concession. i have just read this book. my editor knows, i was under a lot of pressure in the final month to get this book finished. this is the first time i have ever been in front of a group talking about what is in the book. and so this morning and said to myself, what is in this book. so i'm trying to think about things to talk about. i did have this idea of comparing the signers of the declaration of independence with our politicians today. i made this list. i love the barney frank john adams one. then i thought about fred benjamin franklin. it took me a long time, but i think it is bill clinton. bill clinton has lost a lot of weight. think back to him a few years

ago. i don't think the he had that sort of personality that was aimed at getting things done. >> not to mention the extracurricular love life. what part did the debt of the planters class of to the british concern's play in their political decisions to vote for independence? >> well, it actually -- americans are not in debt to the british in 1776. the british government was in big-time debt to countries all over the world because of the cost of winning the french and indian war, basically the cost of taking all of this territory in british north america away from france and spain. and the british in 1763, the british parliament said, hey,

this land is in america, but we are paying the bills for this. it is time for the americans to pay their fair share. so the whole british change in policy, the abandonment of salutary neglect and the desire to tax the americans to at least make them pay a share of the cost of the british empire is what really sets this conflict in motion. i think it was not just -- it was not the southern planter. it was the fact that the british just did not think that the americans have been doing all that they could to support their empire. they were all part of the empire of course, the real villain was not southern planters, those and smugglers, john hancock, people like that. >> what is the most surprising thing you learned in researching

the you did not appreciate before writing this book? >> that's a good question. >> it sure is. >> i think that -- i'm sorry, but we are at the constitution center. i really did not appreciate how much the continental congress evolved from the this extralegal body with no legitimacy whatsoever in to the congress that could come by 1776, speak in the name of the american people. i have always believed since the first discussions about the constitution center began, were begun by gentleman sitting in the front row here in about 1985 or 1986, the story of the

american revolution and the creation of the american nation under the constitution were all the same story. there were so intricately bound together. and i came to realize that even more in the course of writing this book. this gathering of strangers in september of 74 grew by july of 1776 really are beginning to think of themselves as americans it would take 11 more years to make that big next step. but i think really these 22 months were tremendously important in doing that. >> there is nothing in the patrick henry independence park bookstore. i was told we only carry materials on the founding fathers. check in virginia. do you consider patrick henry one of the founders and one? >> yes.

my second book, the only time i was of finalist for the national book award was a biography of patrick henry. [laughter] >> so long out of print that patrick henry is a very definitely part of the american founding tradition, particularly after the founding fathers of 1787 leave the constitutional convention in philadelphia, show what they have done in secret to the people of america at large. the people of america at large notice that there is no bill of rights. patrick kennedy is one of those americans who, although he bitterly oppose the constitution , is significantly responsible for that promise to add a bill of rights once the new government commenced operation. in the other thing i want to say about patrick henry, i have

already given a hint about where my own politics are. but we are all americans today. tea party people and liberal democrats alike. and if patrick henry is the 18th-century tea partier, he has every bit as much right to express his values on how american independence should be filled as any other of the american founders. i really do believe that he deserves his proper place. not in a sign near gasol, though. [laughter] >> which one of the founding fathers was infielder, and how did that status affect his or her views? >> i'm sorry? >> was one of the founding fathers were freeholders? >> they were all freeholders and the technical sense of the word, which is they owned property. in fact, i mean, they were all

mostly wealthy white men. there are couple of exceptions. >> two is the poorest founder? >> i think roger sherman of connecticut. interestingly, the two founding fathers who were born in relatively poor are benjamin franklin, who makes it up close to the top. but roger sherman who is, by the way, one of only five signers of the declaration of independence who also signed the united states constitution, most americans today, as you know, really do merge these two documents together. ..

like inspector attendance tendons in the town of hartford connecticut, serving and paying salaries for government jobs that never but never had the kind of independent wealth that most of the framers did. see the last question is this. how does the constitution promote and maintain peace? >> well again, tom paine in common sense said that, he set a couple of things. first he said that the government in its best state is a necessary evil and in its worst state a powerful one which

i think nicely sort of defines this intention that we have today in our debates about the role of government. just a paragraph later he said that the two jobs at government were protecting and promoting freedom but also promoting security, and promoting security and promoting peace are sometimes, not always, the same thing. that is a tough one. >> wreck this conversation has been just what i hoped. it's been a model for the engaged constitutional conversations we are having at the center every week and every month. thank you so much for this and thank you for writing this wonderful book and ladies and gentlemen please join us after the show. [applause] >> thank you.

[applause] what are you reading this summer? booktv wants to know.

>> is what we put in the intro and there was a disconnect. first of all the world that i've been working in for 25 years, tv, everything is exaggerated. you have to be much thinner than a normal person. you have to be a certain way. you have to look a certain way and we have broken all those

rules on our show but 25 years of local news and network news took its toll on my image of myself and i tell stories in the book about how we had to dress a certain way and the things we have to do. i was even told by a member executive to want to hire me but i really needed to lose weight and come back in six months and try again. i did and i came back in six months and got a job. the messages were very clear and some of them were subliminal. but you know if you already have a certain obsession or compulsiveness or i claim even addiction to become what we are surrounded with in our environment i think it's a bad mix and i tell the story because i discovered after a very very uncomfortable tough conversation with an extremely close friend who was actually ob's, that even though she had a very different

physical result, we both had gotten to the point that we had gotten to the same way. >> let's set that up in one second but to let people know how the obsession continues. she was on "the today show" yesterday, right? she was working her way towards being healthy and you were. >> i was 118 pounds. >> since you started doing this book you actually started eating and how much do you weigh now? >> 133, size six. and it's good. >> so we are celebrating this and make a says i look good, i look good like she is convincing herself that this obsessed demon inside of you. i called you on "the today show" and i said haight that today show was great. it was amazing. she said i looked fat. i was like oh you are still

obsessed. but you are obsessed, diane and your friend even though she weighed 255 pounds she carried the same obsession around with her all the time. talk about, talk about how this book started two years ago. >> two years ago and by the way and addiction is probably something you'll never get rid of so we we will go there and is second to two years ago i'm on a boat with one of my closest friends and our families were there. i have known her for a long time. we have shared so much together. >> you guys had a baby together. >> we had a baby together. my husband was out of town for the birth of her second child and she came to the hospital with me and in the middle of intense labor carly was taking a long time to arrive in the doctor went to order a --

so literally there are sides to me i wish he hasn't seen but i will tell you it was amazing to me that about two years ago, we had known each other so long and had shared so much but we hadn't talked about this one thing that really needed to be addressed and divided us. i was really skinny, probably too skinny. yes, i was too skinny and diane had become obese. she had gained 100 pounds. and i told her on that boat ride and you can imagine how thin i was and how she must have felt, but i told her that i was worried about her and that she was fat. i used the word obese end i found my heart beating and sweat began to run down my back because i could tell the conversation could get really bad. >> yeah i don't usually tell my friends that. but you decided to do this.

you decided to do it because you loved her and you knew that she was literally killing herself as much as somebody who smoked a couple of packs of cigarettes. >> here's the question i have. women claim to be able to tell their friendship, they tell each other everything but do we? do we? if you have a friend who is so clearly obese and struggling and can't even get into it load, if your friend had cancer wouldn't you support her and talk to her about it and help her? if your friend had another illness or condition wouldn't you go there and walk her through it and yet if a friend is obese, we subconsciously judge them and the data shows we don't hire them. we think there are slobs. we think there are and disciplined. we don't think they are as good as us.

>> what are you reading this summer? book tv wants to know. >> i have five books i'm reading and i call it might wish list because if i get through three of these i will consider it.

the one i'm trying to finish eight eli saslow from "the washington post." he wrote this year and a half ago and to look back at some of the people who write letters to president obama. you know he reads "ten letters" every day from everyday americans and so if eli went back and found 10 of them who had written to the president with some real stories in the midst of the economic recession. it's a really neat look and he dove into some of the interactions people have with the president. it's not so much about him but the people who reached out. almost done with adam and that's done i will move onto "act of congress" by bob kaiser and another guy from "the washington post" to look at how congress dealt with financial regulatory reform a few years ago and used it to explain why it but congress is so broken. bob covered congress back in the 1970s and it there was a big differencdifferenc e between then and now. it's completely obvious to most people that he finds it's a real dysfunction in two different ways and is supposed to be

really good read. after that another book by a guy who works for "the washington post." i'm not doing this on purpose. "collision 2012" which is by dan balz which is a look back at the 2012 campaign. he did a similar book in the 2000 campaign so this is his look at the obama versus romney raised and all the guys involved and in that is coming out in august. the other one is through "through the perilous fight" which is by steve vogel also of "the washington post." he took a two year book leave to work on this book, a neat look back into the six weeks during the war of 1812 winnow washington was under siege and with the city went through and how it changed. it's supposed to be a really good read and i hope to get into that later in the summer as well so if i get to two or three of those books i will be very proud of myself. another one i'm trying to finish is "the great gatsby." i never read it in high school and i saw the movie and started it before then and i hope to finish that one as well.

>> there tends to be a denigration of the u.s. military by some historians that whenever one german wehrmacht battalion fought an american battalion and one regiment fought an american regiment that the germans tended to be tactically superior. that mono e mono they were better than the military. i think this is just nonsense because it's pointless. global war is a clash of systems. it's which system can produce the wherewithal to project power in the atlantic, the pacific, the indian ocean, southeast asia which system can produce the

civilian leadership to create the transportation system, the civilian leadership that is able to provoke -- produce 96,000 airplanes in 1944? jaron lanier a pioneer in the virtue in reality -- and weakened our middle class. this is about one hour and 40 minutes. >> thank you so much. i will try to heed the warning and not fall off of the back of the stage. oh my.it is bright, wow. thanks for c-span.