>> good morning. we will get our program started

but there will be coffee and food still in the back. and in time you want to get up, do so. thank you all for coming this morning. discussing your new book on john marshall. although a special welcome to our cosponsor today and our c-span audience. my name is lindsay cry, is a nonprofit supporting the national review and mission. it is my pleasure to welcome you. national review magazine which is known and loved for over six years is a wholly-owned subsidiary and our mission is to preserve and promote the legacy of william f buckley junior and advance the conservative principles he championed in sport the challenge like important writers like, rick brookhiser.

to reflect on his contributions we held successful events all around the country aimed to be not only nostalgic but also inspirational. we realized that the young staff at our organizations were just barely reaching their teens when the bill passed. to them buckley and is passionate and persistent advocacy of his civil and inclusive manner and those could be words on the wikipedia page. this fall we took those legacy events to over 15 college campuses and last week we were at berkeley last night we were at king college and a forum with rich lowry and national review editor in chief and discussion about the important value that buckley espouse. as ronald reagan warned freedom to be lost in a generation. we must continue to read and appreciate ' experiments and the successes and failures and

reflect with gratitude for those who behave the way before us. that is an important reason why we support rick brookhiser on the american founding. thanks to supporters like you he will continue to stand up for the pencils at the conservative values that made this country great, exceptional and are not afraid to say it. our upcoming idea summit we will highlight that. making the case for the american experiment is our title so please come join us. our featured guest this morning is rick brookhiser, a journali journalist, biographer and historian. he first published in an art at the age of 15 and is held the roles over the years. today he is senior editor at the national view and a fellow at the institute and most widely known for his series of biographies on the american founders including alexander hamilton, governor morris and george washington.

rick has been awarded many honors but notable among them is a national humanities medal for damon 2008. you're fortunate that he is dedicated with a strong passion to documenting the founding and bring it to new audiences. after rick talks about his book he will sit with rich lowry to discuss it in depth and no cards on your table and if you're collected to be discussion so please enjoy with rick brookhiser and welcome them with me. [applause] >> thank you, lindsay for that introduction and thank you all for coming out. i am always glad to be speaking at the club because i was married here. thirty-eight years ago. still married, same wife.

i just want to thank one person to whom the book is dedicated. i met him in 1982 covering him for national view when he was running for governor against mario cuomo. he lost that race and new york is still suffering from that onto the second generation. america is benefit because he was freed by that defeat to pursue his great love american history what he has done for ministry over the years is a stellar with the institute and with the exhibition of the new york historical society of 2004 and alexander hamilton we were for hamilton before he was cool. it was a great honor for me to dedicate this book to him. i am sorry the spring court has been so out of the news the last

few months but i will try to make this top talk relative anyway. the reason that it is in the news is ultimately the fourth chief justice, john marshall. he was a man who made the federal judiciary the peer of the legislative and the executive. this morning i just want to say a few morning about and i want to talk about how he led the court and look at one of the important cases and talk about his critics both in his lifetime and "after words". most important thing to say about john marshall is that even though he spent most of his adult life enrichment one month a year in washington dc when the court was in session and several years in philadelphia, six was in paris and all his life he was a country boy and born in -- in

the first house he lived in was a log cabin and the second was a framed house and the third house had glass in the windows. did not was not quite in a build quite on the frontier but definitely a life in the country and he retained his country habits and attitude all his life. the word that people use over and over again to describe them is simple. people meeting them for the first time a new him for years and described him as simple. he did not care how he dressed. when he was writing circuit in north carolina what time he forgot to pack a pair of pants. when he arrived the local they were unable to apply so they had to cover him with his judicial robe while he was there. his hair was cut by his wife.

if his wife cannot cut it who knows what he would have looked like. he had very simple attitudes toward rigging. he liked it. he liked it a lot. when he became chief justice the court had a custom already that the justices when they deliberated would hear cases during the day and then they would go to the boarding house they were staying at and discuss them over dinner and after dinner. the course customers they could only have wine at these discussions if it was raining outside. i assume that was to tear themselves up. marshall when he became chief justice would always ask his colleagues usually associate justice story to look up the window and tell them what the weather was. brother story with a the sky is perfectly clear and marshall would say our jurisdiction is so vast that it must be raining somewhere.

wine was always served to the marshall court. marshall loved the ball exercise and simple gangs. he walked several miles before breakfast every day of his life until he suddenly became two people to do it anymore. his nickname in the army was silver heels. that was partly because his mother sewed him socks with white patches in the hills but it was also because he could jump over a bar resting on the heads of two men. his favorite game was -- which was horseshoes only played with metal rings rather than horseshoes. the first time is to pitch them over a post called a mag. people who saw marshall playing the game said he would devote as much attention to deciding who was posterior to the -- as he went on his great supreme court decisions. the other important thing about

him was who he most admired. one of the men, certainly has father thomas marshall was home schooled him and dedicated him to being a lawyer. but the other man he admired was the father of his country, george washington. marshall volunteered when he was 19 years old to join the virginia mozilla in 1775. the following year he joined the continental army and was in the revolution up until 1781 almost the entire length of it. he fought in seven battles and in three of them committed by washington, brandywine, germantown and monmouth spent the winter at valley forge where washington again was in command. marshall saw his commander-in-chief and if he saw them in victory and saw them at

this terrible winter came it went they were unclothed, unfed and unpaid. marshall's conclusion from these experiences is that they were on the rock in which the resolution rested. he was a man who saw the project through. when washington returned to congress marshall wrote a letter a few days later to an old friend of his and he said at length the military career and the greatest man on earth was closed and may happiness attend him wherever he goes. whenever i think of that superior man my whole heart overflows with gratitude. this is not a trivial feeling but marshall followed washington again after the war when washington and other leaders decided that the american form of government needed to be

changed in the articles of confederation under which we declare our independence were not sufficient to carry out the task the government had to do so we needed a new constitution. washington presided over the constitutional convention in 1787 and a year later john marshall was a delegate to the virginia ratifying convention where he took a strong pro- constitutional stand. then he followed washington again in 1798. the first two-party system had arisen, federalist versus the republicans. the first republic and party is the ancestor of today's democrats and that was jefferson and madison. federalist were the washington, adams, hamilton. marshall was a federalist and in 1798 washington summoned him to mount vernon and told him yet to run for congress. federalist party was weak in

virginia and washington that it needed new, younger blood. marshall did not want to run because he was a lawyer of private practice making the money and had a growing family and was buying land and needed the income so he kept refusing and then he decided i can't keep say no to the greatest man on earth. i have to get up at the crack of dawn and get out of here. washington had gone up first and put on his old uniform. so, marshall as he put it he exceeded to this representation and ran for congress in one and then it was from congress that president john adams picked him to be secretary of state after he had a cabinet shakeup. then at the end of adam's term adams loses the election of 1802 thomas jefferson, their rematch. adams had been in neroli in 1796

but 1800 was a blue wave. jefferson won the white house jefferson's party took both houses of congress from the federalist. in this lame-duck. adams and his secretary of state for trying to fill the federal judiciary with federalists. then, adams gets a letter from the then current chief justice, oliver ellsworth, ellsworth said he had gout and his health was bad so he was leaving the job. adams had to fill this post. so the name he sent to the senate was that of the first man to be chief justice for that united states, john jay. the great by master, diplomat, federalist paper author. jay had been chief justice from 1789-7095 and then left to be governor of new york.

adams sent his name to the senate and the senate confirmed him. then adam got a letter from j saying he would not take the job. jay said the federal judiciary lacked energy, weight and dignity. he was not going to be chief justice again. so we have to imagine adams and john marshall sitting in adam's office in the still unfinished white house and the exterior shell is done but the interior is a construction site. ... is the winner of the election of 1800, thomas jefferson,

marshall's second cousin once removed. marshall detached him and jefferson hate them in return. marshall didn't hate many people here and jefferson hated a fair number of people, but marshall was always high on his list. and jefferson's mind, marshall would twist anything to a pre-determined conclusion. jefferson warned joseph story before he got on the court that you must never give a direct answer to any question that marshall asks he appeared if he asks me if the sun were shining i would say i don't know, sir. i cannot tell impaired marshal.jefferson was a demagogue, that he talked a great game about letting congress run things that he was secretly directing it behind the scenes in riding waves of popular sentiment to serve his own popularity. he also thought jefferson had been a disloyal secretary of

state and the server in george washington's foreign policies with one hand while undermining them with another. so in march 1801, the one cousin, the new chief justice swears in the other cousin, the new president. marshall comes sans to record here there's only six justices in those days. they've all been appointed at washington, but in only 11 years after jefferson's administration and james madison, the partisan balance of the court has changed from two fabulous 25 republicans. congress increased the size of the court to seven. and yet all of these republican justices followed marshall's late. how did he do that?

he liked his colleagues. and this is the irreducible basis of success in any political field. marshall also practice deference. if there were colleagues more expert in areas of law than he was, he would let them take the lead. it was admiral latte with the -- the land titles at the justice todd. when you show deference come you get deference in return. it is not just the right thing to do. it is the smart thing to do. a third factor was marshall was always the smartest man in the room and many of his colleagues were brilliant jurist themselves, but they all its knowledge to superiority. his mind was not quite. it took him a while to get going, but once he did come he was almost implacable.

william wirth, who started out as an advocate for the supreme court later became attorney general. he described marshall's mind take the atlantic ocean. everyone else's mind premiere pawns. the fourth fact there is tenure. still a record. he will swear in five presidents in nine and not urals. he's picked by john adnan sydney goes to the second term of andrew jackson. in the middle of that, there is an 11 year. comment 1812 to 23 where there are no personal changes on the supreme court. we've only had one such. ever again. marshall is there a long time to exercise his geniality, has deference and his intellect. probably his most famous case,

the one we were all taught as marbury v. madison and that established the principle of judicial review. the most important thing was not that principle. john marshall did not invent that. that was already well known. alec ander hamilton had read about the federalist papers and spoken of it in the virginia ratifying convention. but it's a long opinion. 9000 words in the news when it was issued is about 8500 words of it are a scored against the jefferson administration, telling us that as miss behave, that william marbury was entitled to a commission as a justice of peace and the district of columbia, the jefferson at had not delivered this commission to him. they ought to have done it. marshall decides marbury can't get it because the means of redress he is seeking is in fact

something the supreme court cannot do. the law that gave them that power was unconstitutional. but most of the decision is shaking his finger at his second cousin's administration. the decisions that were most controversial were the supremacy decisions. the ones where the court assert supremacy over state court. there was a series of fletcher versus pak, and dartmouth c. woodward, collins versus virginia, mcculloch versus maryland. but the case i want to talk about this morning because of its economic significance was fletcher versus pak. ms had to do with a land deal in georgia in the 1790s. georgia was the poorest of the 13 colonies, but it had a vast

backcountry that went all the way to the mississippi river, what are now the states of alabama and mississippi. georgia realized they could fill this land off. so it made a deal in 1795 to sell 35 million acres for a penny and a half an acre. every member of the georgia legislature was bribed to make this sale. the going rate was $1000. one legislature took only $600 said he wasn't greedy. one word of this got out, the people of georgia replaced all of these legislators at the next election with the news that and they passed a repeal act, which nullified this sale and also forbade it from advert. in a georgia court. the repeal act said that any officer of the state through so much referred to the landfill would be fined $1000. so georgia has undone the sale

and if made it impossible to litigate in a georgia court. of course, the purchasers of the land were not intending to move to alabama or mississippi. they were going to flip their purchases immediately for a profit. this is very old american real estate story. the second purchasers were going to flip their tracks in turn. each side hoping to make a profit. but this would only work if this sale were valid. the first thing the purchasers did was cut of the opinion from alexander hamilton who is no longer in government. he was practicing as a lawyer in new york. hamilton wrote a brief opinion saying this sale would probably be upheld because of article i, section 10 of the constitution which forbids the state from impairing the obligation of contracts. the original sale would be

considered a contract and if this were taken to court, the courts would probably uphold its validity. but how could the purchasers bring it to court? georgia has prevented it from being litigated in court. the 11th amendment forbids citizens of another state from suing a state. but, if a citizen of one day soon as a citizen of another day, that can be a matter for the federal courts. -- who sold him a tract of georgia land. fletcher said you didn't have a legitimate title ii it because the repeal act has nullified the original sale. i want my purchase price back. $3000.

it takes a while to reach the supreme court in 1809. as a flawed one of the proceedings so it is reargued in 1810. marshall writes his decision. he follows hamilton's legal reasoning. he says that retracting a sale is unjust. it is also probably impossible because he said the past cannot be recalled by the most absolute power, but is heard and most important point is that it is unconstitutional. article i section 10 forbids states from impairing the obligation of contracts. what marshall adds to the argument a bit startling to read it. it is the bill of rights we think of as the first 10 amendments protecting freedom of

speech, freedom of the press, right to keep and bear arms. no warrantless searches and seizures. but marshall is a e-mail appeared before the first 10 amendments there was already a bill of rights in the constitution in this protected the obligation of contracts. the john marshall contracts are so important for protecting them become something that we would call a bill of rights. the reason i focus on this case is most responsible for our economic system we naturally think of hamilton. especially after the musical. but he deserves that reputation. hamilton plans in his project to support them and that comes from the decisions of john marshall in his court. fletcher versus pak, another

contract case and finally a commerce clause decision given. these are the pillars of the american economic system. marshall had critics in his lifetime. obviously, jefferson is one of the most potent. mostly jefferson does this send letters to friends complaining about marshall. this was a lifelong theme of his correspondence. jefferson said action to marshall is that constitutional questions should not be left in the hands of a body that is irresponsible to the people. justices of the supreme court are picked by the people because they're nominated by the president, confirmed by the president. so we have a role in picking

them. once they have their jobs, they hold them for good behavior. they never have to stand before popular judgment again. this violated jefferson's sense of how a democracy should work. so in addition to simply abusing marshall, he tried to think of alternative ways to adjudicate constitutional questions. one idea of his whenever there was such a question we should call another constitutional convention. he suggested this in a letter to james madison and madison as he so often did threw cold water said this would be tardy, troublesome and expensive to have an ongoing series of constitutional conventions. another marshall critic was senator richard johnson. he was most famous for having killed tecumseh in the war of 1812 and a second most famous for his campaign song which went

ritzy ribs the ones he comes killed to come see. [laughter] that johnson was a principled democrat. in the early 1820s he offered a series of constitutional amendments to limit the power of the court. one would allow congress to restrict it sure is action, to take certain cases out of the court's purview. another proposed to give the senate a veto on supreme court decisions. a third would have required a supermajority of justices to rule on comes traditional questions. none of these amendments ever became law. they're mostly squelched in committee or defeated in the senate. and then, long after johnson and jefferson and marshall died, abraham lincoln was also a critic of the supreme court are not particularly did dread scott

decision of 1857. this is the second time the court overturned a law of congress. this law was the missouri compromise. chief justice tawny explained this violated the fifth amendment, which says that there can be no taking of property without compensation. so therefore, congress has no right to forbid a property owner from taking his human property into any territory of the federal government. lincoln attacked this decision from the day it was rendered until his first inaugural when he had been sworn in by chief justice tawny who won what is said looked like a galvanized corpse. link inside that the parties to any suit to come to the supreme court have to abide by it decision. therefore had to remain a slave.

he also said these decisions could not have value as precedent unless they matched certain criteria. they had to be unanimous. he said they should also show no apparent partisan bias. that wipes out a lot of supreme court decisions in marshall's own lifetime. this is another proposal that has never taken flash. the issue is still with us. when every political party feels on the short end of the stick from the supreme court, their thought turns to eight of the court's power, but we have never found the magic balance yet. marshall died in 1835. andrew jackson gave the very gracious tribute to him. much more gracious than anything

jefferson would have said then marshall said about jefferson. the most gracious tribute of all came from a club in richmond for marshall had played his favorite am every saturday from a two-out sober and they will since john was irreplaceable, the boys club should always have one fewer member. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, rick. that was marvelous. bill buckley and turns of journalism he valued most was the quality of the words and this led him to make some poor choices of the national review. he gave liberal writers there start or increase prominence by publishing them which annoyed her publisher at the time to no

end in wary conservative magazine. but fortunately he did not know is have to choose between the quality of the words in the ideological soundness, but rick for kaiser rudely exemplified what bill wanted a national review writer to be eloquent, cultured, distinct and witty. we can't be sure anymore what bill with ink of anything the national review is doing these days. we don't get the memos anymore. something i am completely confident in his every time i publish some name bill buckley would love that and that goes for his latest book better educational system is increasingly failing us when it comes to history jabbing aside or supporting it, but we kept history writing and biography in this country and rick was really

a front runner and catalyzer of the trend with his wonderful book about george washington written 20 years ago or so now. and maybe talk a little bit about your craft and take questions. marshall's ambitions for the court. was it a product, a long-term view of what role should have in our system or is it some kind of a madisonian condition checking ambition dynamic work for anyone is naturally going to want to increase the standing and power and prestige of their branch or department of government. >> well, certainly there was that element in it. marshall comes to the court

after it decade of politics. 1790s was her first decade of partisan politics. because it was all grim new, we wring our hands over our politics now, but i tell people, go back to the 1790s. it is just worse. politicians are killing each other. hamilton wasn't the only one to die in a duel. one of marshall's colleagues on the supreme court, republican appointees killed a federalist in a duel. he bled out in five minutes. this never came up in the confirmation. >> did he have a high school yearbook? [laughter] so there is that partisan edge to marshall when he first comes

on the court. his father gave him on the -- to read in their little cabin. thomas marshall was one of the american subscribers to the first edition you've got a list of people announced ahead of time that they would die this book. so, blackstone was the text in the english-speaking world for the law. he really tried to summarize the english common law and explain it and organize it. so marshall is learning this in the virginia backcountry and this really sets the direction of his mind. >> you talk about how important marshall's influence was with

his colleagues. you're sending the founding observations about life in general. if you had to choose what's more important in terms of having influence over personality or brainpower. >> it is tough with marshall because he has both. initially it over the long haul. they are coming to washington every january to february. they had a winter session and it came to last about a month. they are all saved in the same boarding house. they are all cheap fragile in their having all of their meals together. you can imagine if they really didn't get along. this would get kind of funky. if they arise at the end of the tenure there is a justice henry

baldwin on the court and the problem of baldwin, he was pretty smart but intermittently insane. he missed one whole year when marshall was chief justice because he was not. justice alito won't be with us you know, you can't conceive of that. but when baldwin wasn't mad, he was extremely difficult and there was a letter saying now is that rather baldwin and he made remarks about you which were not unfriendly. you can see him trying to smooth the ruffled feathers. i think that is sort of the container of the vessel, but then the harder they is the power of this man's mind once he

fully exercises it. someone compared him to a great bird taking flight. he takes a while to flops around the ground, but once he gets airborne is powerful. >> obviously a very committed federalist. tell us a little bit why you think the federalists went wrong because pound for pound arguably they have more talent. hamilton's vision of the country comes closer to fruition than jefferson and it a richer vein that runs through lincoln and teddy roosevelt. why do they end up losing out to the jeffersonian republican and dying off. >> the war of 1812. they are the antiwar party and the hard-core of the federalist party included some close friends of marshall's for not only antiwar. they were defeated in secession

and they wanted to take new england out of it. he wanted new york to leave, too. his conclusion was it didn't work. time to tear it up and start over. this is a really extremist ceiling and when the war of the teen 12 and it's more or less a victory. they just looked terrible. the other thing for all of thomas jefferson's occasional wacky notions and impractical ideas, he did really believe that most people would be mostly right most of the time. he was a true democrat. that i think next him more firmly to what america is about

and even the federalists were in their vision of prosperity and expansion in the way we would relate to each other economically. jefferson got that political saying and it was really i think is most basic conviction. >> you start off with the introduction about marshall in washington, which you touched on and then just start by the incredible influence of washington. would be a significant contribution if you're just a mentor to alexander hamilton. let alone becoming the first american president. how important was that relationship to marshall >> at five volumes etiquette recommended dose. i think each of.

too much obvious importance that steffen said. it is one sentence. using congress on the word comes that washington has died and he is the representative who informs the house he took that line from henry lee with the revolutionary war vet. good writing is >> for conservative viewers, wondering perhaps why should conservatives revere a man john

marshall did it so much to establish for cement the federal supremacy within our system. he is establishing when a case decides him. they are not roaming around looking for things. they are sitting there. people disagree about something. they take it to court somewhere. and if there should be a conflict between a lot and the constitution which happens only once in marshall's 34 years. you have to decide what the law is. so maybe his view of supremacy

is different from what we experienced recently. >> so a couple questions from the audience. why didn't marshall recuse himself in marbury versus madison. >> this is a great question. another marshall book that said he suborned perjury it's a complicated story, but the commission that william marbury got was issued by president john adams, the man who stands the great seal of the united states on it sealed and prepared it for delivery with the secretary of state john marshall and john marshall told his brother james marshall here to deliver these commissions and james apparently didn't take marbury along, which is why it was sitting on a desk

when the jeffersonians came in and we're not going to be the federalist party's post man. it is not leaving the office. this is the origin of sue. before mcculloch versus maryland marshall sold his bank stock, but i did see other justices in other cases who were giving tips to their relatives based on a sense of the court hearing. kind of wild stuff. so standards have tightened up. >> how did marshall react to the decision moving the cherokees? >> well, global presidency was dismaying to him. jefferson of chorus they had tangled. but there was a quality of

jefferson that he could get exercise things and then he leaves him alone. you know, he would fun. he just had a will and a following. marshall hoped he would not be reelected. his hope i believe was that someone else one, marshall would retire in would be promoted to be chief justice. marshall it even attends the first political convention in american history, and he has invited coming in no, as an imminent person to come to their convention. i think is probably vetting them to see how serious they are. he's thinking how come we beat these guys? we hear about the anti-masonic

party today and it seems like a crazy thing. people were alarmed that there was this group and andrew jackson happen to belong to it. so sort of a populist way of the populist president. as far as the cherokee decision goes, he just has to live with that. jackson would not see that the law was enforced and it was then pressed to the final stage. the final stage would have been the imprisoned missionary to the cherokees would have had to tell his attorneys that the decision is not being followed. georgia is not obeying the decision. therefore the president, the court must notify the present of this and he must execute the law. but at the same time this is

happening, the nullification crisis for south carolina over the tariff is coming to a boil. will georgia join south carolina in the resistance? so, the missionary is blamed on by his new england religious employers and they say look, drop its lawsuit because of your problem. so he did. so he never reached the point of the ultimate clash. >> so the question of the hour that everyone is wondering, whose side would marshall be on in the back and forth between president trump and chief justice roberts who stayed one of his immigration actions. >> while i can't imagine marshall tweeting were doing it

in a public confession. i mean, if betty very deliberately did not do anything in public more than not. he would certainly agree it's not that trump is a genius, but there is politics but i think he would've tried to move in roberts ideal. marshall is a federalists, that he was not an out their federalists. he reined his court in. there were a couple of times where instead of, you know, confronting jefferson as friendly as federalists would apply, including some of his fellow justices, he steps back. he doesn't want to get the court

into an open political fight with the white house. so i think that ideal of these justices have been picked by the political process, but then apart from it and beyond it was something he wanted to have the court and body. >> in the seven or eight minutes we have left i want to wipe out picture a little bit to talk about your craft as historians. how do you choose your subjects? >> welcome i chose this one because some old friend of mine, professor law school told me to write this. he told me to write the lincoln book. he gave me the title from that book. you know, i thought about it for a second then i thought that's a great idea appeared >> has he given you your next book? so he's given me two books. janie has given me three.

you know, my first biography was towards washington. hamilton is kind of a natural follow from that. my publisher then said no, you can do atoms are and are jack's and so i picked the atoms. i take suggestions. sometimes i come up with my own ideas. it's different from book to book. >> why haven't you done jefferson yet? >> i'm always doing jefferson. he pops up in all these books and is very important to the marshall book because he's the antagonist. you know, marshall is like he always gets away from him. but jefferson does have a point. the small democratic of action that he has is the serious point, probably an unresolvable point. the system we have were never

going to get rid of it. jefferson would be very hard to do frontally. i think in his mind the big house with a lot of friends and they don't all have connecting doors. there was something kind of odd about the way he lived and thought. very tough to get that. >> do you -- how do you research? do you research as you go? would use it down in berlin for a month or a year? >> the latter. my books are about 80,000 words or 200 plus pages. so i spend a year of reading only in the year of writing in which i'm also writing. the one way that's changed in the 20 years i've been doing

this is google books. i a lot like them or us 1950s. i read online the revolutionary war veterans pension because this is the only evidence we have that marshall is the injured in the battle of germantown. he never mentioned it, but a fellow soldier said this. you can go online and read the man's handwriting. >> you ever get stuck on a research question or with writers block? >> never writers block or if i'm stuck on a research question i ask my dear friend nicole serious, whose phd in history and she works and she can figure out everything. the one thing in the marshall book i notice one of the famous cases is: versus virginia. i had a of a time figuring

anything about the collins brothers who were involved in this. they've sold out-of-state lottery tickets in virginia. must have become a supremacy case. there is nothing about all the other biographies and advocates proselytize anti-semitism. a pulitzer prize winner and eight to nine team just thought, latterly -- lottery settlers named colin. he just dismissed them, wasn't curious about them another biographer is kind of following in his footsteps did the same thing. i want to know who are these people. nicole surry found an article in the maryland historical journal for me in 23. he just told me the old family history. >> you have a wonderful blurb on this new book and first-year minimalist style.

you do not write doorstops. is that a matter of choice are just a matter of your style is a writer? >> i guess it's a style. but, there is a place for those big books. if you want to know everything or almost everything that can be known and you don't want to read the collected papers, which are volumes and volumes, that is what those books do. but i am trying to tell you the story. but you know, focus on what is most important about these people to us. so yes, am interested in marshall's marriage, some of his family background. but i'm mostly interested in his career in this case is under the litigants were. how did this get to the court? >> did the cases present a new challenge in writing this?

did you ever think is your digging into these cases this is why i didn't go to law school and become a lawyer. >> i was a constant fear. i didn't go to law school. i have even less legal education and marshall had. i had worries about this and i got some early guidance, knowledgeable scholars who gave me some tips and pointers. you know, it was just a matter of being patient and trying to figure out what was going on. didn't always do it. marshall's opinion on trees in the trial of aaron are huge. it seems to me there's a lot of wheelspinning is not. he goes through these english

sources, into a can into it and since the basic question is there was no active war upon the united states rubin, why is he doing all this other stuff. that's just a layman's objection. >> ladies and gentlemen, the book is "john marshall." please thank rick brookhiser. [applause] >> over the past 20 years, but to be discovered thousands of author events and book festivals triggers a portion of a recent program. >> you know, this is where i also say a lot of people have

become very dispirited. people talk about how they're feeling and i want to remind us that the beautiful design that was created many years ago that is our democracy anticipated these very moment. and we created checks and balances in our system and the design of our democracy is being tested right now. think about a tabletop. it stands on four legs. three independent coequal branches of government in a free and independent press. and what is happening -- [applause] and what is happening is kind of like a house coming in now, and a natural disaster have been in the shingles are falling off that the house is standing. think about it this way. when the executive branch's doing things like the muslim day

and for trans-in the military for daca, of course they're saying you've gone too far. we may not have been not been on many things, but on the affordable care act, you remember the moment with the late great john mccain said no. on an attempt to what would've deprived millions of americans have access to health care. so many things including mass. you talk about the children, unaccompanied minors and the children ripped from their mothers and fathers arms. i am certain ted cruz of journalists not gone down and shared the stories of the american public about what's been happening in had been happening down there. if that had not happened, we would not have seen the outrage among the public that they had to end where the sun paper and that policy. so we are being tested.

and we have to win these moments come in the introduction the thing about joyful warrior. i came up with that term because it was after 2017. i said i'm tired of being not all the time. being kind of upset. we've got a fine time to sing and dance amounts and have a little fun. any fight, and a good site is born not of optimism. it really is. the fact that my parents were engaged in, i was worn out of optimism. it was born not of optimism that you and i sit on the stage having a conversation. [applause] in these moments let's remember we are fighting for something that we must remain optimistic and we cannot either. let's be joyful in that process.