[inaudible] >> we seem to be having a technical issue. we are working to resolve the issue. we hope to resume shortly. [silence] [silence]

we seem to be having a technical issue with were signal, we hope to resume our live coverage shortly. [silence] we are b joined by david, president of the bill of rights to do. welcome to "washington journal" can you tell us about your organization, what you do and why it was needed to set up? >> history and civics to live out the principles.

and put them to practice. teachers have heart job talking about we have to about ideas maintaining just society so we come along side them. when and why the selfishness.

>> the story is complex and the idea that we should have a law of the land, the process and that, what we want to put into it? had it up until then bunch of delegates together and debated it there was an emerging group saying protect more on this document so they sent it out to states for ratification. ndividus

have. take a step back, that document which declared our independence talked about the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. so i think there was a through line here to the debates that happened after the constitution and what people across the country said is you have to do better. so some politicians initially who were not in favor of the bill of rights, notably alexander hamilton and james madison started hearing the will of the people and it was madison who was very careful and attentive, he assembled a list. and then they took that list and started saying we will have to whittle it down. we will have a kind of negotiated settlement for this whole thing. what list would make sense. back down to about 20 and that it became 12. the 12 were sent out to the states for ratification and the

12 came back with 10. three through 12 were adopted and on december 15, 1791, the state of virginia became the last that was needed for ratification and the bill of rights became the first 10 amendments in the united states constitution. host: according to this year's constitution day civics study, only 7% of respondents could name all five rights guaranteed just under the first amendment and 21% could not name any and just a few more numbers from that only when asked to name the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, 74% new included freedom of speech. 39% new it included freedom of religion, 29% freedom of the press, 27% the right to assembly, only 11% new that they had the right to petition the

government under the first amendment. why do you think people aren't more aware of what this amendment and some of the others in the bill of rights actually have in them? guest: one of the things i've seen over the years it might be true in washington dc where we are now is the sense of the constitution being for the people and of the people and by people is lost a little bit. it's complex, but at the end of the day though it's a document that if you sit down and read it takes about a half hour. we've made it a little bit more complicated than we need. and we are not devoting enough time in our schools. elementary school teacher has maybe 20 minutes per week to talk about these things. we need to start with the stories. the declaration of independence, it said something that no government in the history of the world said before. people have rights because they

are people. it took us longer than we wanted. it took a long time before we extended those to all people in this country, but we laid down a marker and said u.s. a human being have the right to life, liberty and property. that pursuit of happiness is one we are still on today. one thing i will note about those numbers is we don't find young people want to stay in that state of ignorance. i don't think we should blame them, not even our teachers. what we have to do better is model this for them and show them why it matters. it's made into something that sometimes is very abstract. let's make these things apply to everyday life and show people the promise of the declaration of independence, the promise of the bill of rights something that matters. host: speaking of this topic,

you had a recent opinion piece with the headline election highlights need for and warnings about civic education. what are these warnings? host: one of the things i'd -- guest: one of the things i just mentioned is the need for time in schools. we have a challenging system in this country but it is a good one. education is local which means there's a lot of decisions -- decision-makers. we are negotiating these at the local level. parents can entrust their kids then to different schools and then teachers complement the work parents to learning about history and civics. how do we make sure that every child in america is growing up with a sense of what this country is about. that's a big challenge. in the further we get away from the local level, the more washington dc or state capitals, governors insert themselves into these in a political or

ideological way, the worse off we are going to be. one of the things we've seen as we become more polarized, americans actually anchor around the principles of the declaration of the constitution but we perceive that we are very divided and when politicians seize on that and use civics as a means to stoke disagreement, that is a problem. what we don't want is for washington dc to take these things over and say here's the kind of official civics we will have. that's never been part of our government and i think it's a real strength. for example globally we've seen the toppling of the dictator in syria, but even regimes that aren't dictatorial oftentimes they will have a big fight over who gets to write the textbooks. and when you have that fight what you tend to do is reduce the value of the civics and history. people say it's just politicians and what they want me to think.

civics and history has to be about people taking these ideas, making them their own and then putting them into practice in everyday life. the more we make this an ideological or political thing, the worse off. host: some other resources for teachers when it comes to civics education, from c-span directly on c-span.org. we have a program called c-span classroom which includes free video-based materials for social studies teachers on various civics related topics. how do you think especially in our politically divided environment civics might be able to bridge that divide? guest: the resources are excellent and there is nothing better than going back to primary source documents. when you ask americans what do you anchor on. it is that sense the declaration and constitution do matter. we to bridge political divides

is by having conversations that matter, by not shirking that, two out of five young people in this country are in high school feel uncomfortable disagreeing with their friends and peers in the classroom. that has to change. i think what we have to do is disagree better. let young people know that if they disagree on matters of significance it won't mean you will lose your friends. and for young people to take that seriously they will have to see more models of that kind of thing. it's civil discourse and valuing of free that says it is ok to talk about religion and politics and financial things, you have to do it in a way in which you are respecting the other person and bringing the controversial subject into the classroom when you anchor around primary source documents it gives a footing to those conversations where young people can say i do want to see your view that may be different than mine and that is ok.

i want my perspective challenged by yours. we are sharper, better off. host: taking your calls with questions to david of the bill of rights institute. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002. can also send us questions via text or social media. we received a text message comment from diane in new jersey that says all americans should be able to pass the citizenship test. what do you think of that. >> as a mental kind of model it is the right idea, for those of you who are not familiar with this. it's 100 questions it's about pretty basic things related to what it means to be a citizen and it's given to those who want to become citizens for the naturalization process. there than efforts to institute this, to mandate this in states. i think all americans if you

google it and take the test you can see it's a worthwhile exercise because it is trying to anchor you on the things that matter. it is important to note those facts and figures but we also have to know why. that is something the naturalization test does not get into as much as we would like. great civics, great history learning. those are deep questions of inquiry and points to that point counterpoint where you are having that kind of verbal back-and-forth, the intellectual that doesn't have to be disagreeable. i think it's a good start but i think we can do better for all americans with the kind of critical thinking we see from the lifelong commitment to civics. host: maybe this is a difficult question but of the amendments in the bill of rights, which one is the most fascinating to you? guest: i think it is hard not to be fascinated at the ninth and 10th amendments. they do not get as much attention today but they are the

taproot of what we might see as popular sovereignty. the idea that the people rule in this country. think of what humility it took you the drafting of the constitution and then you send it out to the people. that's not been what typically happens in other countries. a lot of other countries it's the elites who rule and we never see a change from them. so the founders were trying to say can we get away from that system in which -- could we be ruled by reflection and choice, the ninth and 10th amendments say the people retain rights. host: so the ninth amendment says the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. the 10 amendment says the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution are per habit by it

to the -- nor per habit by it to the states are given to the people. host: -- guest: one of the big debates over the bill of rights was what if we start writing them down if we miss one or don't write down everything will people think that they do not have those rights. that was one of the objections and it was a reasonable objection. the soviet union had a beautiful bill of rights. many of the tyranny's around the globe today do. just writing down rights doesn't make them put into practice. people have to actually believe them. so we do not have a written confirmation of our right to say get in your car and drive into maryland and pennsylvania and keep going. but i do have that right. what's important to think about the declarations promised. because we are human beings, the 10th amendment is a restriction.

we think of them is giving away rights when in fact it's restricting saying to the federal government you cannot interfere, you cannot overly involve yourself in the affairs of state. the founders saw that too strong of a government, too invasive of a government would be a bad thing. when they were colonists, what happened with the british as they could search their home for any reason at all. that's an invasive sense of what power means. ninth and 10th are restrictions on power, on governmental power, but they are a great boon to the power of the individuals. host: you made reference to the fourth amendment. this once is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable arches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause

supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place of search and the persons or things to be seized. let's get to your calls. i'm sure people have a lot of questions. we will start in crab orchard, west virginia on our line for independence. caller: good morning. what i wanted to say is your guest and just about everyone else always speaks of the inalienable rights that are mentioned in our declaration, but that is an incomplete sentence. it's all most as if it is out of context. entire statement says those rights are gifts in dowd by our creator. that may be the most important part of the statement and that's all i wanted to bring up. people don't remember that our rights are gifts from god. thank you. guest: that's a great

observation, you are absolutely right. the declaration itself has four references to god and i think they tell an interesting story. two of them were included by jefferson and two were added by the content of congress. that reference the creator is the one that is probably the most pivotal. we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights paid cannot be taken away from us. they cannot be stripped by the government. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. also the legislative component of god's nature was the laws of nature, that was the second reference, there is also the supreme judge of the universe, that is the third reference. the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch. the declarations argument is pretty simple in one respect saying this prince, king george

the third has become a tyrant. because he takes the executive, legislative and judicial and pulls it into his own orbit and supposes he can operate in that way. i think with declaration is saying without getting specific to one religion it is saying if there is a superintending god, if there is a supreme being it would be only that being that would be able to handle all of this power, no one human being. no one human committee could take the executive, legislative power. host: let's hear from gary in winter haven, florida on our line for democrats. >> good morning. i wanted to talk about the second amendment. one thing a lot of people don't remember is earlier this year there was a school shooting in i/o and donald trump's response was you have to get over it and then recently there was a shooting for united health care

ceo and you could hear the meltdown on the right. and it came -- i realize the first time a board room gets shot up like it's a second grade classroom we are going to see a ban on assault weapons. i'm just curious about the second amendment and how that would play out. the other thing is people don't think of republicans wonders that legislation. california's restrictive gun laws were introduced in the 60's by republican governor ronald reagan when the black panthers were stockpiling weapons. so it is not unprecedented for republicans when they get freaked out enough. >> let's look quickly at the language of the second amendment which says a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. guest: one of the great concerns

that people had at the time this was adopted was where we going to have a standing army or not. and many of those who were anti-federalist said as they pose the ratification especially without a bill of rights were worried about a standing army. this was adopted and it was not until very recently in a couple of cases including that that the supreme court weighed in to say that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. so for most of our history there's not much litigation. not many pieces that to the supreme court. what we do for example is bring this into the classroom so that teachers can learn the history, they can study the primary source documents, they can engage in the kind of debates that help sharpen their understanding of this. that's the essence of what this

requires. as an organization we are not taking a stance on how the second amendment should be interpreted but we think it is important young people and teachers should be equipped with the tools to be able to look at the documents and that's just what you did which is reading it and trying to understand the text and have a conversation around those topics. >> tom is in washington on our line for independent. the morning. host: mine is mostly on the education of the bill of rights, my daughter is a schoolteacher and we live here in western washington which is a very liberal area. and she is not allowed free speech. and this goes back all the way to the civil war when democrats lost the war and formed the kkk and they formed an agenda to actually not infiltrate, but to indoctrinate the children through the school systems and not teach that.

this has been proven by the stats stated on this program. people not being able to label them and you can ask for six year college graduates who fought in the civil -- in the revolutionary war and they can't even name it. they think it's germany, things like that. that's all because the schools have been indoctrinated and they don't want history taught because it shows that all through history when the democrat party was first formed they fought all against civil rights all the way through history, but it's been kind of indoctrinated in schools to not teach these, not teach christianity or other religions and all that. and i think that shouldn't be for schools, that shouldn't be a personal thing but people need to remember history and

understand i think it was 1909 when the first agenda of the democratic party included indoctrination of schools because it -- host: let's give david a chance to respond. guest: overwhelming number of americans today believe civics and history will lead to critical thinkers and informed citizenship. i think it is on that agreement we talk about polarization that we need to seize on and say how can we create more space where the teachers are supported by parents. what does the support mean. a lot of the times of the teacher is using let's say you want to teach the second amendment or talk about things in the news that are controversial, you need to be able to say on one hand this is a provision in on the other hand here is a different position.

we build that into our curriculum because it's from that kind of iron sharpens iron mentality that we think we get the kind of citizens that are open to other people's ideas. how do we do that? we need more time in school. we need more trust. when we as parents trust our teachers and say if you are committed to viewpoint diversity we have your back. wings talk principles and say carve out more time. building activities in which young people can build the skills that allow these principles to be put into practice because ultimate what we are looking for in civics is a change in the habits of hearts and minds. we want young people who are committed to the promise of the declaration of independence. john lewis and his fame -- in his famous speech on the march in washington set our task is to complete the revolution of 1776. i think there's something really

powerful in that and something that unites us around that effort if we take it seriously. >> pat is in new jersey on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: speaking about how the 10th amendment is really a protection against the growth of the federal government, it has been pretty much eviscerated by supreme court decisions such as mcculloch v maryland which said congress had unenumerated powers. they could do whatever they wanted regardless of what the constitution said. thank you. >> i think the historic record actually shows the enumerated powers of article one section eight still very much in play. i think there have been i think and this is again one of those debates that the bill of rights institute we teach. a back-and-forth over many generations about just how broad a scope are you going to give.

what is the right delineation of power between the federal government, the national government and the states. much of the relationship was changed when the civil rights amendments were adopted and before that the amendments around the civil war. so this is certainly a hotly contested thing. the important thing is in each answer to today there is still this amendment in effect, it's the will of the people and the kind of will of the electorate that's ultimately going to say how seriously will we take this. i will say one other thing about this related to the education. this is the kind of thing i think we need to bring out more is put a question to them. what is the right relationship between the national government and the states. one of the ways i think people can start to understand that best is if they get involved at the local level.

because they then start to see it's really difficult to start something like a farmers market. why is that difficult? why is it difficult to solve some of the problems like homelessness or pick any one of the things that are really important to people of any age in this country but especially to young people. we have a contest called the my impact challenge. it takes to the charitable sector, business and also constitutionally limited government so raising these questions around the size and scope of government. it asks them to get involved in their community at the local level, starts by looking at a problem, a challenge and seeing if they can solve it using founding principles and virtues. what we find after 500 some projects is young people are committed to trying to figure this out. they don't want and i don't think the american people believe that all of our problems will be solved by washington, d.c..

>> let's hear from stan in kentucky on our line for democrats. caller: yes. the caller from west virginia called in and misquoted the declaration of independence and then you also misquoted. it does not say in value -- endowed by our creator, it says endowed by their creator which is a big difference. host: did you have a question as well? caller: no. host: let me pull up the exact language of the declaration of independence from the national archives. let's see. second paragraph, let's see. we will just read it. we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that

among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. guest: you are right about our versus their. i think the distinction is one without a difference. i think the affirmation is that there is an jeffersons language ratified by the content of congress that there is a superintending being. there's a lot of controversy about that relationship with god is to human beings, but they are saying we are not god. i think that's the essence of it. we are not the author of our own rights. it is saying these rights are not positive, they are not given to you just by government but there is a natural basis and you can know them through the natural law. that's the key point i think. >> robert is in waldorf, maryland on our line for independence. caller: good morning, merry christmas. this is a great subject, very informative. my question is if any of the two

of you can answer this one, anywhere in the bill of rights does it authorize or grant the right to an abortion? does it authorize the right to free health care. anywhere in the bill of rights it authorize the right of a living wage, can any of you show me that in the bill of rights? i know that you can but maybe like you say we can educate these young kids that nowhere in the bill of rights is an abortion are right. nowhere in the bill of rights is free health care a right. nowhere in the bill of rights is a living wage a right and i think you are dead on the money sir that educating the public. thank you and have a great christmas. guest: i appreciate the callers passion around this and i know this has a lot of strong opinions. i will tell you how we approach it in an educational context.

each one of those topics that you raised is one that young people and people of all ages in this country are going to continue to debate. we are a nation of 330 million plus people, we have the task of managing disagreement, not eliminating it. so for example when you go through the bill of rights institute, to the youtube page you can find a video about roe v. wade. the new york times when they needed to rely on a video for their coverage of the dobbs decision pulled this video because it is telling you what that speed -- what it says. our job is not to weigh in on each of these disputes but to go into the place where teachers especially can be equipped to go to primary source documents. we should read these documents from the founding era and from each era carefully. we should equip young people to be civic leave literate so that

they can engage in the kind of conversations and debate recognizing first and foremost we see this in the first amendment we have a guarantee of free speech. i think that has to go hand-in-hand with the responsibility of civil discourse. and what we want to do in our civic learning in classrooms and out of classrooms is to equip all americans to be able to have these conversations here it and do so with the recognition that we are going to disagree about certain things. the question in my mind is can we agree about the fact that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are critical. we will have policy disagreements for sure. but the question is what are we united around and i think that is a central challenge for young people and people of all ages back to those core big questions. >> stephen is in georgia on our line for independence.

stefano, good morning. >> thank you for taking my call. i listen every day so little nervous. it's the first time i've called in. but i really think this is a great show and i appreciate the guests points but one thing i want to point out is the declaration of independence as an important document as it is historically is not the law. it is not codified into law. one of the reasons that is important is in relationship to the constitution is that when people do try to insert religion or establish a religion in society they will refer to the declaration of independence which uses the word creator. the constitution does not. the founding fathers really wanted that word to be in the constitution they would've put it in the constitution but they didn't. that was my comment. i would like to hear the opinion and thank you >> the declaration

of independence does not have the same standing as is the constitution of the united states. the constitution is the supreme law of the land. the declaration is part of the organic laws for the northwest ordinance the declaration constitution, the bill of rights, these are part of the organic laws of the united states. abraham lincoln gave us an interesting guide to thinking about how the declaration and constitution are related. quoting from proverbs, the apple of gold the declaration of independence was made with the frame of silver around it. what he was trying to say is you set up the goal, the vision is human beings have rights and it's the governments job to protect those rights. it has to be powerful in protecting those rights. so you cannot forget about the promise of the declaration. that's why i have been anchoring

on that for much of the day. not so much that we should have, and i certainly don't think we should have an established religion. that's one of the great things of the constitution and the bill of rights, notice for example king of england still to this day is the head of the church. one thing we did in this country through the first amendment and the structure of the constitution is say our president has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction. that means that the realm of religion is one of an individual within civil society. government's job is not to dictate that. that does not mean however the religion and politics and have nothing to do with one another. in fact we are given wide license in this country to bring a religious perspective and those that are born of nonreligious perspective into the public square. that's a very important thing. i know it is a complicated

question and i appreciate the nuance of your question. it's important to understand the declaration of independence is a big part of the understanding that we have about who we are as an american people and for that reason we put into the core of civics and history education. >> since we reference e first amendment we will pull up the language forhaas well. congss shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the ee exercise thereof or abridging e freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. rick is in woodville, virginia on our line for independence. good morning. caller: my question is about the interplay between the commerce clause and the ninth and 10th amendments. it seems like congress and the court particularly under the warren administration used the commerce clause to meddle in

areas the framers perhaps did not intend congress to have jurisdiction. i'm wondering what you're feeling is about the limits to the commerce clause and whether or not there is some primacy of it because it is in the constitution and takes place over the bill of rights. >> so the bill of rights part of the constitution. an additional 17 amendments were added, we have 27 minutes of the constitution even though they are all included at the end of a piece so they really have to be interpreted together as a whole. you can't have any disharmony between the bill of rights and the constitution. that was something that really worried those that were involved in that initial debate over the ratification of the bill of rights. are we going to create a kind of disharmony between the things that we put at the end and the text of the constitution. the caller, you are asking about the interstate commerce clause and this was used really as a

bedrock for a long time to say congress will not be able to interfere in the affairs of commercial activity. there is a lot of different casework, but in the 20th century, there's been a movement to allowing legislation to be deemed constitutional for questions that in the past really were not allowed. cutting to the caller's point, we have a big debate over how much congress can actually interfere or be involved in questions of interstate commerce and this is one of those things again in the bill of rights institute we take up that debate and put it to students and let them dip into these different

documents and try to figure out what the truth of the matter is. our point is not to come to a conclusion in a public policy way about whether this interpretation has been done correctly or incorrectly. host: patricia on our line for independence. caller: my question was standing on the bill of rights, i really didn't learn anything about like my heritage, native americans and why is it native american history basing upon everything on like the whole constitution and everything? why is it native american history being taught on our side versus versus the civil war and all of that. why isn't any of that being taught because i didn't know

anything about how my people died and why there isn't many of us left except for when i was 50 years old i saw a piece on i think it was nat geo, that's how i found out. >> patricia, did you want to know more about how the bill of rights shaped what we learned in terms of different history? caller: yes because it wasn't taught in school. guest: i'm sorry you did not have that opportunity and it's one of the things we care a lot about at the bill of rights institute. you can go to our website and you will find a 500 year history of the united states that touches on many issues on the native american journey in this. one of the key things i will say is it's vital each person in this country recognize that

these rights apply to them. our journey in this country has been one that is not a straight line to the kind of realization of the promise of the declaration. one of the key things i've learned over the years is in reading the writings of the founders is that they were aware of how rare what they were trying to do was. and many of them lamented the fact that they were not expending -- extend to enslaved peoples, to others the same rights. in some cases they lamented they did not do more. and i think it is ok for us to recognize that that lament was true. we wish there had been more. take the perspective of someone like the chief justice or frederick douglass, leaders that themselves new the taranto forces of government to not protect their rights. that did not eliminate the fact that these individuals said

these rights still exist. and that goes to the core things today, human beings have rights and its governments job to protect them. and when government fails in that path it's up to all of us to call government to account. and i think what civic education does well and what it should do well is let people know that we have to teach the whole of our history and we have to recognize where we failed, where we lived up to this promise and also to challenge everybody in this country to hold our government to account that these rights are extended to each individual regardless of where they live. >> i'll point out on your website you got several elections related to narrow american history including the stain on the american character, john marshall as one of the lesson plans available there on

the bill of rights institute website. last caller for today let's hear from philadelphia, pennsylvania on our line for democrats. >> good morning. to the young man that's talking about these bill of rights and civics and all of this other stuff, i'm a 79-year-old black man. when i was born blacks weren't even allowed to vote. let alone learning civics and all of this kind of stuff. gradually i was allowed to vote and stuff. but let me tell you something. this guy sitting here talking about all these rights, this man was born with rights.

you understand. so it's easy to sit up here and say all of this type of things about rights and all of that stuff unless you were born without them, you would appreciate. understanding education, you understand and yet we've got a man that was elected that wants to destroy the department of education. you understand? so it's mixed up and it's crazy. so i don't understand what you're saying. >> i appreciate what you are saying and i think i understand your perspective, i'll say one of the things that we take very seriously the bill of rights institute is to bring to bear the fact that as you pointed out

these rights have not been extended to people, they have not been extended to people equally. you are 79 years old and i appreciate the perspective you offered. one of the key things we anchor on the douglas said in the speech in 1852. the first half of the speeches about how wrong the united states of america has been to allow the extension of the institution of slavery. it was a speech in which douglas could not really say to his fellow citizens that they were his fellow citizens. he felt estranged from the country and yet in the second half of the speech what he attempts to do is say yet i still have hope and that hope is based on the idea that there are certain principles that are there from the get go. freedom and equality for all. do those prince was not applied to all? that was his argument.

if we can look to them as saving principles they can save him from his plight as an individual who for the first 20 years of his life was enslaved and they can save the country from the awful scourge of slavery. and i think what we've seen in the story of america is by comparing to those principles -- adhering to those principles in a jagged line, we more than any other have been able to extend those rights to people and be a beacon of hope for others around the country. it does not mean that we are perfect. it does not mean we have it all figured out but it does point to this as i believe you indicated to the educational imperative. we need young people to understand our history and our future based on this promise of rights and freedom and equality for all. that's the promise of civic education. >> >> thank you so much, david bobb is the president of the bill of rights institute.

i appreciate your times