different thing for music but i like teams. i like role plays. and i definitely like the presidency in particular because it's very personal. >> kyle. >> well, if i can just reflect on some of the experiences we've had here at ou in the last few years where we've founded a constitution program and enjoyed i think some initial successes. so yes, i'm bragging a little bit. it's -- we haven't let a fear of politics impede us. the constitution's always politicized but it's one of our principles that the constitution is bigger than politics. and the ground rule of our program has been that the constitution isn't conservative or liberal. but that it's the framework within which we decide our political fate. and so we've worked hard to create authentic political representation for conservatives and liberals within our program. it's been an element of our success. reflecting on that, there are one of two explanations. one is that possibly we're starting to see an age where this is becoming an exciting

topic again for academics and we're past some of the academic culture years or we will have david boren and everybody rets him so it's easy. maybe a little bit of both. >> i do want to the invite those of you who want to pose your own question to move to the microphone here on my left right up front at any point. if i see someone there it, i'll call on you. the phones are open. you know, this morning, peter onuf spoke of needing a renewal every 19 years or so, every generation. the constitution that the idea

was that our so-called founding fathers spoke out then, but what about now? have we reached a point in our history, akhil amar where you believe we need to gather ideas for taking a look at the mistakes and some of the wrong doing that the constitution, wh believe we need to gather ideas for taking a look at the mistakes and some of the wrong doing that the constitution -- oh, i'm so sorry. is he all right? are you all right? okay. oh, coming to the microphone. all right. please be careful of those stairs. whew.

have we reached that point, akhil? >> two or three -- i like to get people expressing opinions. this is especially true in a law school. so my version of david's assignment, these teams, might be who's the most overrated president, who is the most underrated? something where you actually have to take a position. what were the biggest mistakes in the past? what do you think the five biggest challenges of the future are going to be? something -- and again, we can have teams and could you even sort of compete to win a prize for your team for the most interesting answer to that, but i do think finally on the challenges of our world, they are global challenges created by the internet and climate change and international terrorism and so some of the answers that we

inherited don't make sense because those answers presuppose old world over there, new world here. we'll just sort of keep them at bay and do our own thing. and that's not their future. so -- but get them to -- what are the five things that are going to be the biggest challenges of the next 20 years. that would be a fun team assignment. and answer is going to have to be political. >> who else wants to respond? rose marie. >> i think it would be interesting to ask you all to ask students, to ask in the audience if they wanted to take advantage of the clause in the constitution that would allow us to call another constitutional convention. in our history, it's never been done. we had one constitutional convention, but the constitution does provide procedures by which we, the people, can reconstitute

ourselves as a convention of the people and have a whole new document. and frankly, i think if people would take that exercise seriously and start thinking about what a whole new constitution would look like written out of whole cloth, i think they would, one, have a greater appreciation of the founders and two, i think they would appreciate the challenges of governing today in a more full way. >> david mccullough? >> i believe it all comes down to or up to leadership and leadership at all levels but particularly political leadership. here we are in one of the great universities of our country, a state university in which the president teaches a course on civics.

[ applause ] imagine a president who's responsible for an enormous budget, for 44,000 people if you count the employees and the students. with all that he has to contend with, takes time out to teach that will course every year. i don't know of another president of a major university that teaches a course. maybe there are some. but the point is, we lead by example. and our politicians have to do the same thing. and so do the people in the media. we must not -- [ applause ] i think it's appalling that we have people on television regularly every day reporting the nation's events and the

world's events who, one, can't really properly use the english language and who, two, don't seem to ever read books. [ applause ] it is not coincidental in my view that the strongest, most admirable presidents we've had have all been students of history. many of them have been the authors of history. when george marshal was first appointed secretary of the state bihary truman, he was asked at a press conference, did you have a good education at vmi, virginia military institute. he said no, i didn't. he said why not, sir? he said because they taught no history. a leader has to know history. so we've got to have leaders in

the media, leaders in the press. leaders in institutions such as this who take this cause to heart and do something about it. there is nothing wrong with the younger generation. the younger generation is terrific. and any problems that you have, any failings they have and what they know and don't know and how they use the english language is not their faults. it's our fault. and we've got to hold the media responsible. and this turning of our political life and our -- and the future of the world into a sports event where it's all about who's ahead and what the polls are and the questions they ask at these so-called debates, inane. it's as if they're playing down the lowest common denominator. we've got to demand more of them.

>> all right. [ applause ] we very two people at the microphone. in fact, we have three. please, go ahead with your question. >> first, mr. mccullough, i would like to thank you. i'm a public school elementary teacher here in the state of oklahoma. so thank you for your kind words about what we do in the classroom. i would like to pick your minds, this esteemed panel. i teach in this state american history in the fifth grade. however, my class, my test does not count that we are not reading or mathematics. however, i fully believe that i am the one that is helping to prepare my students to be citizens and top eventually to

take care of me. so what are your -- what are your thoughts on what i should do as a professional and what i should do to help make the constitution count in oklahoma? >> peter onuf. peter. >> me? >> this is how to make the constitution compelling for your students? >> no, that i can do. >> oh, okay. >> all right. good. >> how do i encourage the powers that be in the state of oklahoma that american history in the elementary level should be counted or -- does that clarify my question? because it's direct off the top of my head. i'm sorry. >> yeah, so how can we persuade

the powers that be that what you're doing has civic significance and therefore, should count? >> yes. >> yeah. well, are there any legislate tors in the house rate now? that's a wonderful difficult question. david is champing at the bit to answer it. >> could i make one suggestion to your question and also a kind of follow-up to david's point about the media. could we generate some media of our ceremony could, for example, in the state of oklahoma, this institution find a way to recognize and to broadcast the successes that are happening in the classroom? to reward the teachers and the students by that kind of attention, partly to educate our other leaders. and also to encourage a sense of the possibilities of things that really are working in the

classroom. >> well, if i understand your question correctly, one of the problems is that, and this is everywhere, that because of the emphasis on reading and math, they have pretty much not just pushed history to the back burner, they put it off the stove. >> yes. [ applause ] >> but i think there's a very good solution to that. and that is, fine. stress math. fine stress reading. could we please when we think about reading something worthwhile read the literature of history? >> certainly, yes. >> read lincoln's second inaugural address, read the letters from the birmingham jail. read the great passages from the classic history that's been written about the country whether something was written last month or something that was written 100 years ago. and let them discover not just the pull of history but again,

how these people and those moments can come back to life offin convey with a powerful use of our language. and the -- i couldn't agree more about it has to be done early. if you want to get a child interested in the founding fathers, have them read a book called "ben and me," by robert -- >> we doe. >> you know it? it's about a mouse who lived in ben franklin's hat. >> good, good. >> and i encountered him my first revisionist historian when i was 6 and he said that all of ben's great ideas were wonderful, but they weren't ben's. they were his, amos's. and it's very well researched. it's superbly written. i have used it with my own children, with my own grandchildren. it always works. >> all right. these things work, generation

after generation. always get them to read above their level. and never ask them to read truck, junk, boring, tedious history. and forget about memorizing dates. that's what books are for. you can look them up. >> all right. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you. >> i do have something i'd like to say in response to this, and that is some of my most satisfying teaching is with teachers in teach american history programs and gilderler man programs and the bad news is that all of these programs tah is out and gilder lehrman's in trouble. something like the american constitution center, and this is all because we are too heavily taxed. that's about what it comes down to, folks. i don't mean to be offensive. i know it's oklahoma. but if you want to invest in the future, that's what it means. this doesn't come for nothing.

>> all right. [ applause ] >> how did i, guys. thank you very much for coming to our great university. thank you very much, diane for moderating the discussion so beautifully. my question deals with the world. our constitution is our document but people in every country in the world look at it and look to it. what are the differences in the challenges, the importance, the opportunities of teaching the constitution at peking university or university of cairo or in seoul, south korea versus teaching it here in our country? and is it even important to do so and if any of you have any experience doing so, what were the challenges and what were the surprises that you had? >> i'll take a shot at your -- it's a very interesting question. there's been a recent article suggesting that the american constitution has lost some of its influence abroad. and there's no doubt in the

basic structure of our government that is the separation of powers, versus the parliamentary system, the british system that our system has not been copied as much as the british system. but it is extraordinary to look around and see how much our constitution has influenced the world. first of all, just the whole idea of a constitution. when you think about a constitution now, it's a written document. if iraq's going to have a constitution, if afghanistan is going to have a constitution, it's going to be a written document. that was our influence. -- one thing we haven't mentioned which has been very influential is the idea of an independent judiciary. other states, including great britain, you know, britain just created a supreme court. they finally lifted a few of the house -- members of the house of lords out of the house of lords and said you're going to be our supreme court. that's just been in the last two

years. so a bill of rights? other states in europe have adopted bills of rights. independent judiciary, the ratification, the whole idea of referendums, these are all things that came out of american experience. so even though our separation of powers, that is to say we do not allow members of the ministry, the cabinet to simultaneously hold office in the legislature, which is exactly what the british mandate. that system of separation of powers has not been copied. in all other respects, we've been very, very influential in around the world. >> gordon, i'm very glad to hear you say that because i said something in a very similar -- in a blog post on the national constitution center website in response to a very interesting article in the "new york times" adam litac in which he suggested

that the rest of the world was really not following the american model lug and i said, really the headline is the rest of the world is becoming democratic and american and with a bill of rights and judicial review. and those are the very -- and then the other things are smaller issues of institutional detail. and the presidentialist model of a separate executive has worked particular littly poorly in sou america. it's led to a sense of gridlock. the legislature is controlled by one group, the presidency by a different party. there's a perception that thing don't get done. presidents get frustrated and so then they start to try to just govern by executive decree, unilateralism. this has led in south america torque coups. you would see some possible pathologists even in the united states with divided government, presidents being tempted to do all sorts of things by executive order and so there is a vet

interesting question about -- and it's not just true of the u.s. constitution. it's true of 50 state constitutions where governors are elected independently of state legislatures, where the legislature might be controlled by a different party than the governor and it is a very interesting question whether it's the better model. it is the american model. >> there is another dimension of american constitutionalism which seems increasingly relevant, and that is federalism. we have a deeply conflicted feelings about our own federal history, but the fact is that europe is on the verge of failure. the euro zone is going to fall part which could have global implications of a disastrous order and that what they can't do is what's built into our system, a system of burden sharing and of transfer of payments and we can handle things that will the world will need to handle on an

increasingly large scale. >> but isn't there another issue there? i heard governorairery brown of california say the other day that if the legislature won't agree something, it goes to the people. and the people can't create a referendum and decide that way. it is truly taking the government or the governing of that state to the people. how does that fit in to the larger picture? >> i think this kind of direct democracy is probably a little dangerous. and our representative system has worked very well, but there are increasing uses of this kind of, well, came out of the

progressive era which itself was a period in which politics seemed to be dead, ward bosses were in control. and i think it's very similar to our own time that the gross inequalities of wealth were enormous. and i think a lot of reforms were passed that led to the use of ballot initiatives and referendums. i think we don't really want to go down that path. i know colorado is really suffering from this. they're all over the place. they're having referendums to repeal previous referendums, and it becomes a very dangerous situation. you know, there is the possibility technically within the half century or maybe shorter where we as a people directly could vote on the budget. you could say every april 15th, the people will have internet connection and will decide yes

or no on the budget. this kind of direct democracy is possible. whether it's the best way to run a democracy with 300 plus million is i think problematic. >> i think we have time for one last question, sir. >> hello, everybody. >> hello. >> sorry for the -- >> i hope you're all right. >> for the interruption, the distraction on the fall. i was a teenager when the franklin roosevelt's new deal got started. and right early on, a bunch of new deal legislation -- >> place stay close. >> got slammed down by the supreme court. and franklin roosevelt's solution was to pack the court. let's get some more people on the court.

and then we'll get the majority in favor of a new deal. and another challenge is the warren court and more recently, the united citizens where corporations no limits on campaign contributions. so that the super pacs now sometimes outpace the regular campaign money, and my point is that if i were teaching the constitution, i would think it very important historically to come against and explain and discuss those points where the

constitution was really challenged. and part of that would be the drama to getting a new amendment. and so i just think -- i think the students would get excited about the challenges. >> all right. thank you. akhil. >> so i liked rosie's suggestion that we could -- rose marie's suggestion that we coask students what they think about a constitutional convention. i've gone around the -- to classrooms as young as first graders and one question i've asked them is, a jefferson-like question. what amendment -- what do you t- forget even a constitutional convention across the board.

and i've got to tell you that i learned some amazing things from first graders. i remember once i went and i said, what would you put in the constitution, and one first grader said no drugs. >> no what? >> no drugs. and so i thought about that. i said you know, that's a very good idea. drugs are very bad and you know, your life is going to be a lot better. and then i thought, you know we did have this with prohibition and it didn't work so well. and honestly, that was the first time in my life i began to think maybe it's possible this war on drugs you know, won't end so well. and i'm not taking a strong position on that. i'm saying asking kids, young people something like, what should -- what -- a lot of them said era. we talked about that. and these are first graders and

third graders and fifth graders. >> any other comment? >> i'd just like to add something off this topic about resources for studying the constitution. some of you may know that about the documentary history of the ratification of the constitution which is a wonderful document tritt project being done at madison, wisconsin. and the documentary edition is now available online with other papers of the founders. so that those that we've had these wonderful editorial editions that nobody has ever looked at. they are now available and they're getting wonderful use. and for advanced high school and college students, you can now look at the ratification debates. you can doing word searches. you can read them, and they're not just available at university libraries. they're available now the stripped down edition thanks to

a melon grant that's available universally and the documentary of, with all the documentary materials you can get it through libraries such as ou's library that have rights to do so. but it's a wonderful and democratic move in terms of information availability and accessibility. it's going to be very empowering for future generations of students and i hope for a future generation of legislatures reflecting on our history. >> could i just add to that? because this documentary collection which is now about almost 258 volumes of debates over democracy and all the issues of liberty, representation, federalism, all of these issues are debated, be and it's the greatest collection of debates on these issues of democracy in the history of the world. now, it may be that fifth century greeks had a richer debate, but we don't know the about it.

maybe 17th century england had a rich, really rich debate. we only know a fragment of what went on. but here we have 25 volumes of people, ordinary people in these ratification conventions debating these fundamental issues of how much government should we have, how much liberty, how much freedom, how much representation, what does representation mean, all of these basic issues and it's all now, as peter says, available online. it's an extraordinary collection and i must say, much neglected by political theorists and historians. >> well, thank all of you so much. [ applause ] >> president obama signs the stock act today. that's the bill to stop members of congress and their staff from insider trading using

information they get on capitol hill. c-span2 will have live coverage of the bill signing at 11:55 eastern today. coming up at noon on c-span, mitt romney will speak before the american society of news editors conference. he won wisconsin, maryland and the district of columbia primaries last night. all this week here on c-span3, we're featuring a look at the president's 2013 budget request. this afternoon, veterans department secretary eric shinseki, both president obama and house republicans want an increase for that department. and at 8:00 eastern, american history primetime and a look at who "time" magazine might pick for person of the year in 1862. james mcpherson is among the r÷ for the most influential person on the national stage 150 years ago. c-span's 2012 local content vehicle cities tour takes our book tv and american history tv