because he said jefferson is going to quote, unquote embody himself in the house of representatives. the year after jefferson the republican democratic party created a caucus in the congress. they would pick the presidential candidates for the party. you had the situation where the framers really didn't want congressional selection of the executive branch. >> i realize we're in the area of constitutional design so there's some sense of not being teethered to historical precedent here. you're suggesting that it might be political my palatable for a president to say i will do less. is there any example to run

counter to it. isn't there to want a king. what we see in the constitution is an exception to that in part but limitations. i know this is all in the area of designs. isn't that the least realistic thing we heard to do that a president say i will do less will be successful. >> i think i've said a lot of unrealistic things. it's not fair to pick that out. i think there are some scholars on this train to rehabilitate calvin coolidge. maybe calvin coolidge is an

example. wilson builds a huge bur rock si that becomes. cool it raises this bigger question that there's certain contradictions in the office. one of the big contradictions is head of state versus being a prime minister. we expect the president to be both. i'm making a pitch for the president to not be prime minister and more head of state. i think what i can stay is maybe want the president to be more of the prime minister and less head of state. you'd want more coordination between the president and leadership of congress and hiring specialist, like in england, specialist to the cabinet. i'm not convinced that's the way to go. i look at what's going on in europe these days as a good

champl. example. >> part of what i mean by head of state is bans that play hill to the chief and where you see the great leaders picture every post office and every federal office. that is precisely because it becomes very difficult. i'll quote a great texan, h. ross perot. he said the president is an employee. if we don't like our employee, we should be able to fire him. if you have the bans and the photographs of the extraordinary secret service details, the cult of the presidency, it gets much harder to view the president as employee and it becomes in a civil religion sense sack ra

religionous to say we would be well rid of because he's not up to the job. it's dangerous to wait till the next election. in that sense i would like a parliamentary system. that's one of the reasons i want a constitutional convention in order to have systematic discussions about what 21st constitution should look like. >> i'm not the most unrealistic person on the panel. i knew the same was going to happen. >> here is something else that's not so likely to happen. it may or may not be possible for a pot president to say less. that function can more readily be performed by political party

that doesn't have the imperial overtones that come with the presidency. you're going to have a presidency that will be more prime ministerial. >> next question. >> good afternoon. i'm a second year student here. i have a question for clarification. the comment that the constitution doesn't work. i would think that judging an constitution as working and that would depend on what the purpose of that institution is. did you mean the purpose of the authors of the constitution or more modern purpose or a more modern purpose. in calling the constitution itself a failure or not working why would it be considered valid to consider modern purpose?

>> wonderful question. i encourage you to see 400 pages of trying to answer it. very quickly, one can say that one purpose of the original constitution was to create a little r republican political order that would be as insulated from the democracy as possible and rightly or wrongly that's not really sustained itself as a working definition of american political ideology. there's chapter in the book on the preamble which is a wonderful part of the constitution. i think one way you assess any constitution whether it's national constitution or the constitution of virginia or whatever is to try to get a sense of what are its purposes that's a function that preambles play and you ask to what extent has the constitution allowed us to achieve those purposes. i would argue not very well.

shifting to another realm, i think it's relevant that congress has an approval rating of 11% or so. i'm not sure where the president is now, but i think it's under 50 in terms of an overall approval rating. i don't think you find great support for basic american solutions. the military has the confidence level of 94%. even the courts are most generously looking at the data are somewhere in the 60s. if you ask specific questions certain ways even the supreme court says under 50%. i think ordinary people evaluate government on the basis of output. unless you really love the status quo, you're not going to

find the contemporary american national government very satisfying. that's another way of evaluating. does the shoe pinch theory. it's not an originalist theory. one thing government supposed to do is to create a relative sense of content among the populous including the feeling that if you win elections, you can really do things. one of the things that are extraordinary complicated national system insures is that elections at the end of the day mean much less than one might think. that's something we should talk about in the 21st century. >> thank you. next question. >> my question is directly largely to professor harrison but anyone can answer. the totality of the lib ran

operations has ended the war pack as a functional or meaningful break presidential behavior, in war-like conditions. >> there is certainly, there is something to that. i do think that part of what is going on with the weakness of the war power resolutions is that it was an attempt by congress to constitutionalize an issue that's governed by statues. the first part is a declaration about what the constitutional rules are. if you think that congress is wrong about those constitutional rules and then it's another view of the problem. that i think undermines the effectiveness of the 60 day deadline and although, i don't

have, i'm not much impressed with the argument there were no hostilities underway because we were in a position to shoot at the libyans, they couldn't shoot back, it seems to me that justice is an interpretive matter. the problem with the war power resolution is an attempt to build its enforcement mechanism into what i think is flawed view of the constitutional rules. if congress has proceeded differently not by saying this is our attempt to build out the constitution and to replace a vague notion that the president can act only for a while, we're going to make it 60 days. i think it might have been substantially more effective. they got into we're

constitutionalizing this mode and paid a price. >> i think this is an area where john is right about the importance of martin van buren that the idea that it's congress against the executive or the like just devoids what rick and darrell have pointed out that the party system is more point than the structures that a republican congress was happy to give george w. bush authority. that was based on the u.n. resolution. i think if we're going to talk about checking and balancing then, i'm not sure how one does it, but to rely on congress vigorously to assert its own pe interrogato per interrogatoritives against the president of their own power

doesn't work. it hasn't been accurate since 1800. >> i was going to say i don't think even people in congress want to fix the war powers resolution problem. it's a convenient symbol that congress was doing something about war power as a way to avoid doing the things that congress could do. you could cut off funds or not pay for any of the conflicts. libya might have been so small you might be able to wage the whole thing. the other thing is about the political party thing. kosovo is interesting because president clinton went to war, went beyond the 60-day clock. congress was controlled by the other party. one of the ten things in a contractor was repeal the war powers resolution. you had a case where president

of a defendant party wanted to add to presidential power and repeal the war powers resolution which is hard to figure out as a political matter. newt didn't succeed on this one, so he's not bragging about it i suppose. i think congress could easily achieve it through the funding powers. i think congress can get most of its way through the funding power. the way to get the executive branch to do what you want is to start placing riders on appropriation bills. it could easy stop any war that the executive branch would want to get into. >> thank you. next question. >> rainey hernandez. you talk about the difficulty, i

can't think of anything to counter ma jor tearism or the idea of having a referendum on the president. that will be swayed by whatever the majority wants at the time or by not having a two-thirds majority veto because that could be swayed by whatever the congress attempts. i think the chinese exclusion act veto by grover cleveland is an example of a president exercising his counter majori a majoritarin. the replacement was not the most successful governor. i'm a little bit perturbed by the suggestions and i think they can work against that counter

majoritarian problem. >> i think most pervasive thing with the federalist is a mistrust of actual government by the governed. the philadelphians trying to create a government by virtuous elite. also, i think it's very important to talk about frequency distributions and not focus on undoubted examples of ends of one which are either very commendable or very awful. to decide, to try to get some sense of the lessons of experience overall. a lot of states have direct democracy. there are some horrible examples of direct democracy. they may exist more frequently

they other states in california. if you look at the direct origins it's because of a basically accurate perception that the california legislature was bought and owned by stanford and his friends and it was viewed as a very important safety valve for popular government. you can see we have learned over the last 100 years there are also problems with the safety valve and we could negotiate about where it could be straight up and down majority votes. you look at elected judges which is a very exceptional aspect of american exceptionalism. the barn burner rationally supported the move to an elected judiciary because they recognized that the judges were friends of the governor who's

jobs was to uphold whatever his allies wanted to do. you can say p they hathey have problems but so do appointed ones. i'm delighted that john endorses this, but all i want is a long overdue national conversation about the details based on lookings at the lessons of experience to figure out what makes sense. one of the reasons i want to emphasize the other 50 constitutions is on occasion it might be useful to look at germany and south africa or even france, but i'm happy to accept a blinkered notion that we look only within the united states and we still find a lot of really interesting variation that could allow us to have a meaningful discussion in the 21st century.

>> your point is taken. i want to sap it really hurt what is you said about leland stanford. >> one last question. >> given that this is the federalist society, my question is that given that congress really hasn't done anything to resist executive power, what can a state or group of states do to prevent executive branch inroads into state activities? >> i think that's an interesting question. the one point i would make about the premise of the question is i think congress has done a good deal to resist executive power. the best example is we can talk about watergate. i think you can teach a whole class about the seven or ten statues that congress passed following watergate. that's not the typical thing we see from congress. even today i think, for example

with respective budgeting, we're living under a scheme that reflects executive power. >> probably john is most famous or infamous depending on who the speakers are with regard to writing about a lot of attempts by congress in the previous administration to resist what was regarded as overreaching by the executive. we can have argued about. we could talk about succession as the ultimate mode of resistance. my governor has flirted with that idea. >> we now have the winner for the most unrealistic comment. thank you. >> speaking of things that were

tried and didn't work. >> before we congratulate our panelists i've been asked to read an important announcement from the organizers. i've been asked to inform you about panel that's not in the printed schedule but may be of interest. during the next 12:45 to 2:00 p.m., the great lunch period, the federalist society faculty division will host a panel on preparing to become a law professor. the panel will take place in zambrano, am i pronouncing that right, zambrano hall, room 301. that is the room directly above the auditorium and it can be reached by taking the outside stairwell or the elevator to the third floor of this building. panelists will include professors barnett, mcconnell and volek and the director of the faculty division. law students and graduates are considering an academic career are welcome to attend. feel free to bring your launch up to room z-301. the panel will start no later

than 1:00 and will conclude in time for the affordable care act debate. now, if you'll join me in thanking the panelists for a lively discussion. i appreciate it. gee, this past week with conditioning on break, we've been featuring some of american history tv's weekend programs in prime time here on c-span 3. tonight we look at african-americans' resistance to slavery starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern. the life and escape of former slave robert smalls who served south carolina in the u.s. house of representatives. and at 10:00 p.m. eastern, vanderbilt professor richard blackett details how a fugitive slave planned and executed escapes to canada, mexico and the caribbean. american history tv in prime time tonight here on c-span 3.

and on c-span 2 we've been featuring some of "book tv" weekend programs in prime time. tonight our conversation with pulitzer prize winner and best-selling novelist anna quindlen on "in-depth." it's "book tv" in primetime, all this week on c-span 2. this weekend head to the state capitol named in honor of thomas jefferson with "book tv" and american history tv in jefferson city, missouri, saturday at noon eastern, literary life with book tv on c-span 2. former senator and missouri first lady jean carnahan on family life inside the governor's mansion from her book "if walls could talk." also a butcher's bill, a business contract, a provision's list from ancient mesopotamia to the university of missouri special collections, the stories behind eight miniature babylonian clay tablets, and sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv -- >> at one time in 1967 this was

called the bloodiest 47 achers in america. >> a former warden takes you through the historic missouri state penitentiary. also, walk back through history in the halls of the state capitals and governor's mansion. once a month c-span's local content vehicles explore the history and literary life of cities across america. this weekend from jefferson city, saturday at noon and sunday at 5:00 eastern on c-span 2 and 3. we had pulled in for the refueling that morning around 9:30. we had moored the ship to a pier in the middle of the harbor. >> the former commanding officer of the "uss cole" kurt lippold on the events surrounding al qaeda's attack that left 17 dead and 37 injured. >> i was turned back to my desk and doing routine paperwork when at 11:18 in the morning there was a thunderous explosion. could you feel all 505 feet and 8,400 tons of destroyer quickly and violently thrust up and to the right. it's almost like we seemed to hang for a second in the air as

the ship was doing this odd three-dimensional twisting and flexing. we came back down in the water, lights came out and ceiling tiles came and popped out. everything in my desk lifted up about a foot and slammed back down. i literally grabbed the underside of my desk in a brace position until the ship stopped moving and i could stand up. >> more with "front burner" author kirk lippold sunday at 8:00 on c-span even's "q&a." it's been 125 years since the dedication of the statue of liberty. next the author of the book on the history of the statue. edward baronson. he talks about his beginnings, controversies and changing means. this event sponsored by the mousse jim of jewish heritage in new york city is just over an hour. jim of jewish heritage in new york city is just over an hour. good evening, and welcome.

i'm melissa mar tens, director of collections and exhibitions here at the museum of jewish heritage, and i'm very happy to welcome you this evening with the launch of a brand new book off of yale university press, the statue of liberty, a transatlantic journey but edward warnson, and just to note before we get started we are being taped by c-span this evening, so when we get to questions at the end, we will want to entertain those by mike so that way you're all heard, and i'll call on you at that point. ed baronson is a professor of history and director of the institute of french studies at nyu. in addition to the book we're discussing tonight, we's the author or editor of five other books in the field of european history. he's currently writing a history of modern europe for oxford university press, and in 1999 he received the american historical association's distinguished teaching award. and we're particularly lucky to be one of the very first sites to discuss his new book, and this is an exciting book that

we've been looking forward to here at the museum for over a year now. we've been working with ed and a team of scholar advisors to look at the life and work of the poet emma lazarus who composed the famous poem "the new colossus that graces the statue of liberty" and has been indelibly linked with it for over 100 years at this point. and ed has worked with us on this exhibition that is on display through the end of 2012 and the lazarus poet of exiles, and i'm very pleased that he's here to share many of the insights into the meaning and history of the statue so welcome, ed. >> thank you. >> so one of the reasons we decided to do next business when we did is that this is a big anniversary year for the statue of celebrity. we're into the year of 125 years past the dedication of the statue, so new york has been celebrating. it's been a natural time of reflection, a perfect time for your book to come out, and i think very few people really

know though where the idea came from for the statue, and so give us some insight into -- into how it came into being. >> so the statue of liberty came into being in france in the middle of the 19th century. it was actually 1865 right after the assassination of abraham lincoln, and the group of french people who were behind the idea were emotionally tied to the united states. they loved the american form of government, and they were abolitionists, and so they had particular affection for president lincoln, and they -- they came together actually at the home of a man named edouardo laboullet who was france's leading specialist on the united states in the 19th century. toqueville died in 1859, and then laboullet was the main specialist on the united states, and he was the head of france's

abolition society, and so a group of men got together at laboullet's summer house near versailles, and their idea was to try to come up with a way of commemorating the life and achievements of abraham lincoln to celebrate the victory of the north in the civil war and to make a critical comment on their own government because it turned out that in the 1860s french had an authoritarian government run by napoleon iii who was the nephew of napoleon. and it was a government that was not friendly to liberty, and so this group of men tried to put all these things together, abolition, the commemoration of the life of president lincoln and a way of being critical of an authoritarian government and get away with it, and so their idea was to sort of obliquely

criticize their own government by talking about how much better the american system of politics was, and so that's the sort of french origin that really comes out of a french political situation with a group of liberal in the 19 century sense, well-educated french men who wanted to make a comment about their own government's politics, and eventually out of this group came the idea of a colossal statue, but it took a while to get there. i don't know if we want to -- want to talk about the whole development of the statue, but a lot -- the legend says that out of this meeting that took place in june 1865, laboullet's house, the conception of this big statue in new york harbor happened. it didn't take place that way at all it. took about six years for the statue to develop, and the first idea that the sculpture