centerional constitution hosted this event and it runs about one hour and 10 minutes. >> this book is spectacular. i was so excited to read it. this book on the forgotten presidents. what michael gerhardt has done is take a topic that seems like a parlor game and revealed the constitution was at the center of their failures, their devotion to a particular constitutional vision. is a constitution saturated book. it teaches us so much and i cannot wait to discuss this. let me introduce my friend, michael gerhardt, and remind you to turn off your cell phones. write your questions on the cards that we will pass along.

is the gerhardt professor of constitutional law and director of the university of north carolina center on law and government. he is the author of five books. the financial times has named the forgotten presidents is one of the best books of 2013. michael has advised congressional and white house officials on many constitutional issues. he has participated in no fewer than five supreme court confirmations hearings and was the only joint witness in the house judiciary history of impeachment. ladies and gentlemen, join me in

welcoming michael gerhardt. [applause] >> it is such an honor. let's begin by asking why you decided to write this book. chance to bete the here. us, -- thisgood for me.ecca for i am moving my officer later. -- my office here later. why this book? as you well know, a lot of what i have done, not just write also taken very seriously and opportunity to

consult with congressional leaders. , i encounter a lot of questions about constitutional law. how much of that work turns on history. a lot of what i ended up working it turns out no arenas the answer to that question -- nobody knows the answer to that question. i thought it would be interesting to put all that work together and look at it from the perspective of what it teaches us about the constitution. we do have a strong anti-cell phone rule. it is all being monitored by the

nsa. that is a very good reason to write this book. what you learned is tremendously useful. what does it take to be a forgotten president? >> there was a poll at my dinner table to see who remembered what. >> you did say your son was quizzing you. me on triviao quiz about the presidents. how do you measure what is a forgotten president? in the course of figuring out that question, i went through a lot of possibilities.

looking at the history books there is ased -- wonderful library there with all of the books used in school. we read every line of every history book. we have a chart on the back and who comes out at the bottom of that. we also looked at major research libraries. what books to the kerry? what books don't they carry -- what books do they carry? what books don't they carry? >> we had an amazing discussion last week with the author of the -- is hear fdr series

the most remembered president? >> close, but it turns out is lincoln. it is lincoln, roosevelt, washington as the top three. to some extent in that order. >> we have 13 presidents with the distinction of being forgotten, although one appears twice and that is grover cleveland. he is forgotten for separate reasons. [laughter] i would like to go through them. they have such powerful constitutional legacies. let's begin with martin van buren. he had a rather distinctive constitutional vision which was associated with the jacksonian party. was.us what the vision

flex i will try to keep you as awake as possible -- >> i will try to keep you as awake as possible when i do this. for the jacksonian, a couple of things central. -- if you think of one person being representative of all of the people, jackson's approach was to say, it will be the president. every president thinks that way today. they believe strongly in small democracy. they brought into government the rulethat the people should and should have a critical say about how the government is run. were formed because they hated the jacksonians.

the especially hated jackson. they felt that what i said to you was completely false. they thought jackson was a dictator and a tyrant. the idea that the president , theybe that powerful thought that was wrong and corrupting. they oppose the idea of factions. lastly, they simply felt -- they formed themselves because they wanted to become a platform for henry clay. he could use that to defeat jackson. >> tell us why jackson failed in defending -- why van buren failed in defending the

jacksonian view of executive power. >> bender and comes into office after jackson -- van buren comes into office right after jackson. think of van buren as jackson's third term. the problem was he was not jackson. he could not bring to the job all of the different skills and powerful personality that jackson had. van buren came into office with the objective of trying to expand what jackson had done. it includes trying to force that will on the congress. people generally dislike van buren. they thought of him as a shady and corrupt character. for much of his life, he was called the red fox. they could not pin him down on

what he believed. not marshal a lot of support. he gets his preferred legislation through congress, but it is not very effective. it on the basis of the jacksonian philosophy. the federal government did not have much power to do this. you have a massive depression and you do not think you can do much at the federal level. he passed a law that involved an independent treasury. it did not do much to relieve the depression. therefore, he got voted out of office. it is not a modern view of executive power.

>> the whigs believe in a powerful congress. weakey believe in a president. they preferred a very strong congress and they would prefer the president to do what congress wanted. that will not work out either. with van buren, he believes in a modest role for financial matters. there are still folks who believe that. that was the case on 19th century. with van buren, he ended up not being very innovative either conservatives would have been the van buren crowd. every solution was a modest and

small and. -- small one. >> the more constitutionally minded the presidents were, the less effective they were. to a degree to that contribute to his failure? that the federal government had very limited power. one of the patterns i found doing the book is how many historians dismiss these presidents as weak and ineffective. i do not see them that way. found is they would take very strong stands at political risk.

there is van buren taking a fairly strong plan -- stand and having to deal with the political consequences. had he been craftier, he would have figured out, let's figure out a way to appease everybody politically. he was willing to take the heat for doing something because of the constitutional principle. when the federal problem persisted, he was going to be the person blamed for it and he took the blame. >> our next failed president is william henry harrison. opportunity.ted in those 31 days, he contribute it something important, which was a growing resistance of congressional supremacy.

tell us about that. least remembered? a great and strong candidate, he was the first candidate not meted for president -- nominated he is the first whig president. harrisontation is that would be a very weak president. someone who would do the bidding of the whig party. and so what you see from the day he is elected and david a of his inauguration is almost like a where clay isde

chasing harrison around the country trying to nail them down on certain appointments and policies and harrison is resisting that. which is an interesting response from somebody that is supposed to be a big president listening to a leader of congress who is henry clay. when they do talk, harrison resists saying to play that he will do what he wants. by the time harrison is inaugurated -- although he dies shortly thereafter -- he is barely speaking to clay. presidency,to his clay leaves town, they are so alienated. but as an odd thing to expect from somebody who is a weak president -- that is an odd thing to expect from somebody president.ig harrison was beginning to say that a whig presidency would not work so much. that he could go to his end of pennsylvania avenue and they would keep it that way

and clay was not happy about that. he was a large character. >> grant had a similar moment when the cabinet tried to impose a choice on him and he stood up and said he was the president. both harrison's are in the book and both are forgotten, they both came into office seeming to be week from parties that wanted weak presidents but ce.y took a principled stand strongly resisting congressional pressure and what to do. saying they would protect the prerogatives of this office. for william henry harrison, that meant determining his own appointments, not congress. it also meant that he would determine when to call a special session of congress on the depression. those were big issues and he wanted to take a lead on them. >> was the debate between the jacksonians and the whigs

similar as that between the tea party and mainstream republicans and democrats today? >> to some extent. you do not want to overstate the similarity but to some extent, especially if what you are talking about is going to first principles. if your first prince falls r, 14 party folks, to go back to a very limited federal government -- no department of education, limit what you can do under the commerce clause, drawback a good deal -- that is to some extent where you find van buren. >> the strong conclusion of this book is that presidents who ofrace that limited view presidential and ultimately federal power fail. >> well, they fail, but not for lack of principle. that they arests failing because of the principle they are trying to defend is just not a popular principle. it turns out that sometimes the principle does not produce policies that are effective and

popular, that the people want in an executive. that seems to be a theme we run into time and time again. problem people want to see is solved and sometimes they want a president to be a part of that. one thing these presents have in common is they either do not solve the problems or they defend some principles which turn out to be not popular either within the party or in the general electorate. tyler,s turn to john most famous for resolving the question of whether the vice president becomes president on the death of the president. there was a dispute, as you know, over with a very phrase in the constitution that says in the case of the removal of the president from office or his death, the same shall devolve on to the vice president. the question was whether the same referred to the office.

>> tyler stood his ground. he is not even in washington when harrison dies, that is how fast it happens. the get sick in his inauguration and goes downhill from there. which is interesting because with everything we have said with harrison euro to think about him dying while this is going on. he is taking strong stance but his health is deteriorating. he dies, tyler figures that he should get to washington. he figures all the way -- he is a good lawyer out of william and mary, which is produced lawyers like john marshall -- when he gets to washington he has it plan, and that is to take the oaths of office to become the president of the united states. we think that makes sense but few of the people he encounters agree. the cabinet says to him that he is not a president. -- the president. he is the vice president

acting as president but he is not the president. no, i am the them, president, if you do not like that, you can leave. they have a stare down. tyler prevails. not long thereafter, his entire cabinet except one resigns in protest because they do not like the fact that he is trying to be president. over the next four years he has some of the most active presidency of anybody in history. is encountering resistance rns, so hishe tu presidency is quite constitutionally rich. was the attempt to impeach him, -- there was an attempt to impeach him, congress tries to get information on appointments, but he writes seminal documents about the things congress is doing to push against them.

i should mention that he is ig and heto be a wh is resisting congress of every turn. you have a two presidents in a row who are whigs but not popular with them. by the end of it, clay does not like him. are getting very fed up of all these people who are supposed to be the person taking strong stances to consolidate presidential power. you say tyler far more with president than any congress, more be does than anyone except for jackson, more nominees rejected. was the core of the debate his strict constructionism and is of states? >> part of it was his philosophy , but it was not just his philosophy about something else.

the fact that he was not just elected. said, i should have becomes harrison's vice president and has to leave his party to do that. d had been a big democrat. they don't trust him or think he is one of them and that turns out to be accurate. he ends up alienating both parties, so some of what is going on here, especially in the senate, is that they are not happy and tyler is not doing what they want by giving them the patronage that they want. he is trying to preserve the priority for name people he prefers. manning are not facts. they are reputable and excellent people getting rejected all the time. he makes nine nominations to the supreme court to cell to spots.o

human gets one confirmed. -- he only gets one confirmed. in the factpect that his nominees are defeated but he wins in the fact that other presidents are watching. from this book that fraction was supreme court battles are not new. you see that in the difficulties that have getting nominees through. >> especially with tyler, who, again, as all of these able and qualified nominees that are being rejected. what you see, in the 19 century, is that the senate is not shy about rejecting people or simple enough having -- simply not having a hearing. tyler comes up with this innovation called recess appointments.

it is creating more and more friction between congress and the president as things go on. a pattern that is worth talking about is that even if a president fails, it is important to understand how that affects the balance of power between congress and the president. andyler is doing something congress is resisting you can see that as an effort on it congress's part to retain authority and remain strong. even if there is a president that is ineffective, that can work to congress's benefit. throw the 19th century, congress is strengthening itself in opposition to the president -- throughout the 19th century, congress is strengthening itself in opposition to the president. >> talk about examples. >> this happened with van buren with the famous amistad case. we will not go through the movie but that is one of the early

slave cases that comes to the supreme court. van buren is trying to use the situation with the slaves that were built on the ship and rub them sent back to cuba and -- havely elsewhere them sent back to cuba and ultimately elsewhere. to doan buren is trying is game the system and he loses at every level in that situation. he is ultimately forced to abide by what the judges say and he does. that is remarkable. at the end it, then bureau does not say he will reject what the courts say. he says that he has to abide by it. that is an interesting precedent and other presidents and up following it. in the introduction that many of these forgotten presidents influence the viewpoints of our most famous presidents. we give a pop quiz, who --luenced lincoln the most you give a pop quiz, who

influenced lincoln the most? any guesses? excellent. zachary taylor. very good. [laughter] wherever we get our information is fine. i think you get a free president ties from the gift shop, although we will have a version that blots out all of the remembered presidents. why was it that zachary taylor was so influential on lincoln? >> the influenced link and in a couple of respects. you have to remember that megan began his clinical career as a whig -- his political career as a whig. two years ine has congress before he becomes president. those are critical because they coincide with taylor. when taylor dies, lincoln gives the eulogy.

lincoln really revered taylor first is a general. -- as a general. he had been a general in a mexico. one of the things that lincoln really loved about taylor as a general was that he would always be able to figure out a way to win against the odds. this is something you might want to think about for lincoln later. he loved the idea that somehow taylor was always able to snatch victory from the job defeat. he loved his ability to -- job of defeat. .- jaw of defeat he loved his ability to improvise and prevail. he talked about a lot in the eulogy. --n the can is about to be he talked about that in the eulogy. when he is about to be president he says that the person he credits for his political education is accurate taylor,

because he ends up not doing his political party's bidding but is his own man. that he isthe idea not going to be president of his party or do what congress wants or create a triangle. he is trying to be president in his own right and dictate to congress what it does read lincoln like that. we can thought that was a good thing. -- lincoln thought that was a good thing. you also like that he was president for only one month and had a critical policy. to only have two slave states committed to the union. congress did not want to do that because it would have the balance of power in the favor of anti-slavery. congress at this point was perfect balance between the two.

taylor would've been happy to .ip the balance congress said no and lincoln had to respond by being innovative. they can loved all of that. -- lincoln loved all of that. say that lincoln that was also influenced by recess appointments. >> after congress resists what taylor wants in the senate does not act on his nominations, if that sounds familiar, is that taylor then turns to his attorney general and says let's make recess appointments. and they do. he has his attorney general opinion on recess appointments and he makes over 400 of them, a record for the time. he much a record for all time. -- pretty much a record for all time. it is a very robust view which the supreme court has largely

confirmed which is that anything can count as a recess, any breaking congress will count as a brief recess. the president can use that time to make an appointment. for presidentrk obama because the core is going to say that does not turn out to have been a break. otherwise if there is a break the president can use that to make a recess appointment and that viewpoint gets its full of circulation from taylor and the 19th-century -- fullest articulation from taylor in the 19th century. >> is the supreme court decision faithful to that history? >> i think it is, yeah. except that it is a judicial intervention. throughout the 19th century the court was peripheral, not a player. people did not take disputes to the court. sometimes but not often. out for thealled

greatest influence on lincoln, buchanan. and that was the greatest surprise that he did not appear in your book. we recently put a blog post that buchanan was the worst present of all time and had a denial of service attack by buchanan fans. they attacked us and outrage against this libelous claim. i am on your side. [laughter] >> you're going to be denied services while. -- as well. >> there are many people that do remember buchanan by virtue of his being the worst president. this book is not about evaluating good or bad, it is simply about evaluating impact, good or bad. or at least identifying that impact.

for buchanan there were a lot of people that thought he was bad. a lot of people who voted for lincoln who became president. i think buchanan is not forgotten for a few reasons. one, over these and of time he stands out as being -- the span of time he stands out as being really bad in office. but also a lot of lincoln had to do early on was defined by buchanan so if you talk about and can lincoln you are always going to talk about james buchanan. >> however you can get out of this worthwhile. -- at it is worthwhile. aerobic and relied on his actions to oppose secession, his problem was signing the which included these provisions. >> fillmore had been in taylor's vice president. taylor did as a whig president was to put

millard fillmore as vice president. this may play very happy, and then clay died. clay died right after fillmore became president. clay died, he was very happy. love the fact that fillmore was a -- he loved the fact that fillmore was a whig. he thought he was finally a genuine whig. the only problem was, what happens next? fillmore signed a controversial piece of legislation into law that taylor would've refused, call become rise of 1850 which included the fugitive slave act -- called the compromise of 1850 which included the fugitive slave act. the fugitiveoused

slaves had to play a role in returning them to their masters and there were states that were saying they would not do it and refused to comply. does any of this unfamiliar? -- sound unfamiliar? some of them even threatened to secede. fillmore and his lawyer, what they started doing was putting together an argument for why every state in the country, everybody else for that matter, would have to comply with federal law. federal law applies everywhere. it applies everywhere the same. it applies in the south, in the north. northern states would have to comply with federal law and if they do not it is called treason. the other problem is that they do not have the authority to secede. when fillmore just did was map out the philosophy that lincoln would take into office later. office, the into southern states are trying to secede, and he was saying this

is what fillmore said and what webster argued. we will use the same logic you say that you cannot secede. the other thing is that if it is federal law, people have to comply with it everywhere. this becomes the framework for lincoln and his presidency. >> i remember vigorous debates of my dear friend and teacher in the first weeks of law school. they said that secession was unconstitutional at the time of the framing it as james wilson said with the people of the united states, not the people of the separate sovereign states. you suggested is more complicated. -- suggest it is more complicated. >> i think the story is more compensated but you come out of the same place. -- complicated but you come out at the same place. it is not a contract that people can come and go from or leave.

is i think that that basically the theory that fillmore is trying to put forward, which is that the states are almost like agents of the people. it is really about the united states and the people were altogether in the united states -- who are altogether in the united states. we should not read too much into and remember that we are a union, which cannot be threatened by people that want to see it destroyed. rejected bya vision our next cobra, franklin pierce. -- culprit franklin pierce. he is dismissed as one of the most ineffective presidents. he was awife was told nominee she thanked him and then worried that he would start drinking again. , his friend said

that he pitied him from the bottom of his heart. was a strict obstructionist and he did not endorse the session but he took states rights to their logical conclusion. >> harrison is bad so i suppose james buchanan can console himself in that pierce may have been a worse president. you would think that would make a memorable but there are different reasons why pierce gets forgotten. that i thinkmebody was backed into the presidency. it had been a lackluster member of congress, left congress because of his thinking problem. and -- drinking problem. and then he gets trusted to be president because he is a very good-looking guy and was someone from the north would support slavery. pierce says, ok, i am nominated and i win the presidency so i will be president. wife is not happy about it.

shortly.be destroyed and pierce will be almost destroyed. because on their way to washington for his inauguration, their train derails. the worst thing that could happen to a parent is going to happen. bey have one son, named nji. they see him killed in front of their eyes in this accident. never recovers and barely speaks to him after that. she blames the death on pierce himself. she keeps to herself in the white house, praying all the time. pierce is virtually destroyed. if you read his inaugural address you see that in the first line or two he references this challenge or turmoil. he proceeds as president to try and find god and often spend sunday at church. one time he does and it turns out to be quite fatal.

he tries to find his own way as president. his best friend was a secretary of war, jefferson davis. fashion a strict constructionist view of the constitution which is that the federal government does have power but that the power ought to be used to support slavery. to support slavery in the territories. that is what gets him into problems. and it really focuses on kansas. >> we can talk about that if you like. bloody kansas and why he messed things up there. >> kansas becomes the focus of activity because it is a territory that is about to become a state. as it is about to become a state there is slavery and anti-slavery forces fighting for , trying to take it

over. the proslavery forces get control of part of the state and pierce decides to back them and not the others. uses all the power of the federal government to back proslavery forces in kansas to take over the entire jurisdiction, the entire state. the only way he could do that is to send an federal forces. the federal forces come in and they are literally going to go to war in kansas to try and ensure that it stays proslavery. and that is why it becomes known as bleeding kansas. it is a precursor to the civil war where they see what happens. pierce is remarkable because he does not hesitate to use federal power. he is not a weak president, he is happy to be strong, he is using every power you can find to force slavery down the throats of people in kansas. there is a cartoon it done at the time that shows that, a disgusting cartoon but that is

what it shows. the end result is that pierce is hated in a lot of places because he does not stand against slavery. and he has of standing up or something that cost him support standing up ends up for something that costs him support elsewhere. he loses the support of his ambassador, james buchanan. he spends the rest of his life defending what he did which does not help either. pierce is pilloried everywhere, even at his college. name and theres was a debating society named for him and he took his name off the debating society. the law school used to be called a franklin pierce law school in new hampshire and they took that name off, too. he is being unremembered systematically. >> i think they are using the again.in -- name

let's let is good for franklin pierce. let's see how long that lasts. there is a dramatic visual because we jump from peers to chester arthur and we do not -- from peers to chester arthur and we do not have the civil war in the book. when we rejoined with the mutton chopped chester arthur the main issue is civil-service reform. he seems to do well on that. he is expected to be a star and oppose it he surprises everyone by supporting it. ita stall wart and oppose that he surprises everyone by supporting it. >> if we describe what should be the territory stick for someone like that, chester arthur' latest, sprint before becoming vice president was to be a collector in the city of new york. he was fired from that for or corruption.

that is all he did before he became vice president. there were a lot of people that when he became president thought that we are dead in the country is over. the biggest problem he had besides what i described to you is that the reason he did anything at all was that he was the political lieutenant of another guy, a very powerful politician in the republican party. arthur's recordation in the republican party was that he was creature.onklin's the question is, what is he going to do with conklin and patronage which is what he wants rid and what will you do with the problem that garfield could not solve before he died, which is the idea that maybe if we had a civil servants we would have people that could become expert at government and not local .acks

interestingly enough, the president that solve the problem is arthur. he thinks that he is going to do the right thing and back this law, he pushes it to congress igns it into law and this is the foundation for the modern civic service law. >> did conklin have a role in the assassination of president garfield? assassind that the cried out that he is a stalwart conklin president. --the call themselves the they called themselves the install works because they said they were faithful to the principles of the country. the man who shoots garfield by all accounts was insane and had been an applicant for federal office because he had an insane idea that he was qualified.

tried to persuade people to appoint him to different things and they would not because they realized he was try to get people to the point into things and they did not because he was crazy. he thought if he got rid of garfield, arthur would appoint him to something. the best evidence we have is that this is an insane individual. and he had a gun. >> ok, we have two chapters devoted to grover cleveland, who not totally he's forgotten, because i learned about him in middle school as the veto president. >> you went to a good middle school. >> i had some great teachers. i remember a book showed him signing the vetoes. you told us the remark vetoes in the first term -- 400, then the second term. what with the different concessions of the two terms?

tell us about his view of the constitution. >> so, what you have just described is how he was the first term. when cleveland comes to office of the first term, he is very much like van buren or more so. he would've been a good wig. hiw vis view was, i will try and not abuse my powers. i believe congress should take the lead on things. i will not even get involved in congress. so, what that left him was only a couple of things. to maketrying nominations. the other was veto. the reason he ends up casting so many vetoes is he felt that there was no authority in congress to give pensions to veterans of the civil war. and so, he kept vetoing those pensions. of whats a narrow view he thought congress should be doing in that regard.

otherwise, he simply would sign what congress did. and cleveland also had a view onlythe president should use veto powers for something that is clearly unconstitutional. so he set a record the first term. the second term, which then didn't directly follow the first, he comes in as a different person. the middle of a different depression. he takes the opposite view of the presidency. thinks, ok, the president has to be much more energetic. i have got to push things through congress. he threatens congress. laws, but he is a very different chief executive. it is the chief executive that woodrow wilson would later think is the only significant one in the last 25 years of the 19th century. wilson thinks there is nobody else significant, but cleveland was. actually what he is is the first modern president. >> what change cleveland's mind? >> i think the depression, his

loss of his wife. all of these things come together. and his secondew term, that we have got to do more to fix things. got ideas of what that is. the president is a part of this process. i think i will be told less and maybe we will achieve more if congress does what i say. >> he was the first modern president. that pre-modern view that you could feed to civil war -- veto civil war pensions, could that be sustainable today? it would be so unpopular. could a president get away with that now? >> it did not make cleveland popular. which is one reason he is not reelected the first time. so, i think it becomes harder. i also think what happens more today, and this is probably what do, that attempts to is presidents try to work more with congress.

people throughout the 19th century are still not sure to what extent president and congress should be working together and battling each other. and cleveland is slowly moving us toward a view that maybe things would work more efficiently if president and congress actually worked together. --re is a political party does introduce a huge problem in that respect. and cleveland also simply has a the problemhat, might not be the right word. he was actually somebody who was incredibly honest. he had tremendous integrity. not believe in bending his principles. he did not believe in doing something he thought was bad policy or not a good idea or something that smacked of patronage. so that made him harder to work with. liked thetnot not have job so much. there is the story of how the young fdr is taken to meet

cleveland. when cleveland puts his hand on his head and says i have one wish for you -- that you may never become president. >> that did not work out, either. >> harrison. benjamin harrison. the fact the president is forgotten does not mean they are bad. who disliked harrison personally, rank him among our best president. adams was no easy critic. he signed the sherman antitrust law. he created the federal circuit courts, the supreme court's. four supreme court appointments. tell us about why he was so influential. this is remarkable for a man who most people actually personally disliked. but it was because he was actually somebody who would try to get laws through that he thought with the right laws to get done.

he would have weekly meetings with members of congress -- had them over to the white house for dinner. he would try to work with congress to get these laws through. it was almost revolutionary at the time. he is getting a lot of what were then pretty progressive laws through. the sherman antitrust act, for example. and the difficulty he has got is he just was such a difficult character. didn't like people. which is a real problem for a president. and so, that came through. it also came through to leaders of congress who hated him. the person that tries to run against him is his own secretary of state. there are a lot of problems he has got in the sense that he cannot keep his administration together. and while at the same time, he is getting a lot to congress. he is pretty successful, as you pointed out. up reshaping the judiciary. creating the foundation for what we think of as the modern judiciary.

he's also passed one of the most important laws in history. he also is there trying to serve back a pretty -- the commerce clause powers to write you made the economy. all these are pretty progressive things for the era. he cannot see them through to the end. >> taft. soon after he became chief justice, which was his ambition, he told a friend he no longer remembered -- this fascinating notion that he was the last of the presidents to conceive of the presidency as subservient to congress. and thinking of his role as judicial and constitutional. he thought it was his job to keep congress within its enumerated powers. tell us about why he was so unsuccessful as a presidential vision. >> right. he had a view, as you described, theongress, well, of president as being restricted in its power.

but his view also was every branch is restricted in its powers. hishe would stay within bounds. congress should stay within its bounds. the judiciary within its particular bounds. unlike others, was very, very committed to trying to stay within those boundaries. he was somebody just simply held not do anything that thought was political for the sake of being political. he did not like going out and shaking hands. he did not like him and speeches. he did not like doing a lot of things that we think the president's liking to do. those are going to hurt him politically. substantively, he is going to get a lot done. he will get a variety of laws through. essin, broadening more or l the extent to which the federal government is regulating economy. the foundations for modern economic regulations. he's going to completely revolutionize the to dish very through six appointments to

the supreme court -- through six appointed to the supreme court. one term, six appointments. that is incredible. he is very deliberate about what all of those are. >> one of his delusions -- his deliberations was picking old guys. >> he said that the hardest thing he ever had to do was to pick somebody to be chief justice because, he's thinking, that's my job. so he pick somebody named edward douglas white to become chief justice. white had been an associate justice appointed by cleveland. a pretty popular person among the other justices. but taft was not stupid. and taft notes along the way that white was older. taft was not present -- harding was president -- turns out that white died. who's first in line knocking on the door of harding but taft.

i'm available. >> he cast far fewer vetoes then roosevelt and wrote his views like judicial opinion saying, i dissent. give us a more contrast. >> so, roosevelt -- there is a documentary which shows exuberant personality. somebody who was very much committed to trying to do what ever he thought was proper and right as president. so he was not constrained by anything. office, the constitution did not constrain him. the only thing that roosevelt thought could constrain and was whether or not the popular vote could support it. if he thought he had popular support, roosevelt would do it. so this is teddy roosevelt. energetic, a couple of -- accomplished and unbounded. almost the exact opposite of william howard taft. taft theses constrained by law. taft also thinks he is not

somebody like roosevelt woho had a steward theory of the president. instead, no, i'm going to stay within my bounce like a car, keep it in its lane. we are going to be very careful about how fast we go and where we go. withw let's contrast taft coolidge. coolidge inspires the meanest comment when dorothy parker learned of his death, she said "how could they tell?" hat coolidgetah conceived of legislative powers in ways that right -- that resonate with modern conservatives. tell us more about that. >> so coolidge is somebody who by large was a successful president. beingd'dn't like president. but coolidge has a very, very well developed -- coolidge believes -- and this is

not so much a quote but a associated within the government that governs best governs least. government staying out of the way of business. try and not -- so he would not support a lot of regulation of disney's but would prefer government -- regulation of business but would prefer government to pull back. so he was not going to support an intrusive federal government in a lot of different areas of life. sound very ought to familiar. but even then, coolidge did believe occasionally the federal government ought to do something. he is the first president to support regulation of broadcasting. he is the first president to support regulation of aviation. those become very common things. he does have an idea of the commerce clause as providing

some degree of congressional regulation of areas, even though i think on a lot of things, like the department of education -- which you would never envisioned -- he would not have supported. so he is very conservative in the sense that he really wants to keep the federal government under budget. he wants to keep the federal government limited in what it does. and he tried to be very consistent about all that. he believes that the constitution restricts the power to wrigley the economy, he also believes and includes cultivating the moral character of americans. economy, he also believes it includes cultivating the moral character of americans. in aile he did not believe lot of different kinds of departments, one department he proposes to congress is the department of moral edge -- moral character. need to be able to worry about people's character. he things people's character is

integral to the extent to which they can prosper under the constitution, which would allow them to acquire property and keep it. he sees all of that is integrated. he believes the constitution protects rather property. how do people acquire property -- / ? if they are good people, they will acquire things. he takes a lot of care. he gives a lot of speeches about the importance of moral character. and does see a role of government. is that moral cultivation that distinguishes his vision from taft's? >> there are others. i think what coolidge -- yeah, the contras between -- the contrast between taft and coolidge was subtle. it is not dramatic. what coolidge does more than taft is he wants to pull it back more so than taft. taft did support some areas of

conservation. the federal government enforcing what we might think of environmental -- as environmental laws. coolidge would not have supported that. there are a lot of areas where taft that the government should go that coolidge would have pulled back on. there is the second thing -- he thought government did have a role in cultivating character, which taft did not agree with at all. lastly, i think he would've agreed with taft's views on construction. he would support the idea that the courts should be strongly protective of private property. also, very supportive of a constrained federal government. in those regards, they had a lot in common. >> great. we leap from coolidge to a far more recent president and that is jimmy carter. well, i'll ask you right away. why carter? >> i get in trouble for it. that's wife. -- that's why.

post people do not care that much about forgotten presidents. is forgotten for a few different reasons. even if people do remember him as president, they do not remember what he did. that is pretty remarkable for a time period, it's remarkable that a president pretty much existed when most of us were alive. and so, the very fact that he is forgotten for much of what he has done is one reason. i think that a second is that i think he is forgotten in a more objective sense. so if you look at history books and other things, he rates really low on the extent to which he is mentioned. remember those quite sure we talked about in the beginning. he ends up being really low on a lot of those criteria. betweenso sandwiched two other presidents who are going to be more remembered. associatedh is ford

with nixon. the other is reagan. all of that diminishes carter. the more he is diminished, the more likely he is forgotten. one of carter's problems is that his constitutional vision was modeled. he was not a supporter of roe v wade. roe vwas critical of wade, though maybe not energetically so. he did not come out a lot and criticize it, but he did not personally support it. he did not personally get involved. from someated him parts of the democratic party as time went on. and it also meant that he was, he had brought into the democratic party something he could not keep their. -- keep there. a lot of christian conservatives supported him for president to begin with. but as he was trying to keep their support and maintain his position, the democratic party itself was moving in a different direction. that meant ultimately he was going to lose support. pron anti-roe,

affirmative-action democrat is going to have a challenge that >> exactly right. he was very much pro-affirmative action. his president coincided with the case. he ends up not wanted to follow the road. complye do not have to with that. he tried to figure out a way for the presidency to support affirmative action. >> i have so many constitutional questions coming out of this book. the most urgent one i have is why is it that constitutional to all theso central early presidencies you describe all the way through coolidge, where presidents are making arguments in the toting bills, and that just stops? bills, and that just stops? and carter relies more on the supreme court. why? >> that is a great question. i can give you an estimate of an answer. it is hard to know what the right answer is. i think there are a few things.

one of them is i think it stops because the media is going to become a much bigger factor in people's lives, particular president lives. much of what they do, everything they do, everything they say is now going to get covered much more copiously. i think that has caused presidents to be more circumspect about what they have to say. much of what characterizes those early president is they were less circumspect. ingy did not mind call people on the carpet. haveft's case, he would probably not want to go on tv at all. some of these folks probably would not have been elected because they were not very media -- they would not have come off very well in the media. the 20 47 coverage of it all -- the 24/7 coverage of it all makes circumspection more likely. the second factor is the very way people become president, gets nominated by their parties, is different now.

so it is much more, the parties have much fuller vetting of people. and that also tends to sort of more out folks with extreme views. some of these folks have extreme views early on. over time, what you see is a process that tends to cut out people who have extreme views and more, find folks that are closer to the center. i think those are all factors that play into this. me, our audience recited our congressional mandate to disseminate information on the constitution on a nonpartisan basis. so, but i do detect a theme in this book which is that president to have adopted a radically limited vision of both presidential and congressional power have failed. >> i think that's true. i think that is also nonpartisan. so, i think it is true -- again,

for a variety of reasons. our system of government, the very constitution itself has set up a system in which the branches that acquire power are reluctant to give it up. one thing you can see is a brancht is as each gains power, you do not want to see any of the three branches wanting to give it up. so a president that tries to attack that, or work against that, if they end up having one or more branches working against him. not to mention the political party as well. and that becomes a real problem over time. so, you do not see presidents, for example to this day, saying, all, i am not going to use that power. some other president acquired before me. the same thing is true for congress.

congress and ask certain kinds of loss. laws.cts certain kinds of the supreme court itself. it may be different. utcomes may be different, but i do not see the supreme court which has acquired broader judicial view, let's give it up. continues to use that power. that basic dynamic that the branches have to keep what they have acquired works against some of this. >> could you imagine a constitution was president being collected today, a president mike or president ted cruz? could they be elected, and if so, would they succeed? it is possible they can get elected. i think they would find it very hard to do what they set out to do. is because ofat the constitution. the other thing we have not mentioned is that sometimes to

do radical things, even to cut back, requires using the institutions that are set up. if you want to cut back -- for example, a limiting the department of education -- you would have to get that through congress. i'm not so confident you would be able to. you have things like the filibuster in the senate. other things going on in the house. would that be possible? things you can get some done. what you find is that moving in any particular direction in an extreme way is very difficult, given the very structures we toe got that are set up stop those kinds of movements. >> i think we have time for just one question but it is an excellent one. congress'spare struggle with tyler with congress'struggle with obama? and how would you advise obama in light of tyler and other

presence? >> and i have got how many minutes? i think there is a limited analogy to draw. tyler was unpopular because he was not elected. he had been a vice president who had become president. but he was already unpopular before that point because he had essentially dissed both political parties. he left the democratic party to run with the wig harrison. as president, he is not doing what the wig party wants. he is a man without a party as he is president. that sets up a lot of friction already. with obama, i think the friction results from different things. i think the friction results in part from racism. i think some of it results because he is a democrat. some of the policies he has enacted. so that friction generates from

sources that are different than tyler. how you get rid of that friction would be different as well. tyler could never join a party. ish obama, what i advise that you have two years left, you need to get out of the office more. i think going up to capitol hill and meeting with folks is not a bad idea. even if you cannot reach deals with them, putting a spotlight on your attempt to do that would be very effective, because either it will look like people do not want to work with you, or they will try and come up with something. so i would suggest trying to do more openly to find common ground with people whether it is in the house or the senate. trying torse, he is use executive orders more. but i think that has limited utility. because it only depends on the extent to which the next president wants to extend them. and it works in the short term.

-- of course, the other thing which those of you who read the national enquirer know, is i think he has got to tell a story more. he is a remarkable speaker. he hasn't used that gift enough thingsy support for while he is trying to get stuff to congress and trying to rally congress to his side. i think remarkable gift has to be used more. >> i cannot resist this final question. if it is not up to the president to strictly construe the constitution to enforce limits on federal power, and it is not up to congress, does that just leave the courts? 9 >> no -- -- no, we have still got states that can do things. one thing is to consider is what initiatives states can employ. there are a lot of things the federal government cannot do or has limited ability to do. that means it is left to the states. you really can take a lot of initiative there. i am never a fan of having the

courts take much the lead on any of this. opem not a big fan of big sc of judicial review. but i think what also needs to be considered are what are innovative ways we can deal with things. buren triedvan that. his innovation was not very effective. the other thing to think about is what you want to get done. i think sometimes to be successful you have to lower your sights. so sometimes you can get incremental things through. and sometimes the boulder you are, the less successful you might be because boldness is not received very well given the structure of congress. that may be finding common ground in different places, you can figure out solutions even within congress. i want to remain an optimist because i believe in the constitution like you do. and i think that the constitution endures.

that is a great thing to think about. think about the different ways it provides opportunities -- and of course, we left out the equation the most import and that is the american people. the american people have a lot to say about all of this. and what do they think the government should be doing? that would be useful to know. >> beautiful note on which to end. michael garrett thank you for having resurrected the constitutional legacy of these forgotten presidents and for having written a wonderful book. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] there is a book signing and book sale. please come meet michael garrett. the berlin wall fell 25 years ago. on october 9, 1989. we will revisit that historic day tonight starting at 8:00 with archival

c-span video featuring president george h w bush from the oval office. reaction from senate leaders bob dole and george mitchell. and speeches from president kennedy in 1963 and president reagan in 1987 that galvanized berlin and the free world. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span 3's tv.ican history >> c-span veterans day coverage begins tuesday morning at 8:30 eastern during "washington withal" with an interview the american legion executive director. at 10:00, the annual uso gala featuring general martin dempsey. there alive -- live for traditional wreathlaying ceremony at the tomb of unknowns. discussion on health issues. later, the. medal of honor ceremony. 015 c-span student cam

video competition is open to all middle and high schools did mr. create a five to seven minute documentary on the theme -- the three branches and you -- showing how a policy or action by the executive, legislative, or judicial branch has affected you or your community. 200 cash prizes totaling $100,000. for the list of rules, go to studentcam.org. week, american artifacts takes you to museums and historic places to learn what artifacts reveal about american history. this smithsonian's national museum of the american indian opened in 2004 on the national mall in washington, d.c. we visit the nation to nation exhibit. for treaties between the united states and native americans. the curator explains that in the late 1700s, the fledgling federal government may treaties with the