♪ host: good morning, it is saturday, september 17, 2020 two, and today is constitution day. 230 years ago on september 17, 1787 the u.s. constitution signed. this morning we are asking, how would you change the u.s. constitution? would you change it at all? of us a call on mind by party affiliation. democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can send as a text, (202) 748-8003. be sure to send your first name and city/state. we are on facebook and twitter and instagram. welcome to this morning's washington journal. we are dedicating the whole show to the u.s. constitution. before we take your calls i want to show you an op-ed in the new york times entitled "the constitution is broken." it is difficult to find a constitutional basis for abortion or labor unions in a document written by largely affluent men more than two centuries ago. it would be far better if liberal legislators could simply make a case for abortion and labor rights on their own merit without having to bother with the constitution. by leaving democracy hostage to

constraints that are harder to change than the rest of the legal order, constitutionalism of any sort demands extraordinary consensus for meaningful progress. it conditions democracy in which majority rule always must matter most on surviving vetoes, from powerful minorities that invoke the constitutional path and obstructing new future. that was in "the new york times." from the pittsburgh post-gazette there is a response to that by columnist ben shapiro. he says this in response. the founders do for the idea of an unfettered federal government ruled only by popular passions. that is why they put in place a system of checks and balances, to forestall mob majority at te -- majoritarism.

generally locally and as we abstract rule away from the people interests divert. this means as the government abstracts away from the people it ought to be granted less and less power. the left hates the constitution for that reason, the constitution is a barrier against the utopian mission to restructure human relations and ultimately humanity itself.that is an op-ed in the pittsburgh post-gazette by columnist ben shapiro. stephen breyer, justice stephen breyer before his retirement this year, talked about the importance of the constitution for all americans. this is from remarks that he gave in february. [video clip] >> i always usually have a copy of the document. that gets their attention. i say this document? of course it is important, it

keeps us together as a nation. 300 million people who disagree about everything. it helps keep us together as a nation. in a sense of how to describe it to high school students, when i was in high school i listened to a radio program. it was in northwest canada near alaska patrolling the border. life is tough on the border. very tough. but he was part of the border patrol. it doesn't really tell you what to do, sometimes it does, but it is a tough question. basically it is a boundary setting document and that boundary setting document is a boundary set that leaves a vast majority of things up to the

public to decide through the democratic processes. to think of that sometimes helps you when you are trying to interpret laws on the freedom of speech, the need for transmission to government officials, and sometimes it is just a way of looking at the document for what it is. within those boundaries, which are very broad, it is up to the cities, the states, the towns, the counties, the nation to decide through democratic processes what kind of government they want. host: that was justice stephen breyer earlier this year in february giving remarks. we are asking you the question, how would you change the u.s. constitution? today is constitution day and we are dedicating the entire "washington journal" to that. you can give us a call. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

one into show you this opinion from the washington post. it says, how to counter today's tribalism and build a more perfect union. the opinion is written by bernice donald and judge don willis and it says that federal judges rarely write newspaper op-ed's and rear girl he a joint op-ed of two assumed foes. in this era of tribalism what could these judges agree on? one is an african-american obama appointee and the other a white male trump appointee. it says we respect each other as judicial siblings committed to a shared oath. our robes are black, not red or blue. this constitution day, here are five suggestions to form a more

perfect union. i won't go into too much detail, but the first is logged off. essentially, get off of social media. learn up. this is the civics iq of we the people is not exactly mental level. according to a 2022 survey most american adults cannot name all three branches of government and 25% can't name a single one. i will show you that survey later in today's program. the next is, reach out. genuine across the aisle friendships are rare today. pullback. it says, fact, there's more to life than politics. finally, plug in. it says this raucous republic longs to u all and the secret sauce is a sleeves rolled up citizenry. it says if any identity should define us as americans, let it

be one that transcends ideological and democratic differences.our common identity as heirs to a rich civic inheritance. let's take your calls. ray is our first caller in st. petersburg, florida on the democrats mine. caller: good morning. the first thing that i would do is i would take the appointees away from the president for the supreme court. i think that has made it political. every other branch of government , the president and congress is voted on by the people, and then you have the other branch of government that is an appointee of a political group, democrat, republican, or whatever. host: do you think that they should be elected by the people? caller: i absolutely think they should be elected. host: the electoral college or popular vote? caller: the electoral college. just so you know that everyone

is represented instead of the popular vote. so people still have decisions. almost like the congress. host: greg is up next in fayetteville, north carolina, independent. caller: i am more worried that we are not abiding by the constitution, so i think that i am not so much wanting to change it as adhered to it, respect it. we have been doing a lot of things that are outside the boundaries of the constitution lately. so, when the constitution is not being respected and adhered to there should be more than outcry. i wish there was something in place to make us more accountable, make the government more accountable, to abide by the constitution. i have been to other countries where they do not abide b they

-- abide by it, they ignore it, and it causes their society to decline. host: would you feel people or the government is not abiding by? caller: a good example is the president's executive orders. there is nothing in the constitution that says the president can do that. so, that is one area, for example, that i would say we got to hold the executive branch accountable. tell whoever the president is, who book and or democrat, that executive orders are not constitutional. where is that at in the constitution? that is one example of what i'm referring to. host: all right, greg. mike also on the independents line in california. caller: good morning. my problem with the current situation is the failure to

observe the constitution and even acknowledge that it is being violated. the biggest example is the drug prohibition. at least with alcohol prohibition there was a constitutional amendment, however foolish, passed in 1920, which was repealed in 1933, so we have the example of alcohol prohibition which caused enormous harm to the body politic. huge numbers of italian and irish americans were arrested and convicted and imprisoned and murdered as a result of prohibition and the resulting black market that the law inevitably created. black and brown americans are the victims of drug prohibition. there was no constitutional amendment enabling drug prohibition, but huge numbers of

, disproportionate numbers of black and brown americans are imprisoned as a result of drug prohibition. again, violations of the founding principle that the pursuit of happyness is a god-given unalienable right. that is in the declaration of independence. that is a principle that is a wholesale violation without even comment of what passes for political debate today. host: let's talk to richard in broken arrow, oklahoma on the republican line. caller: hi, folks. how are you? you are new, i did not get your name? host: it is mimi. caller: hi, how are you today? what i have observed in political circles is in the house of representatives they

basically learn their job for one year and run for reelection the next year. i would increase the length of time for the term for the house of representatives from 2 to 4 years then term limits for 12 years for the house and for the senate 2 terms of 12 years. i think that that would make the entire government a little less volatile. i intend to -- of course, i want the republican candidates to win, but i am more of a moderate republican than a conservative. it is just a matter of, it is just -- the campaigning is outrageous at times. especially from the house side. if you give them a couple of years to learn their jobs, maybe they do their jobs better.

just a thought. host: all right, richard. this is in "the wall street journal." it says james madison's critique of the senate still holds. james madison is called the father of the constitution and he wanted seats in the upper house to be based on population and elements that the quality for each state was placed beyond the reach of amendment. that is in the wall street journal. michigan on the democrats line. caller: good morning, mimi. host: good morning. caller: i would get rid of the electoral college, because we have had two presidents in the last 20 years who have been put into office without having -- with having fewer votes than

their opponents. one was george bush, who was completely incompetent. and now we have donald trump, who appears to be a criminal. you can't have a president elected with fewer votes than the opposition and call this a democracy if that happens. this doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. that is my comment. thank you. host: all right. let's talk to warren next from brandon, florida on the democrats line. warren? caller: yes. i think when we are talking about the constitution i think it ought to be talked about with more inclusivity. for example, when people talk

about the constitution don't seem to include anybody else except white americans. i think that needs to be changed. host: how so? elaborate. caller: basically we all start off with our founding fathers. when the founding fathers, most all of them owned slaves. people who didn't have any rights, who weren't written into the constitution. how come we don't address that first and say, let's include all of that? let's include that. we start with this notion that -- is almost like a succession of servitude. when our founding fathers did this, when our founding fathers did that -- those founding

fathers had slaves who didn't have those same rights that we are talking about. this morning. host: let's check in the chief justice john roberts who was at a recent event and he talked about the court's role in interpreting the constitution. [video clip] >> the court has decided controversial decision subject to intense criticism, and that is entirely appropriate. citizens feel free to criticize our opinions and how we do our work. lately, that criticism is phrased in terms of because of these opinions it calls into question the legitimacy of the court, and i think that it's a mistake to view those criticisms in that light. the legitimacy of the court rests on the fact that it satisfies the requirements of

the statute and that the constitution, as john marshall put it, to say with the law is is the role of the supreme court, in that role doesn't change because people disagree with this opinion, that opinion, or a particular mode of jurisprudence. obviously, people can say with a want, and they are certainly free to criticize the supreme court. if they want to say that it's legitimacy is in question they are free to do so, but i don't understand the connection between opinions that people disagree with and the legitimacy of the court. if the court does not retain its legitimate function of interpreting the constitution, i'm not sure who would take up that mantle. you don't want the political branches telling you what the law is, and you don't want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is. host: it is constitution day,

and we are asking, how would you change the u.s. constitution? our phone lines are open and we are taking your calls to hear what you think. steve is in gordonsville, virginia on the republican line. caller: i'm not sure that this pertains to the constitution, but i think one thing we need to do is get a more representative government. one of the things i think we should do is increase the amount of representatives we have, like, double each one, two instead of one, and three senators for each state. we have the same amount of representation in our population -- and our population was 10 times more than what it originally was when that was set up. host: how do you think that would help? having double the amount in the house? caller: i think it would make it more inclusive because you are increasing the amount of people who represent you in washington.

it may also increase the amount of different parties that get representation. host: what if you end up with double the amount but they all believe the same thing? it is not necessarily diverse? caller: if we all believed the same thing we wouldn't need it. we need a declaration saying this is the law and you could just have -- let's see -- you could just have a true democracy if everyone believed that the same thing. host: got it. let's talk to james in herndon, virginia on the independents line. caller: good morning. i wouldn't change the constitution. i would make sure that we adhere to it as it's written. for example, we are currently utilizing different branches of the government in ways that they were not intended to be used. at the latest supreme court justice hearings the justices were asked several times, how would you define a woman?

that is not their job. their job is not to define, it is congress's job to define. they should make definitions, and then the justices look at the definitions. the constitution is silent on what a male and female is. congress can write a law that says this is what a male is and what a female is. it kind of takes that third ranch out of that process. the only thing that the supreme court should be doing is calling bolles and strikes -- balls and strikes. that is one example and we are currently misusing the application of the constitution. i wanted necessarily change it, but it would pull it back to utilizing it the way that it should be. host: let's go to delmar, new york talk to marty on the independents line. caller: hi. eyes see the big problem that we face today as being the undue impact of money on the current political system.

i think that legislation and political effect is essentially bought and paid for through elections, other lobbying, and such. constitutionally i'm not sure of the way to get rid of that. i'm sure there are some things that i can do. one thing that we can do constitutionally, right now 99% of that power is funneled through the democrat and republican parties. the job of the democrat and republican party is to keep us separated his people. it is a fake spectrum that is implied that we are trained to believe is to control the set of problems. the people in real power are not democrats or republicans. frankly, they don't really care. they controlled the system no matter who is in charge at any point in time. constitutionally, we need to do what we need to do to get rid of the two-party system. there are little things in place to make it difficult, or

impossible, for any third party to get a toehold. how about an antiwar party. who do you vote for if you are antiwar? neither party. they are both pro-war. people in this country don't support war for the most part. it's ridiculous. that is basically my viewpoint. host: let's go to philadelphia, pennsylvania on the democrats line. good morning, darnell. caller: good morning, good morning. i think the constitution can stay the same as it is. i would like much, much more focused on the very first sentence, the preamble, "we the people in order to form a more perfect union" on how people can be united. i think that there is a national polarization of politics between urban and rural culture and we need to form a more perfect union between that urban and rural culture. that is the goal.

i think we should put more focus on the very first sentence of the preamble. how did the second amendment take precedence over the first sentence? that boggles my mind. it really does. in this bipolar spectrum of urban and rural culture, how can we form a more perfect union? a lot of other nations never grew to the size of america because a lot of other nations never grew beyond the size of a city state. in america, we grew beyond the small city state to form a more perfect union. we have one of the largest populations, we have one of the largest geographic areas. to maintain that unity, to maintain that cohesion i would put my focus back on that first sentence, the preamble. make your amendments, your legal amendment, make an abortion illegal amendment, make an amendment, but put a focus on

the first sentence and the constitution can stay as it is. i understand that the three fifths clause was written into the constitution. that was a grand compromise as opposed to specifically black americans who were 25% of the colonial population. how do we incorporate that 25% into america? the civil rights act, the 14th amendment. host: ok, darnell. let's talk about one of those amendments. the first amendment. coming out with a civics knowledge survey every year, look at the numbers from 2022. the people were asked, what is in the first amendment? only 63% could name freedom of speech. 24%, freedom of religion. 20% know that freedom of the press is part of the first

amendment. 16% could name the right of people to peaceably assemble. 6% were able to include the right to petition government. notice that all of those numbers are down from 2021. we are asking, how would you change the u.s. constitution? steve is next in allen park, michigan on the independents line. good morning. caller: hello? host: hi, steve. caller: i think the first amendment is good the way it is, but it is not being respected. julian assange is not honoring the first amendment. he is a publisher and they are trying to extradite him. host: should you be able to publish classified information? caller: he is not a u.s. citizen, though. someone gave him information.

he is not a u.s. citizen. he is a publisher, journalist. he has no duty to the united states. he can publish it. so, what they are trying to do is pretty dangerous. so, if he gets extradited it is kind of destroying our first amendment. if he gets extradited the way that i look at it is they need to arrest everybody at "the new york times", daniel ellsberg during the vietnam war, and anyone who published any kind of source that ever went to a newspaperman. it is extremely scary. that worries me. host: david is next in denison, texas, republican line. caller: yes, couple of things. the one fellow called saying

that the constitution was written by white guys for white guys, that there is nothing in the constitution for black people. one thing people misunderstand about the constitution when they talk about what the constitution is or isn't, they seem to base that on the original constitution that was ratified in 1789. the amendments to the constitution changed the constitution. our constitution is the original but all of the amendments have followed. yes, there were very few references to slavery, slave i don't think was directly used. they outlawed the import of slaves after 20 years, and there were other issues, but the point is that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments definitely addresses issues having to do with african-americans and slaves. one of the problems with the original constitution that i've never heard anyone talk about except for alexis to

tocqueville, was he wrote democracy in america in 1835 to 1840, i believe it is probably a book that is found in about every political science class in the world, it is an amazing book. he was unbelievable in the information that he had of what was going on in the world and what was in the constitution and going on in america at the time. he clearly stated the big concern he had was tierney of the majority. madison did not favor the electoral college but he did not favor many changes at all. he was totally against the bill of rights. host: would you change anything in the u.s. constitution? caller: let me please make this clear. he was against the bill of rights because the states had their own constitutions and most of the items that people wanted to put into the national bill of rights were in state constitution so it was assumed

that they would be considered that way. he has been proved wrong in that context, but he did agree to author the bill of rights. the bill of rights was not 10 amendments. it was more like 18 was 18 or 2. they only agreed to 10 of them. but he agreed to do that because he would not have gotten the votes to ratify the constitution. the same thing for the electoral college, which was part of the connecticut or great compromise, so it was the last compromise to get the small states on board, at the time new york, massachusetts -- host: so there is a lot of history there. we are going to be talking in our next segment with a constitutional scholar and go through some of those issues. eric is next in antioch, an independent. caller: good morning. i would like to see an amendment that grants the right of privacy. instead of relying on the supreme court to essentially make it up.

there are people who -- i prefer it to be written out. host: john is next in cleveland, ohio on the independent line. caller: yes. america lives mostly on -- somewhere along the way -- i'm not changing the spirit of the constitution. i am in immigrant, 87. c-span is the best thing on the air. we do not need two parties. if we have two parties, other parties should come into play. there is so much dark money. citizens united -- it is not a

person. next to the magna carta, the american constitution is the best document ever created. but the parties have completely routed the whole thing kid everyone is talking about gerrymandering. and each one is attacking the other as a rascal for the election. i am not trying to be really negative. it is sad. the spirit is still there, but somewhere along the way, we know more about sports than about the senate. we know all about the pundits, as they do not even read the constitution. host: ed is next, desert hot springs, democrat line. caller: hi. i've got three things. number one, we have got to remember it is not 1789 anymore,

it is 2022. number two, we need to remember that we are the united states, we are not 50 individual states. we see what is happening in europe with 50 individual states. we are the united states. and number three, we have got to remember separation of church and state. the reason for the constitution was the church of england was imposing too many restrictions on us. we didn't like it. we decided to go out on our own. separation of church and state, what is the government's responsibility, what is the individual spiritual thing, that has to be separated. host: what would you change

about the constitution? caller: number one, i would update it come up until 2022 -- host: like what kinds of things would you update it with? caller: like everybody says, the constitution was written by rich, white people. we need to remember there are poor black people, poor white people, poor -- the constitution is for everybody, not just for the rich or the poor. host: let's talk to devin, next, in philadelphia. caller: good morning. where i would change the constitution, i think i would allow laypersons to serve in all the federal courts --

host: laypeople, so people without any legal background? caller: well, they would have to have some legal background and training, just like they have in many states that they have laypersons serve as judges. host: you mean like serving on a jury? caller: no, serve as the judge. serve as judges on the federal courts, just like we have here in pennsylvania. we have magisterial district judges. they are not lawyers, and they serve. they get trained, they pass a test, and they can serve as judges for six years. host: how do you think that would help? like what kind of impact do you think that would have? caller: i think that would give more integrity and also more realistic views of the courts. most people do not know anything about the courts. many people are afraid to go on the court.

i think if you allow laypersons -- that are trained, properly trained -- that the public will get more confidence and understand the courts more. host: all right. this is also from the annenberg civic knowledge survey about the first amendment. it says over half of those surveyed, so 51%, compared to 61% in 20.1, say it is -- on facebook pages. the first amendment checks citizens from government censorship, but social media companies, such as facebook, are private companies, and courts have ruled private entities are not covered by it. we are asking you how you would change the u.s. constitution on this constitution day. stan, next on the republican

line, good morning. caller: good morning. i think the constitution was set up in a very good way. the people who set it up was thinking beyond the time they were in. they have manipulated it so bad. the president can sign an executive order and do stuff. they say they cannot do anything in congress, but when they want to do something, that gun bill sure past real quick -- passed real quick. this is a nation that used to believe in god. jesus is the only thing that helped to people, and all these politicians -- they should learn get together. get something done and set up fighting. host: do you think anything should change in the constitution to help that? caller: i think if the kids got taught constitution and what the nation is based on, there will

be a lot different outcome. the kids do not even want to work now. what is going to happen? host: all right, let's talk to danette, next. caller: hello. i believe we should have a personhood amendment. that would be enemy meant that says it records the time of birth and the time of death. -- that would be an amendment that says it records the time of birth and the time of death. the time of death is recorded when you stop breathing. that time of birth is when you start reading kate every thing else is between the woman, her god, and her doctor, if she has one. freedom of choice. it is not a person until the birth time is recorded. host: all right. mark is next in massachusetts,

independent line. caller: good morning. first, i would like to say you're doing a great job. happy constitution day. host: happy constitution day to you. caller: thank you. the main way i would change it is by getting term limits in, especially for congress. i just want to remind all the listeners and viewers that it is our responsibility, as the public, to change the constitution. i do not think an amendment has been even proposed since the 1970's, when i came of age, so to speak, graduated from high school and stuff, with the e.r.a., which did not pass, but i do not think we even attempt to change it. let's yet moving on a constitutional amendment to have term limits for the congress.

and we definitely need more parties than the two that we have, the two party system. the politicians end up serving the party more than the people. i believe most americans do not totally really wholly agree with either side. host: so going back to what you said about term limits, what impact do you think that would have? why do you want to see term limits? caller: i think it would get some new blood in there, for one thing. look at our leaders. they have been there for decades and decades. i think -- i don't know. maybe it would not affect the change that we want. we all, americans, i believe

want congress to start doing something. in my whole lifetime, 63 years now, almost, we have never had a declaration of war, even though the constitution says that the congress, only the congress, can declare war. whenever i go to memorial day celebrations, i hear them name off at least 12 to 14 wars in my lifetime, from the 1960's on. host: all right. bradley is next in prince george, virginia, independent line. caller: hi, good morning. i want to follow up on i believe mark cade i will start with a 22nd amendment. i will start with the president. i think the president, that individual, should have three or four terms in congress, both branches, should be capped at -- host: why do you want the

president to have more terms? caller: checks and balances. if you can have senators sitting in their seats for 33 years, shouldn't it be equal across all branches? but of course, i think most folks would like to see that reduced. but at the same time, i think it can be more equal. i think a lot of nations can be more stable if the head of state is around a little bit longer. of course, once you get into the 20, 30 year range, things can flip into autocracy or dictatorship, self course that is why we need those checks and balances, but i think it should be across-the-board. also, i want to go back the second or third amendment, or the third clause -- anyway, the united states supreme court. we need to be electing those guys by a majority of at least 60, i think. i think if you cannot --

host: wait, you mean electing in the senate? or by popular vote? caller: we are talking the supreme court justices. of course elected by the senate. it should not be picked by a simple majority. that is absurd. let's talk about our presidential elections, which is not decided by a popular vote. why should our nation's laws be picked at by 9 or 7 or 11 -- of course, it's 9 at this time. but the supreme court is just out of control when a president can nominate someone and not even get that nomination hearing heard. and then another president can come in and just, if they have a simple majority in senate, can

have whatever the hell they want . it is absurd. it will really negatively impact our laws and decision-making going forward. host: clifford is next in montana, republican line. clifford? clifford is not there. jeffrey in greensboro, north carolina, democrats line. caller: yes, good morning. host: good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. kind of somewhat with the gentleman beforehand from virginia. hello? host: yes, i can hear you. go ahead. caller: yes, what the gentleman was summing up about the president and the senate with their picks on the supreme court. it is very disturbing that some of these decisions come down to

not the majority. there is just a lot of moving parts with this, the constitution and how it was designed and written. and as an african-american, with what is going on today and so much break down with the politicians' role model position or image -- it seems nonexistent anymore. to have people with so much control to make decisions, and it is almost embarrassing to hear politicians, either in congress or the senate, saying such words where you have your decisions by these people that you are believing that america, with this image worldwide, we are so perfect, we are in order.

and it is not. so why not have new, highly educated young minds that are pushing into a career like that, to where they should have no one sitting in their 70's or 80's to where you have to keep up with a certain realistic what the world is being judged on, viewed on, and people's concerns are. people back in the 1960's and 1970's who are still sitting in that position, they are fixed with what life is. something needs to be changed, either with the constitution or this political arena should come to some position to want to make a positive change in america. host: got it. i want to show you something from archive.gov. 10 facts about the constitution of the united states.

one of our previous callers talked about the size of the house and the senate, so take a look at this one. it says the constitution provides for two senators from each state, but it does not set the size of the house. that is set by law. it has been 435 since 1912. the original first a minute to the cause intrusion sought to deal with this, but was never ratified by enough states to become part of the constitution. perry is calling, republican line. caller: good morning. first of all, they should change the system with the irs. another words, when you buy a car, you pay 5% on the car payment, and that way, you do not deal with h&r block or the irs. that way can get rid of all these irs agents, the

democrats hired 100,000 with guns to come after republicans -- host: but what about taxes on incomes? you're talking about taxes on purchases. caller: not on food. there should not be any taxes on food. i think there should be a fair, flat tax, like a consumption tax. when you buy a product, you are paying taxes, like roads, infrastructure, airports, military. we got to cut the government way back. there is so much bureaucracy right now -- host: what about income tax, the? i was just going to ask about income tax. should you be taxed on your income, should it be a flat tax? caller: i am saying, when you buy a product -- host: so no income tax? caller: no, no. when you buy a product, you pay your taxes. then you do not have to deal with any -- the reason why we have to deal with all these tax services is because they have lobbyists, too.

you got them from corn growers to tobacco. the list goes on and on and on. there is more than one person working for these lobbyists. they have lobbyists too for the tax people. they want to make it as complicated as possible. don't forget, the irs has a lot of power. they can confiscate your bank account. they can seize your bank accounts. anything with a title on it -- if you have an airplane or a yacht, they can take it. if you have anything with a title, they can take it. they can take your silver or gold. our government has gotten so out of line over the last so many years. it is way too big and way too powerful. it is destroying our liberty in this country, to the point where -- if we go on with the climate change, for instance, we will be in poverty. we can go to other energy

sources in the private sector over time, but you cannot just destroy our oil and propane and coal. what they are doing, people will die like in europe right now. trump had it right on a lot -- he was not perfect, but i like drop a lot because he is intelligent and made the right decisions for us as americans -- host: o, perry. jim is next in grand forks, north dakota, republican line. how would you change the constitution? caller: i wouldn't. i wouldn't change it at all. it is concerning to me that, the younger you get -- you look at the correlation of generational learning. the young people, they do not have any knowledge of what is in the constitution. i do not know why we gave such credence and power to the

teachers union. i do not think we had a teachers union when i was in school. i was a 1970's kid kid i still remember my social studies teacher -- i remember him gaydar member the class, back in 1976 -- i remember him. i remember the class, back in 1976. i remember schoolhouse rock. host: i'm just a bill, sitting here on capitol hill? caller: i wish is going to say that one. but i learned the preamble through that show. i learned the preamble from schoolhouse rock. it goes we, the people, in order to form a more perfect union provide for the common defense

-- do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america ♪ host: thanks. appreciate that. allen is calling. caller: good morning. i am trying to be brief. i have a few suggestions. i am not a person who wants tradition for tradition's sake. if the thing is working, so on. to get to the point, i would change the electoral system to the popular vote. they all talk about democracy, democracy by the people. when one candidate gets millions more votes than the other, that candidate is supposed to be victorious, not an archaic thing like that.

the second thing i was thinking about is get rid of the filibuster. and my logic is this -- if the most important thing that a voter can do is vote, and you only need 50 plus percent for the most important decision that citizens can have, so why does it take 60 out of 100 rather than 51? this third thing is i would amend the second amendment, to the point where 18-year-old kids can go buy an assault rifle. you would have to be a certain age. i would make it hard. in the fourth thing -- and the fourth thing is, like steve forbes said, he was not very charismatic -- flat tax.

back to biblical days. that is all i've got to say. host: all right. you mentioned the amendments. part of these facts from archiv es.gov says amendments to the constitution are repealed by adding another amendment. only one amendment has been repealed, the 18th amendment about prohibition. george is in bloomington, illinois. caller: good morning. the subject matter is how should the court be changed -- host: the constitution be changed. caller: the constitution, beg your pardon, ma'am. implicit in that subject matter is the constitution should be changed. it was delivered early --

deliberately made difficult to be changed by james madison back to that time and the first 10 an immense that were required by his colleagues to be added in order to get it passed. by the separation of church and state was mentioned earlier. first of all, back to where i was -- i appreciate you for hearing me out -- we have a constitutional republic, as benjamin franklin said in response to the lady at constitutional hall. he said a republic, if you can keep it that. it is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. and back to the separation of church and state, the words separation of church and state do not appear in the constitution. they never have. never in the constitution.

we already have de facto separation of church and state, by reason of the first amendment , the first of all the amendment s for a reason. it ensures the freedoms of speech, religion, press. the first amendment's first by reason of its importance. but in 1948 -- back even earlier, thomas jefferson used the phrase separation of church and state in a letter he wrote to the good baptist church in the northeast, i believe. but has never been in the constitution -- host: all right. let's hear from bill in burke, virginia on the independent line. caller: hi, how are you? host: fine. caller: i would like to mention

three things are the first thing i would remove is the presidential authority to grant pardons. it is in article ii, section 2, and it gets abused, totally abused. this was something thought necessary by the founding fathers, but i think it has just been abused over time. the second would be article iii, section 1, and it has to do with the appointment of federal judges had and would give it a term limit of 10 years. no more lifetime appointments. this would solve all the politics and all the maneuvering that goes with appointing judges. we know how people who sit on the bench in their 80's, they fall asleep. it is time to do that. we do not need to stack the court. just put that in the last thing i would like to mention, and this is thanks to c-span and one other brilliant guys you have on frequently, professor randy barnett. he wrote a whole book on the

ninth amendment. for people who are not familiar with it, because most people are not familiar with it. the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, meaning the bill of rights in this case, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. that is nothing that needs to be changed. i just encourage people to think about that, maybe get randy barnett's book. because that has been abused for 200 years, ignored for 200 years. those are the three things i would cover. host: all right. that will be our last call for this segment. we are dedicating the entire program of "washington journal" to constitution day, which is today, and we will continue our conversation with two top constitutional scholars. the first, national constitution center president and ceo jeffrey rosen. then later, yale university constitutional scholar akhil reed amar.

he discusses his podcast, america's constitution. ♪ >> there are a lot of places to get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you're from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word forward. if it happens here or here or here, or anywhere that matters. america is watching on c-span, powered by cable. book tv, every sunday on c-span 2, features authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. -- in their book the dance and the devil. at 10:00 "after wor words"

and other shows her memory about the life and career of the first black female ceo of the nba, interviewed the washington post journalist michael he. watch book to sunday on c-span2. get the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org. ♪ >> middle and high-school students, it is your time to shine. you are invited to participate in this year's studentcam documentary competition. in light of the upcoming midterm elections, picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress. we ask, what is your top priority, and why? make a 5-6 minute video that shows the importance of your issue, from supporting and opposing perspectives. don't be afraid to take risks with your documentary. be bold.

among the $100,000 cash prizes is a $5,000 grand prize. videos must be submitted by january 20, 2023. visit our website at studentcam.org for competition rules and resources, and a step-by-step guide. ♪ next week on the c-span networks , the senate homeland security committee holds a hearing tuesday on unaccounted deaths in american prisons. then on wednesday, the same committee can sit or denomination to be the head of the national archives and records administration. the agency has been in the news lately for its role in the fbi seizure of documents from the home of president trump. then federal reserve chair jay powell close a conference. both chambers are expected to take up a spending bill to avoid a government shutdown at the end of the month. they will also vote on nominations and changes on the lending tree.

what are next week live on the c-span networks, or on c-span now, our free mobile app. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live on demand, any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. host: washington journal continues. welcome back. we are joined by jeffrey rosen, president and ceo of the national constitution center. we are talking about the u.s. constitution on this "constitution day." jeff, welcome to the program. guest: happy constitution day. host: to you as well. it is a big holiday here at c-span. [laughter] let's first talk about the national constitution center. what is its mission and who finds it?

guest: the mission comes from the u.s. congress, we are the only institution in america chartered by congress to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution. we were created by the congress in the bicentennial. we bring together liberals and conservatives to debate and explore areas of agreement and disagreement about all aspects of the constitution. think about it as a c-span of the constitution. so wonderful to join our friends at c-span talk about the constitution on "constitution day." there is a beautiful museum on the constitution on independence hall in philadelphia, the room where the constitution was drafted. there is also an online education platform, i want c-span viewers to check out, where you can find a podcast and videos and essays and classes about the constitution.

i want everyone to check out the interactive constitution, which is so amazing. you can click on any part of the constitution and see the first amendment, and see the leading liberal and conservative scholars in america explore agreements and disagreements about what it means. the podcast brings together scholars and thought leaders to talk about issues in the news. and we just launched on "constitutional day" friday, a new course for learners of all ages and everything you need to know about the constitution, which has videos and a learning module and historic document library, primary texts, so you can read and learn by yourself. i am very excited about all the great educational resources that our constitution center has. cannot wait for c-span viewers to check it out. [applause] quite the host: viewers that

they can call in and ask questions if you would like to talk to our guests. feel free to call in now. we will separate that out by regional lines. if you are in the mountain or central part of the country, you can call us at 202-748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, feel free to call us at 202-748-8001. jeff, let's go back to history a little bit. can you talk about when the constitution was being negotiated and being signed, what were some of the challenges that those founding fathers were dealing with at the time? guest: they were great challenges. one of the main one is the challenge of creating a government strong enough to achieve common purposes, but strong enough to protect individual liberty. the articles of federation feeling because there was no ability to achieve common purposes. meanwhile, farmers in

massachusetts were rising up in rebellion because veterans couldn't pay their bills. there was so much inflation. they were mobbing the federal courthouses. james madison was worried. he could see the signs of the following room, he says. ashan it never fails to wrest separate from reason. so they are trained to do something that has never been done in history, to create a government based on reason and deliberation, rather than force and violence. and in addition to balancing these competing goals of strength and constraint and a strong union and protection for the state, there was also, of course, the stain and the challenge of slavery and disagreement about what to do about that. they gathered in independence hall on may 25, 1787. the convention began, and a few months later on september 17,

the miracle of the constitution emerged. host: tell me a little bit about the first 13 colonies. was there unanimous consent about it? did everybody feel good about it? guest: great question. and of the articles of the configuration, you needed unanimous consent, event to raise money or to agree to make a treaty and that is why nothing got done. it was impossible to achieve concerted efforts. one of the most radical and important things the convention did was break the rules of the articles of the confederation and say that the new convention would be ratified by a two-thirds vote. so the constitution was technically illegal according to the article's rules. but the funders were asserting their inner liberal right to alter government. they thought it was a right from god or nature, not the articles of any charter, and therefore,

any convention could legitimately claim to speak for the people and be allowed to ratify the constitution by a super majority vote. host: you are talking about them throwing the whole thing out and starting all over again. obviously, we have never done that, so i wonder what you think about that. is the constitution too old? should we write anyone? guest: know, it is not too old. it is the longest-surviving written constitution, and it is a pillar of reason and write that continues to inspire the world. of course there are debates today about whether the constitution should be amended. i am excited to share a project the constitution center just completed called a virtual constitutional convention. we convened three teams of scholars, liberal, conservative, and libertarian, to meet in a state of zoom and come up with

their own amendments. they came back and it turned out that several of them agreed on a bunch of amendments. so we thought, let's see if all three agree on the language of the constitutional amendments. and to everyone's surprise, after meeting for a week, they proposed five constitutional amendments that will be launch at the cause additional center on monday. the first is an amendment to make it easier to amend the constitution. looking up on your question on whether the constitution is too constraining. second, an amendment that would make impeachment easier. third, an amendment that would allow term limits for supreme court justices. fourth, a legislative allowing congress to see the executive cannot do something by executive order by simple majority vote. and fifth, requirement that the president is natural-born citizen. so interesting.

in all the polarization today, we were surprised that there was so much agreement and it moved so quickly. this convinced me that it is a shining example of how thoughtful people guided by reason and a commitment to liberation really can agree on constitutional change more easily. host: there are some viewers who want to talk to you. first is martial in woodberry, new jersey. good morning. caller: thank you to c-span. i am originally from dallas, texas. i do love our constitution, i think it is one of the greatest things. i do believe the first amendment is one of the greatest thanksgiving to us because it gives us the ability of the freedom of speech and religion and the ability to call into c-span and say baba biwye howa rd ster. guest: i was very much with marshall until the end.

the god-given right. from god or nature. this idea that it is inalienable. james madison said the opinions of men and women should be dependent on the evidence in their own minds and cannot be controlled by other people. i cannot surrender to marshall the power to control my thoughts because they are the product of my own reason and the evidence evaluated is such an inspired reading of the first amendment. we just installed at the constitutional center, c-span viewers will remember on the outside of the old museum building in washington, the words of the first amendment, 75 feet high, 50 tons of marble. we brought it into the constitution center when the museum closed. when we opened it i read the madison speech. the conscience like the right to

alter and abolish government is in inalienable right recognized by the constitution. it is what the constitution was designed to protect. but because that was not explicit, the framers thought it was better to be safe than sorry and they explicitly enumerated in the bill of rights. it reminds us of the natural law basis of the constitution. host: audrey is next in south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. happy "constitution day." i think the constitution, the infrastructure, the way it is written, is done while, but the ambiguity i think is what causes the problem that we are living in the melting pot, a changing world. let's start with the preamble. we, the people. if an immigrant is coming to america, how would they see that? as an american, i often see it

as may be an isolated group. i just think we should start there and give more detail, explain what we are talking about for the people of today. that is what i have to say about it. thank you for giving me an opportunity. guest: that is such an important observation, what does we, the people, mean, the very first words of the constitution, and who is included in them. in the infamous dred scott decision, the chief justice of the supreme court said african-americans were not included in we, the people,, such an outrageous and historically incorrect statement that it took a civil war to repudiate it took two amendment to make clear that all persons born or naturalized in the u.s. and subject to the jurisdiction therein are citizens of the united states and the state where they reside.

that it in the 14th amendment and it makes clear that all citizens are part of we, the people, and there can be no distinctions among them. i was at a really moving naturalization ceremony yesterday at the national constitution center. immigrants from 34 countries came to take the oath of citizenship. one immigrant from cameroon gav the most dazzling speech i have heard when it came to the meaning of we, the people,. he said to the new citizens, " all of you are part of we, the people, and you are now the sovereign authority." in other countries, the king or the czar or the sovereign, in america it is we, the people,. i thought he put it so well. ever since the 14th amendment, all citizens within naturalized or natural born, part of the people. there has been a constant effort

to make "we, the people," more embracive, and include previously excluded people not just begrudgingly, but with open arms. host: let's go to austin, texas next. roy. caller: good morning and happy constitution day to y'all. host: and to you as well. caller: i have a question to your guest. i know the topic is, how would you change the constitution, but my question is, do you think it is more important that we should look at changing the constitution, or more important that we actually make it, i hate to use the word mandatory, but make it mandatory for young people to be instructed in civics and maybe political science so that they are educated on what our constitution is about? guest: well, that is a great question.

here in america, we are not in favor of mandates when it comes to education. but absolutely, it is my job to try to inspire and encourage folks to want to learn about the constitution. that is why these new constitution 10 one courses are so important, why the educational mission of the constitutional center and so many other organizations. you are right that we have gotten out of the habit of teaching physics and we need to start again because the founders thought citizenship is not just a right, but there are responsibilities that come with it, to educate yourself about the principles so that you can keep them. we heard about benjamin franklin. he wasn't kidding when he said a republic if you can keep it. it was fragile. it was important that people would educate themselves enough about our funding and democratic

principles, to be guided by reason rather than passion. there were republics that fail because demagogues would lie to the people and people would give up their liberty, they would elect strongmen to rule over them in exchange for luxuries and simple pleasures and things like that. you have to study and decide what freedom means in order to keep it. we are seeing it today around the world with democratic backsliding. it's not an abstract debate. civics is urgently important for people to take the time to learn . it is extremely inspiring and interesting and that is why i am so fired up about this great educational mission. host: our next guest is calling from california. sharon? caller: hi. first, my first thought is, one of the reasons people don't learn about the constitution these days, from what i hear, is

that they feel like the government is completely out of our hands no matter what, because of the power in congress right now. my second thought is coming from the recent filibuster stuff that is going on. i am wondering how much control do the people have over the procedures in congress, because it seems like we should be able to step in and stop the filibuster if that is something we choose to do. host: what do you think? guest: those are important questions. if people are disconnected from congress and unable to influence it and unable to affect it, why take the time to learn about the constitution or engage with politics? it is precisely because of the need to remedy the challenges to

the constitutional order that we have to analyze what is going on. you are absolutely right, there seems to be a big imbalance between what the framers had in mind with congress being the most representative branch and the president would just carry out congress's will, but now we see president ruth executive order to achieve policy that they cannot get from congress and a congress that is more representative. there are no easy solutions to this challenge, i will not pretend that there are. it is a combination of political polarization, social media, and the polarization of our parties. but it is very interesting to learn about it in to see the times when congress worked better. i just described the proposal of scholars from different perspectives to have a

legislative veto which would towards achieving your concern. to say to the president, you can't do that, when they disagree with it. for example, president border wall, and now president biden's student loan forgiveness. large numbers of congress may disapprove of these things that they may not have the mechanism to repudiate them because right now you need a two-thirds vote. you have to have a filibuster majority to repudiate the president. this legislative veto proposal would change that. that is why it is interesting to learn about these things. you can see that there is a solution. and then it is not beyond the realm of possibility that an amendment could be proposed. our teams have said, we have negro, progressive and libertarian agreements. it would take a two-thirds vote for congress to propose.

but it is within the realm of possibility. so i am just giving you an example. to realize that problems are complicated and they do require some studying. if you do if you can have an informed opinion about it. host: in president biden's constitution day proclamation, he talked about what he is doing regarding voting rights. what kind of not what powers does the president have with respect to voting rights? guest: not a huge amount, as it turns out. the main powers are first of all in the state legislature, where they are given powers to appoint presidential electors and also to draw electoral districts, but congress has the power to alter those arrangements as it chooses. the president can enforce antidiscrimination laws like if he thinks the voting rights act is being violated, he can send

in federal officials and say, you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, for example, but there is debate about what federal law requires when it comes to drawing water districts. the most controversial case this term involves questions like -- really important for c-span viewers -- it is called the independent state legislature doctrine, where some folks say that state legislatures have such power to draw the districts and fight gerrymandering that after an election has taken place, they can take back electors and change the vote and handed to a different candidate. it is a very strong claim and the supreme court will decide whether that is right. it is a long answer to say that although president biden thinks voting rights are very important and he wants to enforce them, his powers to do that are surprisingly limited. host: david is calling from

ossining, new york. caller: good morning. at what critical stage would you envision the need and merit for an all out constitutional convention by which we can through a referendum ultimately overhaul things that are obsolete and are not working, and bring the constitution enough energy and momentum, so that it serves the needs of the nation today and tomorrow, rather than trying to resort to a patch job of editing amendment or any other legislative type of amendment to the constitution to make it work

from left to meet the needs of our nation today, which seems to be quite a contrast, compared to the founding of the constitution which has and continues to serve its purpose, except that most of the populace seems to be detached from it. guest: guest: a powerful and eloquent question. you used an interesting word, referendum. one thing our constitution does not allow is referenda to change the constitution. other companies -- countries have a different arrangement. in britain, you can have a referendum. people vote once and you change the constitution. in america you need to get a two-thirds vote for both the house and the congress either to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state have to request that congress call a convention to propose an amendment and then that has to be ratified by three-quarters of the state.

why? we think because additional change should be slow and deliberate, that there is a difference between the deliberate voice of the people that has time to think about stuff over time and a quick 1-off vote. people could change their minds, or they can be guided by passion rather than reason. the other thing is that the people of this country, as we know, disagree strongly about constitutional issues. and it is not all clear that if a convention were called that folks on the extreme right would want some kind of environment and others on the extreme left would want something else. these agreements around the amendment i just described were proposed by post-additional scholars who marinated on these debates -- but constitutional scholars who marinated on these debates. a convention can do anything

they like, they can do what the original convention date and vote to scrap the constitutional entirely and have a new one by majority vote, which is why some people are afraid of the risk of even calling anyone. under the current system, you need a huge number of agreement by lots of states after the fact, before anything can be ratified. but that is a long way of saying, you estimate what i thought that you asked me what i thought on convening a referendum, i don't think that is an effective way for constitutional change. what is indicated by experience is that because additional change should take place thoughtfully, with reason away from the heat of the moment, away from social media from popular passions, so that people have a chance to compromise and deliberate. host: speaking of social media, we have a question for you from twitter from mark. he says, freedom of speech, does

that pertain to companies like facebook and twitter whose sensor stories they disagree with or do not believe true? are they exempt from freedom of speech? guest: great question. they are exempt from the requirement that they respect the first amendment because the first amendment says congress shall make no law, it doesn't say mark zuckerberg or twitter shall make no law. . so they are free to do what they like. they can choose to only print or publish conservative tweets or liberal tweets, or whatever. as the platforms on which our speech takes place, i think and many think they have an obligation to respect first amendment principles. i actually think elon musk was onto something when he said twitter should respect first amendment principles, because it is such an important platform for speech. but they don't have to if they don't want to.

and if elon musk doesn't buy twitter and someone else buys them, they can have a very different platform. value as a very important first amendment question today, how to protect values in an age when most platforms are not formally bound by the first amendment. host: leonard wants to talk to you in south carolina. caller: good morning. some of my questions were answered on referendums, but my concern is, the second amendment and why presidents get to pick the supreme court justices. the second amendment is ambiguous about the militia, and people thinking that they need to have firearms to protect themselves from the government. and that is about it.

guest: the second amendment is such an important and hotly contested question. there was a very big supreme court decision last june where justice clarence thomas set out his vision of an historically rooted individual right to bear arms. he rooted it not -- at the time of reconstruction when african-americans were trying to protect themselves against racist mobs. he said that is what gave the second amendment to individual rights. there was a big dissent by justice breyer who said that at the time of the framing, there was a concern about the federal government not taking away people's liberties, and state militias resisting that tyranny. picking and choosing among different historical periods. so this is a good example of how justices can disagree about

understanding of the document. we had a wonderful panel yesterday, the liberals and conservatives debating whether or not the constitution should be interpreted in light of social understanding. i would love people to check it out on the we, the people, podcast. bottom line is, there is a lot of room for interpretation. so i would love you to check out that decision. the most important thing you can do as a citizen is to read these decisions, read the majority opinion, read the dissent, and then make up your mind. and learn more about the history. there are great arguments on both sides. very important question. host: next is peter in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. mr. rosen, two items that have been very popular in the media in the last few years which you have not discussed is, number

one, a balanced budget amendment, and secondly, the abolishment of the electoral college. a lot of people feel, myself included, that a balanced budget amendment would be necessary because of the outrageous spending that the federal government has been doing, and that only deficit spending should be done in emergency situations, and that money should be spent on taxes. and number two, as far as the electoral college is concerned, i think that was one of the founding principles, because states were afraid of losing their rights to the federal government, and the president of the united states is the only elected official who is elected by all the people, and that every state wanted to be represented, and that the electoral college, you have to win each individual state in order for the president to be acknowledged, because otherwise

the big states would dominate who was president of the united states. i wish you would address it. thank you very much. guest: so glad you called our attention to those two topics, the balanced-budget amendment, and the electoral college amendment possibly. those are the two about which there is a lot of support. a balanced-budget amendment along with the term limits amendment is the one that has the most support, in other words, most states that have called for a new convention have put those topics on the table, balanced-budget amendment, and term limits. there is strong support for the balanced-budget commitment for the reasons that you say. as for the electoral college amendment, during our convening for our constitutional drafting team, the conservative and progressive teams agreed on the need to reformulate the electoral college.

both of them wanted it to replace it with a popular national vote. but in the actual convention, libertarian team did not like that, for the reasons you suggested, and as a result the electoral college amendment failed. for what it's worth, it is just a vision of the fact that there is less contention around reforming the electoral college perhaps than the other topics, including the balanced-budget amendment, which seems to have quite enough support now to call a convention. but isn't it interesting? let review the topics -- balanced-budget, electoral college, as you said, and the questions about term limits for justices, which of the previous caller mentioned. turns out there is a topic that has a lot of support. host: jeff, there is a question from twitter, from steve. he asks this, did ted cruz constitutionally qualified to run for president? he renounced

his canadian at some point, but was he naturally born u.s. citizen? what do you think? guest: we did a podcast on this, and i can never have an informed opinion. as i recall, the case against his citizenship is pretty technical. i am not confident in summing up the arguments from both sides because it was a while ago, but i think -- i believe the consensus is that he is indeed a natural one citizen -- natural born citizen. all these questions always turn on questions of statutory interpretation, and sometimes contested because question. i cannot be confident unless i have the arguments right in front of me. host: let's go to florida and talk to zachary. good morning. caller: my question was for mr. rosen. first and foremost, i agree with the previous callers when it comes to the balancing the budget amendment and term

limits. now, there is article i, section eight, clause 3 which states that the federal government can regulate interstate commerce. i was thinking we should scratch out the line that says the federal government can regulate between the states. i understand they want to regulate foreign trade and maybe with the native american tribes, but i think the line that states that they can regulate between several states has been used in some situations to sidestep the constitution, especially with the second amendment. guest: what i think you are saying and i think is an important point, is that the main source of congress's power is the commerce clause, the clause on which the supreme court has relied on to allow congress to do most of the regulations that it has done in

the 20th and 21st centuries, especially since the new deal era. some folks say that has often been interpreted too bradley. that was the crucial question -- interpreted too broadly. that was the crucial question in the obamacare case. the justices agreed with you that the commerce power did not authorize the health care mandate, but chief justice roberts joined the liberal justices by saying that the health care mandate could be held as a tax. at the supreme court we could see a ratcheting back of congress's power, as we saw last term with the environmental protection case where the court said congress had not clearly regulated limit and therefore, the president could do away with these regulations. thank you for reminding us of the debate around the scope of the congress's power.

people disagree a lot about it. it could prevent congress from having clean air and safety. there will be a lot of disagreement about this on the court. thanks for putting it on the table. host: anthony is next in maryland. hi, anthony. caller: good morning. happy "constitution day." host: to you, too. caller: i have thought about this in depth and i have done a little bit of research on the constitution. i think the three branches of government are in order, but the judiciary branch is not really fulfilling their obligation to interpret the constitution, and keeping a lot of the altering of the constitution out of the society.

where the judiciary is the sole interpreter of the constitution. the justice department needs to be put under the judiciary so that the laws will be -- from interpretation. secondly, the -- confirming all laws to the constitution, everything should be lined up with the constitution. people are altering the law, setting whatever precedent they want to set, when the president is already set and the laws are already set. third, the constitution is supposed to stand on its own. i am a firm believer that if we don't twist the words and use the exact words of the constitution, which tell you you

cannot do this, you cannot do that, limits, all these things interpret the constitution that others are altering. host: alright, let's get a response. go ahead, jeff host: that is a great, eloquent, defensive constitutional textualism. anthony says separation of powers is necessary to maintain and each branch has to keep within its lane and we should make sure the judiciary is not misconstruing the constitution and people are acting in ways it doesn't allow. he is suggesting the constitution is the one binding document that has to be preserved. that is what is so inspiring about this text be what unites us. i was so struck by that, hearing the new citizens as they take allegiance to the constitution.

just like the president, they swear to defend the text of the constitution. and then anthony can say that it is important to maintain that. the other beautiful thing about being bound by this text is people disagree on what it means. justice thomas says the constitution is made for people with different views. and then having debate about what they mean. so thank you for reminding us about the importance of the constitution. host: another question for you from twitter. mike says, could jeff expand a bit on the republic versus democracy? it seems those screeching "republic" are more rife to engage in government overthrow. guest: interesting suggestion. the framers used "republic" as a sign of a representative

republic. in other words, a place where we the people rule, we have the ultimate 70, but not directly, it is through our representatives. by contrast, a democracy is in athens, 6000 people gathered in the stadium to make laws directly by popular vote. the framers think democracies tend to be misled by demagogues and fall, whereas republics may be more stable because they cool popular passions. the people nowadays who are talking about republics, you suggest that they tend to be more on the side more misled by passions, not being true to that vision, and then we are rubbing of the beholder who is more faithful to the idea of being ruled by reason, rather than passion. the suspicion the framers had of

direct democracy, while having a complete allegiance to ultimate rule by we, the people, the question just cuts both ways. because the other thing that folks on the blue side say is that the framers never intended to create minority area and rule. ultimately, a majority of we, the people, had the final say. host: jerry is calling from virginia. caller: good morning. caller: if it weren't for the filibuster, in this coming november election, we would have 20 million illegal immigrants voting. that is what was in the democrats' bill that they passed last year. not only that, but anyone can vote 50, 60 times. all you needed to vote was a state and address and district

you were voting in. what do you say about that? guest: i am not allowed to have views about policy, but you are right to stress the importance of the filibuster as a mechanism and a check. the previous caller asked about the republic versus a democracy. the framers did not anticipate a filibuster, that is a modern invention. but it has come, defendants argue, to play the role of the thoughtful self-restraint the senate was initially supposed to have. they thought they would be wise men who would resist popular passion -- they were all men who were white -- and they were supposed to act in our interest. nowadays we think of senators and representatives as being more directly responsive to popular will.

the defenders say the filibuster is playing that role of self-restraint, by preventing momentary impulses of near majorities from ruling. it on the other side is the one i made against the un representative republic. how did the people rule? it is a profound question of how we govern ourselves and a lot of it comes down to the filibuster. host: richard is next in stafford, virginia. caller: hello, mimi, and hello, mr. rosen. guest: good morning. caller: good morning. let me start off by saying this. with the understanding that all men are created equal, and that the people have the right to abolish government, meaning to

remove its legal effect with the understanding that the ninth amendment secures an recognized rights to the people, with the understanding that the ratified treaty by the name of international covenant on civil and political rights, recognizes the right of self-determination, and that the constitution and ratified treaties is the supreme law of the land, the question is , do you believe, or do you feel that these principles and laws if exercised, enable the descendants of formerly enslaved and free black americans to establish their own independent political state and government? thank you. guest: wow.

what a profound question and how eloquently used, the international law philosophy. we the people are free to alter and abolish government, but the unit is indivisible. i want you to ask the next guest , akhil reed amar, about why. i would have precisely this debate with him, can a subgroup of people secede from the union and form their own government without the consent of the union as a whole? this is the question the civil war was fought on. lincoln said no. the people need the consent of the majority to change the constitution, and that is why the south could not secede, because the majority did not

agree. and then the civil war. ever since that, secession is unconstitutional. one founder called james wilson who came up with the idea that sovereignty is we, the people,, he insisted that we the national people are sovereign. the constitution said we the people of the states of north carolina and new hampshire and so forth. wilson's belief was that the whole people were sovereign. so if that is correct, then a minority of the people could not gather together and say we are an independent state. that would not because additional. maybe you are not persuaded by that. you said it is an unalienable right of the people to alter and abolish government, so why couldn't a subgroup insist that they were self-sovereign? i thought the same thing when i was debating this with akhil

reed amar years ago. the federalist papers seems to suggest that states as well as the national government had 70. but he is more eloquent than i am at describing what he thinks lincoln was right. but your question comes to the fore nowadays since states are thinking about that, california and state. that is the lesson of american history. it is only in the time of the revolution and the civil war that we tried to alter and abolish government by going back to first principles. maybe it is ultimately force that decides. host: one more call, i know you have to go. nancy in california. caller: good morning. following the west virginia versus epa decision, which ruled that congress could not, did not

grant epa to acquire outside the fed's options, and the -- which specifically defined carbon dioxide, et cetera could be regulated by the epa, i want to know why all the journalists who write about the decision don't mention that it was partially overturned, and that the epa could rule. guest: i am not familiar with that amendment, but i am sure it will be litigated and the supreme court will decide. that question is so interesting. you are right, the court's ruling was that congress needs to speak clearly when major questions are involved, and since regulation is a major question, you need explicit authorization from congress. that should be enough to satisfy

the supreme court, if congress has said explicitly, you can regulate on this. host: alright, jeff. we are out of time. but thank you so much for being on the program, national constitution center president and ceo. thank you. guest: thank you, and happy "constitution day." host: coming up, it is our weekly spotlight on podcasts. it features yale university constitutional scholar akhil reed amar. his podcast is called "america's constitution." but first, our question of the day, how would you change the u.s. constitution? the phone lines are on the screen. democrats 202-748-8000. ,republicans 202-748-8001. ,and independence, 202-748-8002. we will be right back.♪

>> c-span campaign 2022 coverage is your front row seat to the midterm elections. watch it as it happens on the campaign trail. speeches, meet and greets, debates and other events during this year's senate, house and gubernatorial races. don't miss a moment because you can take us with you on c-span now, if we mobile video app. and visit c-span.org/campaign2022 for election coverage on demand, as well as state-by-state maps and charts to track the result of every primary. c-span campaign 2022. your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker, "play c-span radio app," and listen to

washington journal daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern, as well as congressional hearings and public events throughout the day. and weekdays at 9:00 p.m. eastern, catch "washington today" for a fast report on the needs of the day. just tell your smart speaker "play c-span radio." c-span, powered by cable. >> on monday, britton says goodbye to its longest-serving monarch as the state funeral for queen elizabeth ii is held at westminster abbey. what the service live monday at 830 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, online at c-span.org. "washington journal" continues. host: back now with "washington journal." i am going to be taking your calls until about 9:15 eastern time about the question, how

would you change the u.s. constitution. it is constitution day, a date that the constitution was signed many, many years ago. the phone lines are on the screen. democrats 202-748-8000. , republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents, 202-748-8002. before we get to your calls and to the question at hand about the constitution, i wanted to show you the front pages of the three papers about the mass gravesites that were found in ukraine. ukrainians find mass graves in the russians -- this is the wall street journal. grisly discovery, investigators and war crimes investigators begin exhuming hundreds of bodies friday from a mass burial site in the recently, captured city of izyum some of which they

say, showed signs of torture. here is the washington post with a similar picture. horrors revealed in russian retreat. evidence of atrocities include torture, killings and abduction in 6-month occupation. and finally the new york times -- it says, investigators at large group site near izyum in northeastern ukraine. russian soldiers occupied the city for six months. we are getting back to the question of, how would you change the u.s. constitution on this "constitution day?" the house oversight committee on free speech and book bands. they had a hearing and democratic jamie raskin spoke about the importance of the first amendment. here he is on april this year. [video clip] >> we do have a balance in our public schools and by the way, our public universities, too,

between individual freedom and democracy. there is no doubt that we have democratic mechanisms like school boards and state legislatures and county educational superintendents who were involved in the operation of curricula. that is a function of democracy. and at the same time, under our first amendment, the supreme court has said and certainly the people feel, that our students and teachers don't shed their first amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate. so, we have to try to reconcile those two values. all i would say about the current attempt to demonize and vilify people on school boards, teachers, librarians, is, they are the democratic culture, along with our pta's and our parents, they are the people who have been put in by voters all across america. they are doing a hell of a job.

so, just because someone decides they want to go an book banning rampage or expedition, doesn't mean that everybody that has been elected to the school boards or everybody who is the head of the pta is somehow --. i think the teachers, the librarians, the pta people and school officials are doing their very best to reconcile all of these values in a democratic society. and the first amendment is there to protect all of us. host: and we are asking you, how would you change the u.s. constitution? we will take your calls now. randy is first, in oklahoma on the republican line. randy, are you there? anne is in new york on the democrats line. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. first of all, being that african woman who is 80-plus, when the constitution was written, it did not include me, it didn't include anybody that looked like me and it was written by a bunch of rich, white elderly men. so i don't think the constitution -- a lot of things in the constitution should be changed, because it didn't include me. i was 3/5 of a human being. host: so today, how would you change it to include you and people who look like you? caller: first of all, i would make sure that we could vote. women would have rights -- -- women didn't have rights then. a lot of things in that constitution, i can't go bit by bit right now, but a lot of things i would change. i think it should be updated,

because really, i don't, i can't respect a lot of the constitution because it doesn't care anything about me as an 80-plus african-american woman. i feel that everything in there was written by those elderly white men who were rich and who did not give nothing about me. host: alright, let's talk to bonnie next in modesto, california, on the independents line. caller: i would get rid of the electoral college. i understand the reasoning behind it, but i think the popular vote should count, because it seems to me like the republicans manipulate it somehow. and also, i would change the supreme court, i don't think what is in there, they shouldn't

be there for 50 or 60 years. there should be age limits or a term-limited. host: ollie in maryland, how would you change the u.s. constitution? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would eliminate the electoral college, i would eliminate gerrymandering. i would put a term or age limits for the supreme court. i would put an age limit for presidents. i would put term limits for congress. and lastly, i would somehow clarify or modify the second amendment, because everyone always focuses on the right to bear arms, but they conveniently leave out the part about well-organized militia. i think that is just as important as the right to bear arms.

so there might need host: i want to ask you about the age limits you say we should impose. what is that age? caller: i would think maybe 17 would be reasonable -- 70 would be reasonable. once you get 80 plus, most people are not at their full octomom performance. there have the other younger people and the entire country, there has to be someone qualified to do the job. the 80 plus person cannot possibly be the only one in the country who can do the job.

we have defined some of the younger talent that would have different ideas. host: you also mentioned the second amendment. i want to look at this clip from republican senator ted cruz shortly after the shooting in uvalde, texas. he talked about the importance of the second amendment. [video clip] sen. cruz: the elites who dominate our culture tell us firearms lie as the root of the problem. by elites, i referred to some of the most powerful politicians and their allies in the media, the leaders of the largest corporations and many of the most famous celebrities and those who echo and amplify them. their resources are limitless. their megaphone is in norma's is

enormous -- their megaphone is enormous. many these accusations behind full works of safety, gated communities equipped with private security or at the very least from safe neighborhoods protected by high home prices and low crime rates. such people can enfold can afford and and alternate ideology that -- can afford an indulgent ideology that most cannot afford. those in the halls of power are most dependent on the ability to defend themselves. for millions of americans, the right to keep and bear arms is not theoretical, it is not abstract. for a mom in a single -- for a single mom in a dangerous neighborhood, it is an act of security. taking guns away from the is

responsible americans will not make them safer, nor will it make our nation more secure. in an age where elites embrace defining the police, when homelessness runs rampant, when gangs nominate communities and when radical district attorneys refuse to prosecute violent crime in cities across america, rarely has the second amendment been more necessary to secure the rights of our fellow citizens. host: we are asking today on constitution day how you would change the u.s. constitution. patricia is next in north carolina, independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would put a balanced budget amendment in the constitution, term limits, and i would put an amendment that each bill is to

stand alone so they cannot for pork -- cannot pour pork and garbage into each bill the cost us -- that costs us. there needs to be something saying, for example, this last bill the house passed about gun control. it violates our second amendment rights. they need to do something to make their bill aligned with the constitution because they are violating our constitutional rights. it has gotten way out of hand. host: michael, democrats' line. caller: colors have voiced

concerns about the electoral college so this seems to be an issue. i wonder why the electoral college is still in an need -- still in a need. also the patriot act getting the constitution and concerns about that. i think there needs to be some effort looked at and how that affects our constitution. host: do you want to elaborate on the patriot act? caller: yes. in theory, it invades privacy. no one is really addressing that. it was hatefully put in place after 9/11 on a fear note. it seems to be actually gutting the constitution. host: francis is in new jersey, republican line. caller: good morning.

a lot of people have brought up the electoral college. if you want to ban it and go to a popular vote, you have to install the public charge rule. you have to be dependent on the government for everything, you should not be able to vote. it gives large cities control over everybody else. that is where i stand on that. that is what i have to say and i would like to hear back from other people. host: steve is on the democrats line in chagrin falls, ohio. caller: good morning. for couple things about the constitution -- a couple of things about the constitution. one thing that is a gap is the

fact of how they size the u.s. house of representatives. they were ambiguous about it if you read the constitution. currently the house of representatives, the amount of members, is not established specifically in the constitution. it has 435 members. but the population is growing. it was done with sticks back in the 1920's at 435 but the population is growing and the size of the house is staying the same. the u.s. is becoming less present -- less represented. how you size, determine the number of representatives in the house is you take the least populous state -- at every state

at minimum has one representative. the least populated state is wyoming. they get one representative. the total number in the house is determined by dividing the u.s. population by the population of wyoming. that gives you the number of people to. serve in the house of representatives. at the population grows, the size of the house gross. -- house grows. it makes the house more representative and decreases the likelihood of a gerrymandering. if you have large populations and only a few members, that is where they do gerrymandering. you don't even have to change the constitution. you can just change the statute they had back in the 1920's.

host: let's talk to jerry in schaumburg, illinois. good morning. caller: thanks for c-span, great conversation. i think i have heard all of this before, unfortunately, and nothing happens. mine will be the same thing. i will second the term limit which will never be voted on. they don't want to limited their lifetime jobs. from the states, line item veto. it won't happen, but it would be a good idea. we are in tremendous debt and it is all about pork and bringing home money for the district. the other one that might be possible over time is to have an actual convention of the states, which is the way to do it. try and convince the states that

have done really neat things in their state to make things happen. term limits and line item veto to actually locate that -- to actually replicate that. host: coming up next, we have our weekly spotlight on podcasts segment featuring ara boy -- featuring akhil reed amar. stay with us. ♪ >> tv, every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. 8:00 p.m. eastern, john o'neill and fairwinds talk about these -- about the soviet union in their book. at 10:00 p.m., dallas mavericks

ceo shares her memoir "you have been chosen" about her life and career as the first black female ceo in the nba. she is interviewed by michael the. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2. find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online at any time at c-span.org. >> next week on this is been networks, the senate homeland security committee holds a hearing tuesday on unaccounted deaths in american prisons. on wednesday, the same committee considers children's nomination to be head of the national archives. the -- has been in the news for seizure of documents at the home of donald trump. later, jerome powell holds a press conference. the house and senate are expected to take up a short-term spending bill to avert a

government shutdown. the senate will vote on nominations and ratifications of changes. to the global climate treaty. the house plans to take up student mug relief legislation. watch next week live on the c-span network for c-span now, our free mobile video app. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. > sunday on "q&a," how brand shares his book "danger zone," where he talks about china's goal to achieve global dominance and what other global powers are doing to stop it. >> the idea that china is going to emerge as the superpower of this entry does not strike us as possible. what we worry about is that china will be poised to challenging the united states and its allies in particular

areas. to return the balance of power in the western pacific where china has geographic advantages because they are closed and we are far. or to carve out a technological sphere of influence in most of the developing world. china's incentive to do this, to behave in a risk prone factor -- risk prone fashion will grow as xi jinping realize china does not have all of the ties in the world to accomplish its objectives. >> how brand, sunday night on "q&a." you can listen to "q&a" and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio got easier. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio app listen to "washington journal" every weekday at 7:00 a.m.

catch "washington today" for a fast-paced report of the stores today. listen to c-span any time, just tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio app. c-span, powered by radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it is our weekly spotlight on podcasts. it is constitution day. we have akhil reed amar the host of a podcast and a yale constitutional scholar. guest: good morning and happy constitution day. host: tell me about the podcast. why did you started? what is the format? guest: the podcast was started by my partner, he is a retired

apartment i'll just -- retired, tala just-- >> he is understood in the constitution and affects -- guest: he is interested in the constitution and many other things. we would talk and a hour or two a day. he would ask me the smartest questions about anything in the news and the constitution. he said we should start taping these conversations. he is a technical genius so we have 90 episodes. it is free, it is weekly. you can find it on my website ak hilamar.com. we talk about constitutional issues, sometimes we have guests. lots of fun folks.

jeff rosen has been on our show. his brother-in-law, former acting physician general of the united states. it is like a little c-span. host: there are a lot of topics. how do you choose the topics? guest: we often talk about things in the news. recent episodes have talked about in search at mar-a-lago and the constitutional issues about the fourth amendment and what it implicates. we have talked about x president trump evoking the fifth amendment so we have a whole series on the fifth amendment. we started on january 6 last year and talking about what happened here at the capitol building. segments on the electoral college, many of the callers have had questions about that.

a lot of times it is tough in the news. host: you mentioned the mar-a-lago raid so i want to ask about that. i want to remind everybody if you want to talk to our guest, call our lands by party affiliation. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. here is what former president trump put on social media. "a major motion pertaining to the fourth amendment will be filed concerning the illegal break in of my home, mar-a-lago, before the midterm elections. my rights, together with the rights of all americans, have been violated at a level really seen before in our country. they even spied on my campaign. the greatest witchhunt in u.s. history has been going on six years and a consequence to the

scammers. it should not be allowed to continue." what are your thoughts? guest: the search itself was placed with judicial authorization, there was a magistrate who signed off on it. his name is bruce reinhardt. he was commissioned by president trump himself in 2018. he was picked by president trump -- he is a kind of judge's assistant. if one thinks this is unconstitutional, we have a judicial system. former president trump and his lawyers did go before another judge who was appointed by president trump when he was an office. she is available to here and at all constitutional claims -- available to hear any and all constitutional claims brought forward.

she brought forward a special master, a republican appointed former federal judge, every distinguished one. we have a judicial system that is processing all of this. in the book i recently published called "the words that made us," amazingly enough it begins with a whole controversy in boston about his vision of homes, a controversy called the writs of assistance. people were complaining that they were searching our homes, but they were doing it pursuit to a judge's orders. that is chapter one of the book. john adams was in the room taking notes. host: you have a podcast that

talks about the constitutional angle about the passing of queen elizabeth ii. what is the relationship there? guest: the first paragraph is "the monarch has died." in 1760 it was george ii and on the throne was george iii. now it is not george ii but elizabeth the second -- but queen elizabeth the second and on the throne now is charles iii. as soon it reaches boston that the old monarch is dead, all of the orders, the pieces of paper

that issue in the name of the monarch have to be reissued in the name of the new monarch. all of the old stuff will expire, it is like cinderella, in six months. boston says let's go to court and challenge these writs that he gives the government too much power to search and seize our homes. let's use the passing of one monarch and the ascension of another as an effort to relitigate search and seizure policy. they lose and that is chapter one. that is -- the seeds of the american revolution in that episode. you have three people in the room at the same time, john adams taking notes, james otis who was a firebrand of the american revolution. he is kind of massachusetts's

version of patrick henry before patrick henry is on the scene. and the judge who will become the most important loyalist in america who will side with george iii. his name is tom's hutchison. -- his name is thomas hutchison. they were all in the room together discussing search and seizure policy. host: james is first on the independence line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would first like to say how much i appreciated c-span's presentation of the supreme court cases. i think the previous guest and mr. amar were both in that. my question goes back to the first segment which is about the amendment, the equal rights

amendment, could not get past. it was blocked by one very activist person. if that amendment could get past -- could not get passed, what is the chance of any other amendments getting passed? guest: what a great question. i am in favor of an equal rights amendment and i'm not sure i share your despair. i think we could re-pass it today because there is widespread support for the idea. here is what i think so. you mentioned when it was initially seceded. it is hard to amend the

constitution, but we have done it. in my lifetime. here's what you need. two thirds of the house, two thirds of the senate, and three fourths of the state. there is another mechanism we have never used before, one of the callers mentioned a possible convention. let's put that to one side. as a practical matter, you won't get two thirds, two thirds, and three quarters unless both parties are on board. i think almost all democrats would be on board and many republicans would be. i think you could get two thirds, two thirds and three quarters. here is another practical matter that is a helpful way thinking about could you get any amendment through, do states have e.r.a. equivalent? a lot of the things in the u.s. constitution state it first. states had written constitutions

even before constitution day, even before the u.s. constitution came aboard. states had bills of rights. many of them got it of slavery before the federal constitution did and let women vote before we had the 19th amendment. this is associated with a supreme court justice louis brandeis. they wrote tests for all ideas. earlier callers talked about balanced budget amendments. states have them. they talked about when i dashed line item vetoes, states have them. they talked about popular votes for the presidency. all states back popular votes for governor's. many states have state e.r.a.'s. both parties might be in favor of it. one last point, even though i am

pro-e.r.a., in a way we already have an equal rights amendment. the 14th amendment says everyone born in america is born an equal citizen, whether you are born black or white, male or female, jew or gentile, gay or straight. the 14th amendment plus the 19th amendment which i mentioned before i think in effect add up to e.r.a.. 14 plus 19 equals e.r.a. courts today already treated women's equality issues very seriously. i'm not sure it would be hugely different if we had an e.r.a. why am i for it? i want to have a movement, i want this generation to feel they own the constitution. i am with you. host: let's talk to barbara in new york city on the independent

line. caller: good morning. two questions please. i have your book "america's constitution." you talk about the 14th amendment, no state should make or enforce any law which should abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the united states. how is it states could take away the right to vote from ex-felons even after the person has paid their debt to society? my second question, mr. rosen talked about an amendment that would allow non-native more people to run for president of the united states. if someone was born in iran or israel or europe, that is -- spent 50 years of their life there, came to the u.s. and got citizenship and could run for president of the united states. what is your opinion of that idea? guest: those are great

questions. and thanks for plugging my 2005 book, "america's constitution." that walks through the constitution textually clause a clause that clause by clause -- clause by clause. barbara is mentioning the 14th amendment which is adopted after the civil war. i already alluded to the first sentence which says everyone born in america is born an equal citizen. it is the idea that everyone is created equal, born equal. barbara quoted the bricks sentence says what it means to be a citizen -- barbara quoted the next sentence which says what it means to be a citizen is having rights and amenities no state can abridge. what about ex-felon disenfranchisement?

barbara, read the next section of the constitution, section two which is about voting. it openly permits disenfranchisement of certain people. this is section two of the 14th amendment which talks about the personality of a bridging voting rights because of participation in rebellion or other crimes. the courts have said it is permissible to ex-franchise felons. that said, we don't have to do it. most states don't anymore. we talked about the interesting examples of what we should do

more generally. each state can learn from its sister states. most states have gotten rid of ex-felon disenfranchisement. the next question was about people who were not lucky enough to be born in the u.s.. i was lucky to be born in ann arbor, michigan. my parents came over from india. even though they came here legally and played by the rules and contributed to society, they are not eligible to be president. my wife, who was born in india, is not eligible. i have friends who were born in egypt and all around the world. if you are not lucky enough to be born under the u.s. constitution, you are not eligible. here's what i want to say about that. i say look at states, states let people who are naturalized americans become governor.

arnold schwarzenegger anna california, jennifer granholm in michigan. if we looked at what states do and they say you can be chief executive of the state even though you are not lucky enough to be born here, maybe we should do that for the presidency. here's another thing, both parties should be in favor of this. look at states and both parties. an amendment was proposed to allow naturalized citizens to become president after being curious certain amount of time. i testified on behalf of that amendment. i happen to be a registered democrat, the amendment was proposed by a great republican senator, the longest-serving republican senator in the history of america, his name was warren hatch. he was a great man. he is a republican and i am a democrat and we both supported that. maybe we should think about it. host: let's talk to bob next from michigan on the independent

line. caller: there seems to be a difference in terms of what the constitution says versus what the declaration of independence says regarding certain inevitable rights when it comes to overthrowing the present government. could you separate these two documents? a lot of folks think the inevitable rights -- the inalienable rights in the independence, throwing off the yoke of colonial oppression, as opposed to what the constitution act is says. inalienable rights are not part of that. could you separate attached? mentioned that the declaration of independence has nothing to do with what is written in the constitution at this point? or does it? but that part doesn't. guest: that is a brilliant

question. the declaration of independence was issued on july 4, 1776. it was a revolutionary document that did in effect try to overthrow existing law. in order to do that, it basically said we can do that because the folks in power are being utterly tyrannical. the famous language is that there are truths that are self-evident. people have certain unalienable rights. governments are executed among men driving in their power from the consent of the governed that when a -- that when any form of

this government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to abolish and form a new government. here was the claim of the declaration, there had been a long train of abuses by the british government of utter tyranny. the british government at the time involved a monarch that no american got to vote for and parliament no american got to vote for. no american had expressed consent by voting. the british government was doing all sorts of tranquil things the declaration of independence is a revolutionary document throwing off established law and making an appeal to god saying as a matter of natural law, you are not abiding by our rights. once we have the constitution, we voted on the thing.

here is why today is constitution day. on september 17 1787 a document is proposed that is going to be put to a vote up and down the continent. we the people are going to get a chance to ordain our supreme law. more people were allowed to vote on the constitution that have ever been allowed to vote on anything in human history. that cannot be lightly overturned because we voted for it. it can be amended and there are provisions, they are not that easy to do. it was in fact easy to adopt it. here's how the constitution takes the declaration of independence idea and modifies it. if our new regime is based on formal consent, people voting, and it has mechanisms for formal amendment and the british system did not have that.

the way people get to react the don't like the existing regime is not by appealing to arms, which is what happened in 1776, but by using the vote, using imbalance rather than bullets -- using imbalance -- using ballots instead of bullets. host: if a state or group of people decided they want to leave the union and the votes that way, would they be allowed to? guest: they are allowed to leave the union if they immigrate. they can go to egypt or canada or india, or britain. the question of can you take the land with you, that is not so clear. the constitution is the supreme law of the land, no if's and's

or but's. i am with lincoln saying if we change that that has to be a decision of the whole american people and not just one self-selected part. anybody who takes otherwise -- who thinks otherwise, the two or three things because the duchenne has two or three things he says about this topic. and tell you a little bit of history, i already mentioned the constitution calls itself the supreme law of the land, notwithstanding anything the state tries to do. the preamble talks about creating a more perfect union and that union is modeled on the union of scotland and england which is supposed to be an indivisible union. that is what the federalist papers essay. there is a reason why they say it.

the document is about, defense. -- is about common defense. if a state can succeed tomorrow and the next day would be its own sovereign nation, it could make a treaty with nation and then putin could put a treaty with putin and then putin could put troops in that new country. then putin would not be halfway across the world. i heard you talk about france and ukraine and what is happening, it is happening because they have a land border with the regime. we don't. the constitution creates an indivisible union. once you are in, you are in. if you could leave, and estate could make a treaty with a foreign tyrant and that we would have mercenaries and monarchs on american soil.

here is one historical question, and this is discussed in great detail in the new book. i say there was a whole your long constitution about the constitution up and down the cost -- up and down the continent about the constitution. not at one point did any supporter say money back guarantee, if you like educate leave. if there was, don't you think they would say it? just like when you buy a car or computer, if there is a money back guarantee, they will tell you because it will quench the sale -- clinch the sale. what they did say is that ratification -- this is a direct quote from james madison repeated by alexander hamilton,

"ratification must be in total and forever." that is mr. lincoln's view and my view. if you don't like the thing, you are free to leave. you just cannot take new orleans with you or houston with you. host: republican line, is in pennsylvania -- line, tom is in pennsylvania. caller: very intelligent conversation. my question involves the amendments to the constitution, particularly the 14th. our representatives who people elect and send to washington, they divest their personal finances into the stock market based on the decisions they make

while representing the people in government. it is not really in the interest of the people they do this. what confuses me is when they are confronted about investing in things like the stock market, they will say it is a free market, anyone can invest in this. it really confuses me. as far as the constitution is concerned, is there a violation for presidents using their personal finances and investing? they are going to end up with any oligarchy and not a republic based on democratic principles. guest: i agree with you. there is nothing specifically in the constitution that prohibits the kind of trading on insider information. there are federal statutes that prohibit insider trading, but i

think they could be stiffened. we should have special rules for our servants, our people acting and our name that are supposed to answer to us. all we need is a simple federal statute. it could be drafted and i would be supportive of it. i think you are right about all of that. one of my favorite students of all time, jeff rosen, on the section right before. i want to tell you about a great philanthropist now deceased who helped fund the national constitution center. his name was john bogle. two people who were to serve the public, take your assets, create some blind trust, put them in a no-load mutual fund, do not play the market.

ordinary people will lose confidence in our system. i think you are republican from pennsylvania, i am a democrat from connecticut but i am with you on this. host: republican lanigan, madisonville, kentucky -- republican again, madisonville, kentucky. andy. caller: i have been listening to you all and everything. i think the best way to do this, i think we need to have a constitution of states. that way it would bring it back to the people. that way we can let the senate and congress know how we feel about issues and everything. i feel like we need to have term limits. i think we need to keep the electoral college. i know they are attracted to

away with it. we don't need to do away with it because if you do that big states would have the power to vote the way they want to. it would leave states like kentucky out. we need to get back to the constitution of states so the people can be in power. this administration is trying to force us to go to electric vehicles and they want to take away our freedoms. it is just like the supreme court turning roe v. wade back over to the people. it is up to us to decide on what we want to do with abortion in each state. guest: those were a lot of interesting points. on term limits, here is the debate. some people say we should have constitutional term limits. some people say we already have term limits, they are called elections. if you don't like them, you can vote against them.

we focus on the other side say the game is rigged because incumbents have advantages. that is the debate back and forth. i don't have a big dog in that fight, but what i can tell you is look at the states. this is your point. there are interesting laboratories of experimentation, some states do have term limits for legislators. not for covers persons, but for the state legislature -- not for congress persons, but for state legislatures. we should see if the state legislatures are run better. one argument for term limits is there is an advantage if you can get into office really and you are there forever and you have all of the benefits of incumbency. men can often get into the government earlier in the careers because they are not taking care of young children.

there are complicated issues with term limits. i don't have a big dog in the fight, but i am interested in studying states, paying attention to what states do. some states have term limits, others don't. we should study whether one or other states are doing it better. you said one other thing that caught my ear. you talked about the electoral college. many people think it advantages big states or small states. i am not sure truthfully it advantages big states versus small states. small states have a bit of an advantage because every state gets a bonus of two senators per state. big states have an advantage because of winner take all. it cancels out. really interesting observations about the electoral college and term limits.

host: michelle is calling us from ohio on the republican line. caller: good morning. great show. i would like to follow-up on the gentleman from kentucky, you go to conventionofstates.com and it is a group of people as a get state-by-state. i learned a tough lesson under covid living in michigan. we were held down for so long. everyone suffered, the elderly died in the thousands. 70% of our children failed two years in a row. i moved to florida and had total freedom. i say we go from state to state organizing our state how we choose to live. it will be a beautiful thing. they do work that gentleman

said, they hold people down so they cannot keep running over and over so that we have the policy's -- nancy pelosi's of the world and in the mitch mcconnell's. go to conventionofstates.com and we can get this done. god bless everybody. have a beautiful day. host: happy constitution day. guest: here is one thing michelle said -- i am not sure i agree with everything she said. i am skeptical about the idea of a convention of states. we have not had that since philadelphia 235 years ago. it would open up a can of worms about how they would be selected, how they would vote, would they be limited to certain issues, would they attempt a new constitution. i am not sure i share her

enthusiasm about that, at least at the present moment where we are deeply divided. i think amendments should reflect broad consensus rather than a narrow majority. here's one thing michelle said that is interesting. she is in ohio now, she has been in michigan, she talked about moving to florida. one of the most basic freedoms americans have, a with the important one, is the freedom to relocate. that freedom is expressed in the first sentence of the 14th amendment. it says everyone born in the united states is born a citizen and indeed an equal. if you read it with care, it talks about the right to relocate. all persons or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states

and of the state where they reside. there is a constitutional right to change your residence. if you don't like your current state, you get to move to another one. that is an important freedom because there are 50 states and they think differently. you have choices. host: mike is next in johnson city, illinois on the republican line. caller: i would like to ask the professor question. under the second amendment, it does say we have the right to bear arms. the question i have is how many votes in the house and descendant and the states does it take to remove this amendment to remove the guns of the united

states. it is an absolute in the constitution. that is the question i have. guest: one of the reasons constitutional amendments are hard to adopt is an amendment can't take away certain expressed rights people work hard to put in the constitution. it was not easy to put amendments into the constitution. maybe there is any idea this should not be able to be taken out. in my lifetime, some people wanted to weaken the first amendment by saying it would be a crime to burn a flag disrespectfully. that would cut back on first amendment rights. it was hard to adopt that important because we want to make it hard to cut back on the first amendment. my specific answer is any

amendment to the constitution, modifying the first or the second whether adding to it or cutting it back, requires two thirds of the house, two thirds of the senate, and three quarters of the states. you also asked about what the second amendment means. i have several podcast episodes about that. it is free and you could listen to those episodes. the supreme court listened to an important case elaborating second amendment rights, building on a case called city of chicago versus mcdonald which built on a case called heller--i personally don't own guns. but i think you have a right to have a gun in your home for self protection. for readings having to do not just with the second amendment

but after the civil war. i am cited in the city of chicago for that proposition. yesterday i met mr. heller who was the litigant in the heller case. so there are three cases. if you want to learn about the second amendment, what it means it doesn't mean, check out the podcast. host: i wonder where the founders would come down on if a former president can be indicted and should be indicted. guest: there is no constitutional bar whatsoever. my position has always been -- and this was my position when there were democratic presidents and republican presidents -- a sitting president should not be subject to criminal prosecution

against his or her will because i don't want the people in one city or state undo a national election. the jury will come from one place and presidents will do things that are unpopular in certain localities. audience members are telling us where they are from and people have very different views in alabama or oklahoma then california. presidents are elected nationally and they should be removed nationally. that is what the impeachment process is about because all of these states are represented in descendant. -- represented in descendant. -- in the senate. maybe you have an indictment that has made follow and -- an indictment that lays fallow and can be reenacted after the person is out of office. no one is above the law. for sitting presidents, the way you proceed is impeachment.

for ex-presidents, they are subject to the system just like everybody else. host: w calling from roswell, new mexico. caller: i just finished reading carol anderson talking about how the second amendment was a bribe to get the south to sign on to the constitution. if her book is accurate, what she is saying about how it came about, why does everybody say the second is to overthrow the government when that is not the reason the second amendment was put in there in the first place? it was in there so militias could go after the slaves. guest: the constitution is a contested document. different folks have different interpretations.

i confess i have not read carol anderson on the second amendment. here is what i will tell you, you should read what i have written because i have written a lot second amendment and i don't on the gun and the supreme court has excited me on all sides -- has cited me on all sides. because people disagree, because time is short, you should pay most attention to those of us who claim the most expertise. i am claiming expertise because i have written a ton on this and we have podcast episodes. here is my view, the original second amendment was all about militias keeping check on the central government. they were worried about armies of the central government because they had just finished a

revolution which local militias arrayed themselves against king george. it is about localism and estates' -- and states' rights should any army becomes radical. in america, the army comes from congress and a president who are voted on. that was not true of england. over the course of american history, states misbehaved, militias in the civil war took up arms against a duly elected government -- that is different than taking up arms against a government no one voted for halfway across the world. the original second amendment is about lexington and concord and bunker hill and locals arrayed against an imperial government.

all of that got changed after the civil war. african-americans were very supportive of an idea after the civil war of a right to have a gun in the home for self protection, a different vision. they could not count on the local law enforcement structure to protect them. it is a complicated story. it meant one thing at the founding, it meant a different thing after the civil war. i tell that story in many places. you can find a quick version of it if you just google my name. i talked with ezra klein has been on -- as your client who has been on c-span.

it shows you what you meant at the founding at what it meant after the civil war. host: i think that is all of the time we have got on our calls. so nice to talk to you. there is a much more to talk about. happy constitution day. guest: and also to you. host: that is akhil reed amar, yale university professor of political science. that is all the time we have for today. happy constitution day to all of you. thank you for calling. we will be back tomorrow morning on "washington journal." in the meantime, have a great saturday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> c-span's washington journal. every day we take your calls on the news of the day. we discussed policy issues that impact you. sunday morning we look at abortion policy on the 2022 campaign with storm parker, president of the center for urban renewal and education. and david corn shares his book, "american psychosis." watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern sunday morning on c-span or c-span now, our free mobile app. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, facebook messages and tweets. >> sunday on q&a, john's professor how brand -- hal brand talks about his book, "danger zone."

>> the idea that china is going to emerge does not strike us as particularly plausible. what we worry about is china will be poised to challenge the united states and allies in particular areas. to overturn the military balance of power in the western pacific we are trying to have geographic advantages because it is close. or, to carve out a technological sphere of influence encompassing most of the developing world. that china's incentive to behave in a more risk-profession will actually grow as xi jinping and those around him realize china does not have all the time of the world to accomplish its objectives. >> hal brands, sunday night at 8:00 on q&a. you can listen to q&a on our free c-span now app.

♪ >> on monday, britton says goodbye to his longest serving monarch as the state funeral for queen elizabeth ii is held at westminster abbey. watch the service live monday at 5:30 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers so students from low-income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.

♪ host: good morning, it is saturday, september 17, 2020 two, and today is constitution day. 230 years ago on september 17, 1787 the u.s. constitution signed. this morning we are asking, how would you change the u.s. constitution? would you change it at all? of us a call on mind by party affiliation. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can send as a text, (202) 748-8003. be sure to send your first name and city/state. we are on facebook and twitter and