understand that when we talk about all of these issues, we are standing on this foundation of an american magna carta. an american magna carta that was passed in 1964 after a long fight and a long struggle. went all the way back to the civil war. after the civil war when the nation amended its constitution and created a 14th amendment, they added a section in there that said congress shall enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation. this was in the late 1860s. what happened along that journey is instructive to today. the first civil rights act was passed, the civil rights act of 1866 was twice vetoed by president johnson. it became law because the congress overrode his veto. the second civil rights act that was passed was in 1875. that act interestingly looks a lot like the 1964 act. we've got to teach a little bit this morning. that 1875 civil rights act in 1883 was substantially struck down by the united states supreme court. the united states supreme court's character, meaning who sat on the court, changed as a result of the 1876 election. here was the supreme court. less than 20 years afte

american history. and everybody knows what's just occurred is going to be remembered. here is darrow. i fancy that place where the magna carta was wrested from the barons in england. runnymede was a very small place, probably not as big as dayton, but events come along as they come along. i think this case will be remembered because it is the first case of this sort since we stopped trying. people in america for witchcraft, because here we have done our best to turn back the tide. that is sort to force itself upon the modern world of testing every fact in science by a religious dictum scopes found guilty. that's the london times. all right. sadly, william jennings bryan, after a big meal, dies of a stroke a week after the trial. and they found william. they found clarence darrow hiking in the smoky mountains and ran up and said, bryan is died. what do you think? and he muttered something like they said, did he die of a broken heart? and darrow muttered something like, no, he died of a busted belly, but then said he, it's a great loss for the american people. they appeal the case, as you know, even if it's federal constitutio

loan of the. 1297 magna carta, which serves to reinforce the precedent for the concept of freedom under law. this gallery for the last ten years has been a catalyst to engage americans of all ages with progress, farming and educational initiatives around our collective, our individual rights. since the opening of david m rubenstein gallery. records of rights exhibit, the national archives. the national archives foundation have hosted. 252 rights related programs in washington, d.c. and online with many more programs as presented by presidential libraries nationwide. not to mention the impact gallery has had on archives such as the young program, which has reached over 34,000 children and students. the record of rights talk, which is engaged more than a million page views and has visited by and has been visited by more. than 350,000 individuals from nearly. 200 countries around the world all seeking gain a better understanding about how you might define and and protect the rights that we hold dear. ducks teach doors the rights in landing page, which has created rights activities to reach a variety of grade levels on topics from african-american rights to native ameri

layout from the magna carta to the founding roh state laws, throu weems watches a which was in 1910, throughrolater in the century that throughout all of that, both the english, american colonies, the discourses have meorm up or endment jurisprudence.eir eighth you are asking us to ignore all of that history. >> no, we are not. e are saying is this case does not implica proportionality. we are not asking the court to take a position whether it's a proper inquiry under thth amendment. >> i suggest you are because the old because you see the only amendment is former puni.ighth in those cases, and in our history, we have said that certain punishments cannot be >> and the court hass looked at if a particular punt issidered too extreme for categorically terms of the death penalty in some cases, the work looks it whether a lesser punishment would be acceptable. for the inquiey are focusing on punishment, only what the respondents are asking this court to do is extend - >>o you have hotels that are valued at $250,000 in your city? just answer yes or no. >> i don't know. let's assume because even in new york city which may be the mo expensive city in the nation or close to ir

foushat from the magna carta through the founding, throh ate laws, through weems, which was in 1910, through trop later ith century, that throughout all of that, both the english, american colonies, this court has had some form of proportionality in their eighth amendment jurisprudence. you're asking us to ignore all of that history. ms. evangelis: no, we're not, justice sotomayor. what we are saying is that this case doesn't implicate proportionality. we're not asking the court to take a position on whether it's a proper inquiry uerhe eighth amendment. for example -- justice sotomayor: oh, yes, yes, you are, b you're saying that the only thing that's prohibit bthe eighth amendment is the form of punishbut, in those cases and in our history, we have said that cepunishments, trop, for example, can't be do. ms. evangelis: that's right. and the court has always lat if a particular punishment is considered too ere or categorically so as in the death penalty in some cases, trt looks at whether a lesser punishment wou bacceptable. again, it's looking at punishment. and that's where the inquiry focuses. here, only what -- what the respondents are asking this court to do is to