wrote a new constitution. secure toved it would them what the old one had not. it would give them a very different constitution. looking forward to something more closely approximating a british parliament ray system. their actions were an admission that it was their tool. thank you very much. we appreciate the opportunity. this is a perspective we often don't hear from. >> thank you so much. thank you for having me. i am really happy to be joining this particular discussion. much has been said that i was going to say. i hope you all out there will take some time to think about that. to take us back to 1787. why didn't the framers abolished slavery? whatsoevero chance that they were going to abolish slavery in 1787. and it is not because they were bad people. there were three very good reasons. one has to do with property. for all the things they did about coinage and contracts, the federal government was not going to mess around with property laws. eight of the 13 states still had slavery. the chances of rati

a new constitution. this time they believed would secure to them what the old one had not. it would give them, a very different constitution of the old one, but looking forward as james -- has written. to something closely approximating a british parliamentary system, but that is after all the point. the safe sleep owner protections, often speak louder than their words. and the actions were their admissions, that the old as constitution was not their tool, much less their friend >> professor thank you very much. we appreciate the opportunity to learn about this from the perspective as you put it, that we often do not hear from. and we now will turn to professor sean blitz. professor. >> thank you so much, and thank you for having me and here i am and i'm happy to be joining you to continue this discussion and you know much has been said and i was going to say as well to these remarks at the very beginning of his talks as the importance of anti slavery slavery constitutionalism. i hope that throughout the

with the constitution. did they follow it? did they try to defend it? have they encouraged? and this shapes how many people think of presidents during a civil war era. now, through principal people we are going to be looking at today, abraham lincoln and andrew johnson, and how they affected the constitution and turn. these days, we are going to do research on something like andrew johnson or abraham lincoln for the constitution. what is the first thing we do? >> if you're going to do research on something, what do you do first? >> look on the internet. >> exactly, google, right? go to google. so, preparing for this the first thing i did was google abraham lincoln constitution. this was the first result i got. u.s. new story, revoking civil liberties, lincoln's constitutional dilemma. and this is often how people think about abraham lincoln during the civil war. heaviest corpus, other infringements on civil liberties, fast and loose with the constitution. and it's not just if you google it, if you go throug

constitution during the civil war era, is how people have interacted with the constitution. have they followed it, have they tried to defend it? this shapes how many people think of presidents during the civil war era. now, two principled people we'll be looking at today are abraham lincoln and andrew johnson, and how they interacted with the constitution, how the constitution shaped their thinking and how they affected the constitution in turn. now these days we're going to do research on something like andrew johnson and abraham lincoln on the constitution, what is the first thing we do? what? >> say that again. >> if you're going to do research on something these days, what do you do first? >> go on the internet. >> exactly. >> google it, right? >> yeah. >> go to google. >> so preparing for this it, the first thing i did was google abraham lincoln constitution. this was the first result i got. u.s. news story, revoking civil liberties, lincoln's constitutional dilemma. and this is often how people think about abraham lincoln and the constitution during the civil war. susp

constitution is the constitution. >> the idea that the constitution should evolve is really inconsistent with that being the law. the law of the land of prey to the supreme law of the land. the alternative is a lot that's forever uncertain, no more stable, no more reliable than popular opinion at the time. and opinions change rated the words do not change. tony: you set it up and you said, between 1803 and 1905, there's not much difference. how were looking interpreted, big changes in the way for the world works. if you look at the early 18 hundreds, you have the roles of the executive pray to george washington, is a very different president than roosevelt. a very than what we see today. and so, you come down on the side of the regionalism rated explain why that is the way we should be looking at the documents. douglas: think justice kavanaugh captured it. there are times when the constitution has to be updated. the 27 amendments. the 3110 it was updated in the 313 years. in the other 17 of them along last 140 years or so. because sometimes very important matters arise, is a widespread v

technology and the constitution. his essays and commentaries have appeared in the atlantic, new york times magazine, on national public radio and the new republic where he is the first editor, and the new yorker where he has been a staff writer. the chicago tribune has named him one of the ten best magazine journalists in america. the los angeles times has called him the nation's most widely read and influential legal commentator. let's please welcome professor jeffrey rosen. thank you. >> we thank you so much. ladies and insulin, fellow teachers, it is such an honor to address you today. teaching civics is the most urgently important task in american democracy. james madison said, a popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is a prelude to tragedy or farce. and your efforts to educate young americans about the essence of american government, and its fundamental principles, will determine the future of the republic. polls show that young people are more likely to support authoritaria

constitution. it's great to see you all here tonight. last week, we looked at the history, a brief look at history that led to the drafting of the constitution. i wanted to recap that quickly tonight as we start. because, as i try to communicate last week, the drafting of our constitution, the history of its formation is extraordinary to say the least. it is a remarkable moment in all of world history. we are here at 233 years later, and our constitution is in the news daily. being referred to as we almost speak here tonight in the united states senate. again and again, in reference to one particular aspect of the constitution. but again, it's alive and well. to think about the fact that this came together -- mid may mid september of 1787, it's really remarkable. so we recall from last week that we said that the revolution he wore ... a lot of folks are not really clear on the sequence. it's important to know it. conflict began and lexington and massachusetts in 1774. these very independent colonie

the constitution is the constitution. >> the idea that the constitution should evolve is inconsistent with it being a law , the law of the land, the supreme law of the land. the alternative is a law that's forever uncertain, normal no more stable and popular opinion of the time. opinions change, more exchange, the words don't. >> so coming out you set it up and you said between 1803 and 1905 there is not much difference in how we are interpreting and looking at the constitution even though there are big changes in the way the world works . if you look in the early 1800s you have hit the role of the executive, george washington for example is a different president and teddy roosevelt who comes in the 1900 different from what we see today so you come down on the side of original is him and explain why that's the way we should be looking at this document. >> i think justice kavanaugh captured it. and there's times the constitution have to be updated. we had 27 amendments and the first were passed after the years the constitution was ratified, they were added and the other 17 have come al

the constitution is the constitution. >> idea the constitution should be followed is inconsistent with that being the law. the law of the land. the supreme law of the land. the alternative is a law forever uncertain no more stable and no more reliable than popular opinion at the time. opinions change in ways change and the words do not use of between 1803 and 1905 there wasn't much difference but there are big changes the way the world works if you look at the early 18 hundreds, you how the role of the executive, george washington is a very different president dan roosevelt the 19 hundreds and very different from today. you come down on the side of a regionalism and explain that's the why one --dash the way we should be looking at the document. >> i think justice kavanaugh captured it. there are times the constitution has to be updated. twenty-seven amendments. the first ten were past two years after the constitution was ratified. the other 17 of come along in the last 140 years. because very important matters arise there is a widespread view the constitution needs to be re- amended. a

the constitution is not what the judges say it is, the constitution is not what the president says it while the dispute raged, the country began to examine more closely this unique institution, the supreme court of the united states. a tribunal whose membership is selected and confirmed by the other branches of government, yet has a power that is, in a sense, the ultimate power. to void as unconstitutional laws enacted by congress and signed by the president. how did the court achieve this position? the constitution does not, in so many words, assign it this power. but it does say that this constitution, and the laws of the united states, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land. what this might mean was clear to many of our founding fathers. it became clearer through events. in 1800, president john adams was defeated for reelection by thomas jefferson. jon marshall, as secretary of state, would be replaced by james madison. the federalists were in eclipse. the democratic republicans were on the rise. the federalists were not giving up. marshall,

constitution. complete freedom of conscience is the preeminent national right, because the new hampshire constitution says in its preamble. the opinions of men being the product of reason, rather than force oar violence cannot be coerced. my reledgeous beliefs must be the project of reason. i cannot alienate them. that's why the rights are unconscionable. the right to alter and abolish government whenever it threatens the unalienable rights we refused to surrender. we have to teach this to our students too. we hold these truths to be evident that all men are created equal. they are endowed with their creator. among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. whenever government becomes destructive of these rights, the right of revolution is an unalienable right because it can't be surrendered. that right is embodied in the amendment process of article five, which you can see from the wilson draft, which wasn't specified until the last page of the convention when they filled in the details

this constitution, a miracle. it's example, the hope of freedom and liberty throughout the world. >> thank you, mister madison. gentlemen, we must now draw to a close. but if i may observe, i think there is one thing we are all agreed on, that these are fundamental questions and that many of them will not be answered in 1788. in fact, i will predict that many of these same issues will be debated for many years to come. thank you very much for your legacy, for your efforts, and for being with us here today.

what's the constitution? why create a constitution? >> yes, what's the fuss about? so the constitution is the paramount law in the united states. which means it trumps all conflicting laws, and it's also very hard to amend. so i think of the constitution in part as a mission statement. it embodies values that we share as americans and we strive for. another really important part of the constitution though was to set up the national government. so it's a long story but the short version is that the government they we are existing under, the articles of confederation, was failing. congress didn't have enough power. they couldn't regulate commerce. they couldn't tax. instead, they had to ask states for money. it was operating more like a league of nations of 13 different countries, as opposed to one united states of america. >> is that sort of how the articles of the confederation were used? >> so the articles of confederation required unanimity in order to change anything. you are never going to get. that rhode island was always the stinker. they always held out. [lau

the question is which plan is the constitution now in the answer to that question is clear in the constitution text, the state gets to a point no doubt, but they appoint electors who are then privileged to cast their votes without regulation by the state. >> do you object that there is no other sanction simply equiring perspective elector take the pledge okay in your view? >> absolutely. a pledge understood the way ray understood the pledge having no legal obligation but are more obligation was perfectly fine in that picture as part of the appointment and a power of the state. >> so the addition of a sanction makes no difference? >> know the sanction makes all the difference. so long there is not a legal sanction than a pledge is appropriate. same in the context of the speech and debate because, of course you cannot punish somebody for a vote in congress that does nothing inconsistent with the speech and debate club asking a member to make a pledge in the states right now asking members to make a pledge of the conditions being a party member. >> if there were a fine of 1 dollar, you would say

the constitution does not forbid such changes.dicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. the details are left to congress. at first, congress established a supreme court of six justices. in 1801, congress passed a law that the number should, after the next vacancy, be kept at five. the adams administration apparently hoped that jefferson, as a result, would not have a chance to appoint a justice. but under jefferson, the law was repealed, and six years later, the number was changed to seven. in 1837, because of the growth of the country, the number was increased to nine. and in 1863, under lincoln, to 10. then an act of 1866 provided for clearly political reasons that the next three vacancies should not be filled. but the number had only dropped to eight, when a new law in 1869 changed it to nine. thus it stood until roosevelt in 1937 proposed a new change. in congress, some people, while critical of the court, were j

the constitution, a written constitution that the people might debate, is the natural and best course for our future. however, this is where i counter the gentleman, in that this document is in its way the one that must be ratified. i say nay. there are too many problems still inherent. this is uncharted territory, to be certain. thate that we -- and for reason, we must endeavor to revolt against great britain some years ago was nothing compared to what lies before us now. we have an opportunity to create a government not in the time of war, but in a time of peace and those articles of confederation were woefully, woefully insufficient for our causes, however we must recognize now, though we have a system before us that is better than what was before, that does not make it close enough to what the people of america deserve. inherent in it, there are insufficiencies, shortcomings. there are dangerous seeds for monarchy or at least a corrupt in thisacy are rife document. it is for that reason that i oppose this, not to what entirely was created. there are elements of this that are fanta

the constitution center just did a fascinating thing called the constitution drafting project. we asked three teams of conservative, liberal and libertarian scholars to draft a constitution from scratch for 2020. we basically said, imagine you are starting from the beginning. give us your best constitution. you know what is so fascinating? all three teams chose to keep the constitution and perform it rather than completely abolish it. this is what most surprised us. reinforcing your point, two of the three teams, the conservative and progressive team agreed we should abolish the electoral college if we were starting from scratch. they would have both elected the president with a national popular vote, using ranked, choice voting. even the libertarian team did not reject the possibility of a national popular vote. the team leader endorsed it in a new book. they just decided not to include what they called good government reforms. that was -- that is a pretty powerful reinforcement of your point. these are extremely distinguished teams of scholars. they disagreed about a lot. the

this constitution, a miracle. it's an example, the hope of freedom and liberty throughout the world. >> thank you, mr. madison. gentlemen, we must now draw to a close but if i may observe, there's one thing we may all agree on, these are fundamental questions and many of them will not be answered in 1788, in fact i will predict that many of these same issues will be debated for many years to come. thank you very much for your legacy, for your efforts and for being with us here today. >> announcer: you're watching american history tv, every weekend on c-span 3, explore our nation's past. c-span 3 brought to you today by your television provider. >>> during the week on c-span 3, we are featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what is available every weekend. tonight to mark the anniversary the nixon foundation president hu hewitt. a panel on the achievements and legacy of the agency. watch tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-sp c-span 3, and enjoy american history tv this week and every weekend. >>> american

the constitution does not in so many words assign it this power, but it does say this constitution and the laws of the united states which shall be made in pursuant there of shall be the supreme law of the land. what this might mean is clear to many of our founding fathers. and became clearer through events. in 1800, president john adams was defeated for reelection by thomas jefferson. john marshall would be replaced by john madison. the democratic republicans were on the rise. but the federalists were not giving up, marshall as one of adams final acts, was made chief justice. in the closing hours of the outgoing administration he was very busy assigning appointments filling new judgeships with faithful federalists. the commissions were sealed with the united states. but something went wrong. on the following morning, he found the commissions still on the desk. he presently discussed the matter with jefferson and a decision was made. some of the commissions would not be delivered. later one of the appointees became impatient. where was his commission as justice of the peace in the dist

with our current constitution, whether we should ratify the constitution. as for some proof of citizenship, it's already that a man votes in public, i don't know what more proof one may need. i'm unfamiliar with such proof, being established, president unless the worthy gentleman opposite of me wishes to speak upon it more. i am somewhat baffled by the question. >> mr. madison? to colonel mason. no, to mr. harris. >> yes, that was very succinct. mr. madison. i appreciate that. continuing on the subject of the franchise that voted, one last question that we have is should voting by mail be allowed? should won't be able to fill up a ballot? >> i thought you meant should voting be male. >> that is another good question. that's another good question. should one be able to vote via -- via the postal system. >> you can failed me, mr. harris. i should say that in every instance, it has been a lead in new jersey for the female to vote. so upon, that should the vote be mail? that is a quest for another time. upon, that voting by mail convinced me further. as colonel

the living constitution is the way the constitution has been interpreted over time most of the time but there's always that other originalist view in the society that has changed 150 years since the amendments were enacted. it would be hard to interpret them on the basis it's a different world than the one we are living in. >> the next question comes from sarah who asks does the amendment have one person one vote and how does it impact what is considered a person in the u.s. constitution. >> those are two different things but i think that it's an interesting question. one man one vote or one person one vote. the due process and privileges, the one person one vote was a decision about gerrymandering the way the districts are drawn in order to maximize the power of certain groups or maximize the power of certain regions before the state legislatures had these unpopulated counties with the same number of legislatures in the big cities with hundreds of times more and eventually that is a violation of equal protection of the law. your vote should count the same whatever part of the state you

it in our constitution. two terms, that's it. >> thanks very much for that. there are several questions about virtue. virtue may have been an aspiration for franklin and washington, but they were sufficiently skeptical to wish to aspire to virtue and guard against vice. would you agree? we also have a question about whether their conception of virtue in washington, in the seek for improvement, was it grounded in religious faith or fidelity. i will ask the stoic or classical reason was part of it. then there's a question about how franklin was more colorful in his personal life than washington. his personal life was beyond reproach. how central was this conception of virtue to shaping this character that made him this way. i will let you take all three about washington and franklin and virtue. >> sure. lots of questions about virtue. which is great. i think it's something that we're seeing is an important part of politics. we want our politicians to be virtuous, especially in times of crisis, like we are faci

the living constitution is with the constitution has been interpreted over time, most of the time, buthere's always that other so-called originalist view. but i think in a society which has changed, it's 150 years since he's amendments were enacted. it would be pretty hard to interpret them simply on the basis of what was thought and said 150 years ago. that's a different world than what we are living in. >> our next question comes from sarah who would like to know, she asks does the 14th amendment touch on the concept of one person, one vote? how does it impact what is considered a person in the u.s. constitution? >> those are two different things but i think it's an interesting question. yes, one man one vote as a say or one person, one vote. that's another 14th amendment decision. the 14th amendment is trying to force the states to recognize the basic rights and enforce the basic rights of equality of everybody. in this generalized way, equal protection, due process, privileges or immunities. the one person, one vote was a decision about gerrymandering the way districts are drawn in

the american constitution. article three, the judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court. the judicial power shell extended to all cases in law and equity, arising under this constitution. the laws of the united states, and treaties made under their authority. the first article of the constitution has to do with congress. the second deals with the office of president. in article three, with the supreme court. one, two, three. that is the way our founding fathers planned it. a government made up of three equal independent parts, put together in a system of checks and balances that keeps any one of them from becoming too powerful. congress makes laws, but the president can veto them. the court declared them on constitutional. congress can overrule the president, with a two thirds majority. or initiate the overruling of the court, by proposing a constitutional amendment. the president can appoint justices, but he can't remove them. everywhere the checks and balances are at work, the k

it was like six constitution's worth of stuff. so the question became that the two sections that we end up with in different ways reflect our desire to choose without choosing so the silver bullet idea the institutional governance with racial equality and gender equality. we have to prioritize one of these areas of reform which area of reform do we think would most automatically pave the way for other stuff getting done in the theory we came up with was america right now is under a regime of minority rule through mechanisms in the senate , voter suppression, so on and so forth. and a lot of the things that people wanted to get done paul quite well and much more in a country of majority rule if you do not have a to have the electoral college and then to say money and politics and financing elections et cetera. and that doing that would clear the brush getting in the way and then just to wrap it up, section two is not only procedural but to say once we get america doing again make america a do it again. we are not governing ourselve

one talks about the constitution; the other, statutes.y're labels that have been chosen really by opponents. opponents of originalism call it "originalism." i call it just the enduring constitution, and treating law the way we've always treated legal documents. so, whether it's the constitution or a statute, how should a judge go about interpreting it? and they're really two competing schools of thought. one is, you should follow the original meaning -- the original public meaning of that document. what was it understood to mean when it was written? the words on the page. you can call it literalism, you can call it textualism, you can call whatever pejorative you want to use. i don't care. the other is, they like to cal it living constitutionalism -- and i think governor brown was alluding to this in the quote -- that judges should just kind of evolve the document with a respectful attendance to its terms, but not limited to them, and just kind of improve it. it's a living constitution. it evolves, it breathes. i don't know how. it's law.

the reason for that is that the constitution in the 18th century made the constitution really hard tocle five you need three quarters of the state to adopt Ãbi think about the map of the united states you see on election night and the number of states that are red and getting more than their fair share of power in the electoral college and the senate imagine where you're going to get three quarters of the states who are going to agreed to do away with their own advantage. somebody i know what side you can get turkeys to go to thanksgiving. so there is that. there's not much chance this is going to be part of the constitution in the foreseeable future. i couldn't agree more and i couldn't say it better than three of youb what's important here is a conversation and i love the idea that the conversation start in libraries all around the country. the benjamin franklin societies, people who talk not only to the people who already believe what they do, people who are talking to people but they don't expect to agree with and trying to cast the proposition what are they still have in common a

the constitution.id they amend the constitution? no. what is required to amend the constitution of pennsylvania? it's very complicated. there needs to be a majority vote of both houses of the state legislator, not once. but twice. then there needs to be a respite and then there needs to be ads in two papers in every county of pennsylvania, all 67 counties and then there needs to be a respite and then finally, the citizenry of pennsylvania gets to vote on whether or not they want the amendments. it has to be on the ballots. did that happen? no, it did not happen. the citizenry of pennsylvania and we talk about this disenfranchisement and they weren't asked to vote on this change in their election laws for mail-in ballots, let alone these other changes with this supreme court state made but they were all really disenfranchised. so the state legislator in october 2019 acted unconstitutionally. the governor, by signing it, acted unconstitutionally. the state supreme court by changing even the unconstitutio

think about constitutional change today. okay, it is my great pleasure to introduce our phenomenal co-panelists. lisa anderson is a historian at julie yard, her great book is the politics and prohibition of american governance and prohibition party and joshua is -- author of a bunch of a spectacular books including flapper. a madcap story of sex, style, celebrity and the women who made america modern. how can you beat a booked out like that. please join me and welcoming, lisa anderson and joshua's-ites. line anderon >> so excited to be here. we >> let us jump right into it was. well >> pretend it's 1919, you must have water. >> it's only appropriate. >> you don't know that it's actually water? >> it's a possibility. >> to a certain degree, we are going to spend the whole show about this question. i want to begin to ask you the obvious one. how did it happen? >> the first part is that drunk people are annoying. especially if you are not drunk. that really becomes the starting point. but there is a few kind of pathways that pe

the national constitution center. and to today's convening of america's townhall. i am the president of this wonderful institution. and let us inspire ourselves in the discussion ahead by reciting together the national constitution center's mission statement. here we go. the national constitution center is the only institution in america, chartered by congress to increase awareness and understanding of the united states constitution among the american people on a non-partisan basis. we have a series of wonderful programs coming up. and it would be great if you could join on december 3. keeping up the spirit of today's discussion we discussed the founders and the classics with three of america's greatest scholars about the influence of the greeks and romans. on december 9, the author of the phenomenal book when i was in law school, "why we lost the era." he joins carol r. to debate whether or not we should revive the equal rights amendment. you can register for those programs online. we will be taking your questions th

he said it about the constitution. but it's the best we can have now, but this government, if the people lose virtue, it will lead to tyranny like every other type of government. and in one of his first letters, after he lost philadelphia. george washington wrote much of the same thing, to his nephew who became date member of the supreme court. but this constitution will only work as long as the people have virtue, and the leaders have virtue. that is what they brought to government. that's why they brought to the mission, that's what they brought to what they were trying to create. they knew how fragile, a republic was. >> fascinating thank you so much for that. tell us more about that lindsay that powerful statement, that both franklin and washington believe, that we would falter unless the leaders and the people had virtue. so how did washington, believe that people should cultivate the habits of virtue? franklin famously proposed 13th virtues, that all of us should follow every day. leading from temperance, to pati

did they amend the constitution? no.hat's required to amend the constitution of pennsylvania the very complicated. there needs to be a majority vote, of both houses of the state legislature not once -- but twice. then there needs to be a respite there there needs to be ads in at least two papers in every county in pennsylvania all 67 counties. then there needs to be a respite. and then finally, the citizenry of pennsylvania get to vote on whether or not they want the amend it has to be on the ballot. did that happen? no it didn't happen. but citizenry of pennsylvania we talk about this in franchisement they weren't asked to vote on this change in their election laws for mail-in ballots let alone changes that state supreme court made. they weren't asked at all and utterly disenfranchised so the state legislature in october, 2019 acted unconstitutionally the governor by signing acted unconstitutionally. this state supreme court by changing even the unconstitutional law acted unconstitutionally plus violatessed that article

in dover, under the laws and constitutions of the state of delaware and the united states, i am directed by the governor to convene this meeting of the electoral college of delaware for the purpose of electing the president and the vice president of the united states. dr. tony allen, the president of delaware state, as well as jackie griffith, who is here today, for allowing us to be on campus, and thanks to david mangler of my staff for all his work in putting together this meeting. begin, i want to say a few things very briefly. first, i want to congratulate anthony slbsnd our state election commissioner, and his staff, for a smooth and successful election here in the first state. in delaware, as well as throughout the country, the pandemic required many people to vote remotely for the first time, and anthony and his staff rose to that challenge with great success. second, to my fellow secretaries of state around the country, and to thousands of county and municipal election officials and workers, thank you for your incredible efforts this year. fair elections are nothing to be taken f

constitution -- this is really not complicated. stay with us. requires that the case be filed directly at the u.s. supreme court which has what is called original jurisdiction in disputes between multiple states. if the supreme court decides to take up the case, the justices will be tasked with deciding whether or not the states, georgian, wisconsin, michigan, pennsylvania, whether they violated the u.s. constitution in a variety of ways, that is all laid out right here in this suit brought by texas. it includes article two of our constitution which clearly articulates the following: each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct a number of elect-oh ares. constitutionally up to state legislatures to the side election policy. for example, in pennsylvania we already know that this was clearly violated when the mail in ballot deadline was pushed back without lawmaker approval. article two was also likely violated as we've been telling you in the state of georgia with that idiotic consent degree which relax the signat

the constitution has three parts to it. the simplel, what's definition of a constitution? quick and easy. it's simply a plan of government. whichs out the rules by the federal government will operate. you're all in sports. constitution, they are the roles of the game -- rules of the game. threee constitution has essential parts. the first is the preamble. memorizeof you had to the preamble in middle school or high school? okay, what is the preamble? not what does it say, but what is it? yes, sir. [indiscernible] take it more than that. it is the introduction. what does it contain in that introduction? give me a couple of the main points in the preamble. >> to establish justice. prof. prevas: okay. so what it's telling you, ensure the domestic tranquility, establish justice. what else? welfare.or the common provide for the common defense. preambleically -- the contains a vision for the framers of the country. a country where there is justice for everybody, a country, depending on your political perspective, that provides for the common welfare. does that mean everyone has a