be a lifelong learner about the constitution. go to that interactive constitution.ick a provision you want to learn more about. look at the arguments on both sides and make up your own mind. and now we're going to all go upstairs and we're about to launch an hour, a new constitution, one on one course that the national constitution center has done with khan academy, some, you may know, come from your math and science homework. this is a civics course that brings together the top liberal and conservative historians and scholars and thought leaders in america to teach the essence of the constitution. it's so exciting and it's for high school kids. and i know whatever level you're at, you'll learn something from it. pick a, pick something to learn about. digging deep, keep reading, keep learning and let's all keep the constitution together and please join me. in thanking justice gorsuch and janie nitze.

. ♪♪ good morning, ip constitution day. happy constitution day everyone.the national constitution center. it is wonderful to see all of you here to learn about the constitution and be inspired by our founding ideals. and it's so exciting that we get to talk this morning with justice neil gorsuch, the honorary co-chair of the national constitution center. he's joined by his coauthor, janie nitze. please join me and welcoming justice gorsuch and janie nitze up. just as we're so honored that you're here on constitution day. why don't we start by talking about the history of constitution day? what is constitution? well, and jamie, i want you to chime in here, too. it was started about 100 years ago by a woman who had emigrated from poland after the russian revolution to escape communism. and she loved this country so much. the opportunities it had given her. she wanted to propose party to celebrate the constitution. and so she did an hour long island home, and they dressed up in revolutionary outfits and they had marching bands and they threw a big party and a

. >> happy constitution day. >> happy constitution day, everyone,on welcome to the nacc constitution center. [applause] >> it isal wonderful to see allf you to learn about the constitution and be inspired by our founding ideals and so exciting that we get to talk this morning with justice neil gorsuch, the honorary cochair of the national constitution center is joined by his coauthor jenny, please join me in welcoming neil gorsuch and janey. we are honored that you're here on constitution day. whyy don't we start by talking history of constitution day? >> well, janey, i want you chime in here too. it started about a hundred years ago by a woman who had immigrated from poll and after the russian immigration to escape communism and she loved this country so much and the opportunities that had given her, she wanted to throw a party to celebrate the constitution and so she did in long island home and dressed up in revolutionary outfits and had marching bands and they threw a big party and a newspaper publisher at the time thought that wasth such a great idea tht he said other cities shou

you will find constitutional premises, constitutional logic making their way into all kinds of areas of american life. a couple years ago a few friends of my son were arguing out.. one said i had the right to free speech. he was like, nine years old. i thought, that's a start. there are other things. but we do have a sense that we are rights bearing. we do have a sense -- that sense very often extends to what other people owe us. that is just natural. it will be better if we knew about what we owe one another. that demand increases as our involvement in politics increases. it would be good if members of congress were familiar with article one of the constitution. which it often seems they are not. at mount vernon they have george washington's copy of the constitution, where he actually worked the road -- word president next to every line in the constitution which created every obligation on him. there had never been a president before and he just didn't know what to do. i think everyone of our presidents should start out by doing that. maybe looking at his constitution because he got

happy constitution day.elcome to the national constitution center. [ applause ] it is wonderful to see all of you here to learn about the constitution and being smart about our founding ideals. we get to talk with justice hill courses, the honorary cochair of the national constitution center joined by his co-author, please join me in welcoming them. justice, we are honored you are here on constitution day, let's talk about the history of constitution they, what is constitution day? >> i want you to chime in, too, it started 100 years ago by a woman who immigrated from poland after the russian revolution, to escape communism. she loved this country so much, the opportunities have given her, she wanted to throw a party to celebrate the constitution, she did in her long island the constitution. and so she did. in her long island home, they dressed up in revolutionary outfits they had marching bands and through big party. a newspaper publisher at the time thought that was such a great idea that he said, other ci

constitution day was moved from may to september, the date that the constitution was signed september but to remember that history and you know, there was huge celebrations in honor of it. and albert einstein gave some talks on constitution day as well. and so it really has a rich, rich history. and i'm glad that the constitution center is reviving this great gathering for for the day. well, and you should know a little bit about cheney. so her family came to this country to escape communism from czechoslovakia, too. and she's the first generation american and managed to get into harvard and get three degrees from harvard. and then she clerked for both me and for justice sotomayor on the supreme court. and and she's one of the most remarkable young women of her generation that i know. and she has here today with her two of her daughters. where are you? there they are. claudia. and and when you say hello, you guys, we they are. and this is they're celebrating constitution day with us. beautiful. so wonderful to welcome all of you here. janie, maybe say a word about what it's like to cl

good morning, ip constitution day. happy constitution day everyone. welcome to the national constitution center. >>>good morning. happy constitution day. happy constitution day, everyone. formed the national constitution center. it is wonderful to see all of you, here, to learn about the constitution, and be inspired by our founding ideals. so exciting that we get to talk this morning, with the honorary co-chair of the national constitution center. joined by his co-author. please join me in welcoming --. justice, we are so honored that you are here on constitution day. while you started by talking about the history of constitution day. >> well, i want you to chime in here too. it started about 100 years ago. by a woman that had immigrated from poland of the russian revolution. she loves this country so much, she wanted to throw a party to celebrate the constitution. so she did. in her long island home. dressed up in office. he had marching bands, and they threw a big party. in newspaper publisher at the time, thought that was such a great idea. other

constitutional law. federalism in 18th and 19th century legal thought. she is the author of numerous books and articles. her latest book, the inter bellum constitution, union, commerce and slavery in the age of federalism, will be published later this month. it's exciting to have an advance copy. you can't have it. it's mine. but remember that it is. the book examines the constitutional law in the period of 1815 through 1861. this is a period of constitutional development that's long been neglect. it or wrongly dismissed is uneventful. professor lacroix synthesize is the legal, political and social history to show how the post founding generation was forced to rethink the us constitutional vision. and the book is already attracting enthusiastic praise. for example, professor jill lepore of harvard, who spoke here earlier in the quarter calls it pine earring and essential reading. another prominent legal historian calls it brilliant, prodigiously researched, bristling with startling revisionist arguments

constitution. i am standing on the corner of wall street and broad street. i had of me is the site of the new york stock exchange, but behind me is the side of the first u.s. capitol after the constitutional convention. in the fall of 87, the capitol moved here from philadelphia. one of the delegates was james madison, who himself had been one of the principal architects of the constitution. it was at the convention in philadelphia where hamilton and madison had first become acquainted. it was hamilton who suggested to jay that madison as a virginian with a unique perspective on the constitution to be brought in as the third author of the federalist. standing in hanover square which in 1787 what had been eight bustling commercial area. this was also known as printing house square for the large number of printers who took up residence on the outskirts of the square. this is where many new yorkers would have been exposed to the federalist papers for the first time. they were published sequentially in

happy constitution day. happy constitution day, welcome to the national constitution center. it is wonderful to see all of you, to learn about the constitution and be inspired by our founding ideals, so exciting we get to talk this morning with justice neil gorsuch, the honorary cochair of the national constitution center, joined by his co-author, janie nitze. [applause] we are so honored that you are here on constitution day. why don't we start by talking about the history of constitution day. >> i want you to chime in, jamie. it was started about 100 years ago by a woman who had immigrated from poland after the russian revolution to escape communism and she loved this country so much, the opportunities it had given her that she wanted to throw a party to celebrate the constitution and so she did in her rhode island home and they dressed up in revolutionary outfits and had marching bands and a newspaper publisher of the time thought that was such a great idea that he thought of their cities should follow suit and so it became one of the biggest holidays in the american calen

constitution. there is the speech and debate clause for congress, but there is nothing comparable. similar to judicial immunity. they thought of judges the way judges were thought of at the time and there was judicial immunity there. you are right that these things were not in the constitution and to my knowledge they are not discussed in the federalist papers. i would have to study that specific question more clearly but i do not recall anything specifically about them. >> given his question about the timeliness, let us bring in caroline feddersen, a law professor. she joins us now. our last caller asked about the timeliness of the federalist papers. what do they mean in your view? >> i am speaking as a law professor and how relevant they are to the teaching of constitutional law. what i think is so helpful is to have the students read the federalist papers while they are starting to dig into the structure of the constitution and get a more theoretical framework about what the framers were trying

constitution. the purpose is self-government. there is a lot to be learned from that and that is relevant to us still today. >> well, i agree with the sentiments. they started writing the federalist papers at the end of october 1787 and by the end of 1787, several states had already adopted the constitution before half of the federalist papers had been written. none of the people in georgia or delaware had read the vast majority of those papers. i do not think it is possible to say the federalist papers convince people to vote in a particular way. there are too many logical steps to draw that conclusion. in the long run, it has been tremendously influential, especially in the supreme court. in all of the early cases, chief justice marshall refer to them as being the pinnacle of being an explanation of the constitution. can the states impose additional restrictions on who can run for congress? can the federal government required the state officers to enforce federal laws? the supreme court has looke

constitution. early 19th century americans were consumed by arguments about concurrent power after 15, most of the pressing legal and political debates concerned the domains in which concurrent power was debated commerce, migration and slavery. importantly, arguments for concurrent power were distinct arguments for state power itself. the fourth claim concerns a core element of constitutional law. the federal commerce. in practical terms, commerce was the primary crucible in which interventions struggles over federalism. boiled in terms of constitutional structure. the commerce clauses of article one were the doctrinal vessel into which these conflicts were poured and which turn shaped their resolution. the intervention period witnessed a burst of intellectual ferment. ferment and conflict over the nature and scope of congress's power to regulate commerce among the states with foreign nations and with native nations. the fifth claim concerns a union both the union capital u. in the sense of the ame

for the constitution, not against it. conservatives and constitutionalists had every reason to give up on the judiciary in the second half of the 20th century. but rather than give up on it, they set about renewing its commitment to its proper purpose through a project that began as intellectual work, much of it done here at aei, and then evolved into institution work at the federalist society and elsewhere, supported by political action that enabled a genuine transformation of the judiciary. it was a kind of labor of love, love of the constitution, love of the country. and that's exactly how we should think about the constitutional challenges that we face now. we are, with regard to congress in particular, roughly where the right was with regard to the courts in the mid 1970s, the idea that we could reform congress to do its job seems hopelessly naive right now, but it is not more naive than the notion that antonin scalia and robert bork and lauren silverman had when they were scholars 50 years ago, that we could have or

i would just say this the constitution is not the original constitution. the constitution we have today and the constitution we have the date was amended 27 times. to be an originalist means you want to see the original constitution enforced whenever it was added to the constitutions of the original meaning dates back to 1868 by last book was called the original meeting of the 14th amendment published by harvard university press. that was all about what that meant. we don't need and maybe we spend too much time talking about the founders and we should talk more about their republicans gave us the newly formed republican party who gave us the 13th of 14th and 15th amendment. having said all that i do think the people that wrote the constitution were extremely smart and knowledgeable and well-educated about political theory. that's the reason they actually devised a system of government that was to some degree remains unique in its uniquely good but only if it follows in part of the problem have their governmenter are at their important chunks of the constit

constitution. can the states impose additional restrictions on who can run for congress? can the federal government required the state officers to enforce federal laws? the supreme court has looked at the federalist papers and taken understandings from them and decided the cases. it would be impossible to say they have not had an influence. >> let's hear from our viewers. gabriel from durham, north carolina. >> thank you so much for this. this is excellent. my question is about -- the first question has to do with the influence of the federalist papers on each of the individuals writing based on classic is him on that time, like montesquieu. or if you think it was intertwined. the second question is, would you be able to share with us what you thought their biggest contribution was for each writer? i wanted to get your view on those two things. >> thank you for that. classicism and the three writers biggest influence. >> it is remarkable how much medicine knew about antiquity -- how much madison kn

the first word of the constitution.e the people of the united states for that is not a coincidence. both of those documents are expressed in the first person plural there both examples of people taking ownership of the common fate of the nation. the declaration expresses a common commitment to a set of ideals that then underlines decision taken in common. the constitution builds on the premise. embraces the principles but it does something in practical terms may be more complicated. establishes a political framework for eight society that generally agrees about the fundamental principles but does not agree about much else produced not agree aboutut exacy what those principles mean as a practical matter and many situations it disagrees about a lot all the time for the constitution is exactly about how to make that a reality has a practical matter in the face of division. and in a sense that is what this book is about how the constitution can function as a framework for unity and cohesion in a divided time. we are obvious

in the constitution. this is not a balanced government and that all branches are equal. they are meant to check each other, but not equal. the legislative branch is by far the most powerful. it represents the people. that is why it is divided into two houses, the senate and house, because it is so powerful. do you shift -- the judiciary was thought to be the weakest branch. it was definitely a blind spot of the poop leah's. it has turned -- of publius. peter: we have a representative of that branch. judge, do you agree with the sentiment by alexander hamilton? judge maggs: i agree with professor sheehan assessment of hamilton's statement, which is that it is somewhat of a blind thought -- blind spot, he thought the judiciary would be weaker than it turned out to be. in that same passage where he talks about judicial review, hamilton said no weight can be given to the idea that judges will avoid applying statutes based on the pretense that they are unconstitutional. i am paraphrasing. certainly today that

the constitution that we need to debate about is not the original constitution. it is the constitution have today. and the constitution have today was amended 27 times to be an original means you want to see the original meaning of the constitution enforced whenever that meaning was added to constitution. so the original meaning of the 14th amendment dates back to 1868. my last book was the was called the original meaning of 14th amendment. it's letter and spirit published by harvard university press. and that was all about what that meaning was. and so we don't need to privilege. maybe we spend a little too much time talking the founders, and we should talk a lot more about republicans who gave us the the republicans of their newly formed republican party, who gave us the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments having said all that. i do think. the people that happened to write the constitution were extremely smart and they were extremely knowledgeable and well-educated about political theory. and that's the reason why they actually devised a system of government that wa

constitutional vision. the book is attracting enthusiastic praise, a professor from harvard who spoke here earlier in the quarter, calls pioneering reading. another prominent historian calls it brilliant, prodigiously researched, bristling with arguments, by far and away the best account of the world of american federalism and the crucial decades between the war of 1812 and the civil war. having read advanced chapters myself, i know what a blockbuster this book will be an thrilled professor alison lacroix will give us a sneak preview in the lecture professor alison lacroix from yale, phd in history from harvard, before joining our faculty, she practices litigator at a leading firm in york and helped with the procedures of ship in legal history at nyu. as a member of our faculty, she has taught constitutional law in the federal courts, american legal history, following other subjects. students, many i am glad to see her today, consistently and enthusiastically praise her teachings and her courses draw very l

amendments, even in the constitution. but what happens if none of that occurs? what happens if we continue on our current path? that's i try to address in the last chapter. now, one possibility is we will just continue to muddle along as we are. but as i look at the of the world i'm not confer that that will continue forever. another possibility is drifting towards authoritarian zionism. i am very frightened. i say this in the book, the way in which the republican party has embraced orban from hungary, bringing him to speak at events in the united states, taking their events to hungary. in fact, jd vance has said very much that orban is a role model in terms of what he's done for hungary. it's possible that our country will drift towards authority terrorism and i worry if there is a crisis, there's always a tendency towards authoritarianism and it might increase that temptation. but what none of that happens then i worry that there could be a real move to some form of secession. i want to be clear, and i say this explicit

they teach us about the purpose of the constitution, about why we have a constitution.he purpose is self-government. there is a lot to be learned from that and that is relevant to us still today. >> well, i agree with the sentiments. they started writing the federalist papers at the end of october 1787 and by the end of 1787, several states had already adopted the constitution before half of the federalist papers had been written. none of the people in georgia or delaware had read the vast majority of those papers. i do not think it is possible to say the federalist papers

do they know constitutional doctrine or not?y know there's something wrong with washington because by its fruits you shall know it. and the fruits of washington are such that the american people are getting poorer. the people are less free than ever because they live under a government that passes laws with impunity that would make king george ii blush. it's true. we don't have to have a revolutionary war to change this because our law already protects us. we you just have to know what the protections are, and that the whole point of the constitution is to make the federal government less powerful and therefore less prone to abuse, but people hear that every day. donald trump doesn't always use the same words that i do. he doesn't always use the terms federalism, separation of powers, and... not always, structural power sharing, but he gets it, he gets it because he cares deeply about the american people, and he sees that people are suffering under oppression. governments, that's why... mom, why do we need these letters for a fa

the president of the constitutional convention was an opponent of the constitution. others left the convention. there were big players in new york politics and opposed it. so they thought something had to be done. that is why they wrote these papers. peter: we are going to show a little video about how the founding era and hamilton in particular had entered into popular culture. >> ♪ hear me out. a series of essays anonymously published defending the documents of the public. >> no one would read it. if it fails? >> that's why we would need it. ♪ ♪ peter: professor sheehan, what has been the impact of the musical hamilton on the understanding and popularity of studying the constitution? prof. sheehan: it is fabulous. i love it. i did not get to see the musical, hamilton, but i know most of the songs because my students know them all and when it first came out, i heard them singing them in the hallways. so it was a slice of american history that became not only popular, but became a topic of conversation among people. just like that series on john adams did. these are

the original constitution of the united states of america. provides for a government with three main branches each with special functions uncle jim says, this is how they work. the constitution provides that the law shall be made by the legislative branch. carried out by the executive branch and interpreted by a third branch of the government the judicial branch to make certain no law violates the constitution. legislative executive judicial these are the three main branches of our federal government now bill. let's go take a look at one of them. well, we went on to take a look at each of the three branches to see how it works. our first stop was the capital building. that's where the legislative branch or congress meets uncle. jim was anxious to tell me first-hand. just what congress does after all he's a congressman. he explained it to me this way. the capital is that heart of our systemntative government bill the members of congress who meet there make our laws that they can act only according to powers granted them by the constitution. th

what are the constitutional amendments which had since the constitution was adopted in 1787?are all familiar with the bill of rights which were adopted in 1791 after the constitution was approved and essentially part of the constitution. since then we have had 17 amendments adopted between 1792 and today. of those 17 amendments 10 delta specifically with election related matters. we have tweak our election system over the years and all talk about them in categories but one of the expansion of the franchise and the second is structural changes that have taken place since the constitution so the franchise has included the 15th amendment which prohibits discrimination based on race in terms of providing citizens with voting rights and the 19th amendment which does the same with respect to gender as was described. the 23rd amendment which gives the residents of the district of columbia where we are right now, three electoral votes so even though there's no representation in the senate or congress the district of columbia through this 23rd amendment has three electoral votes which

would it require a constitutional amendment? guest: yes, it would require a constitutional amendment to change the electoral college to alter its operation or abolish it. most americans are very confused by the electoral college. i wanted to say that the practice of not having the electors names on the ballots adds to that confusion. very, very few states include electors on the ballot. it is a confusing process, and i think that there's not a good reason not to have a national popular vote. the idea that the electoral college is simply a two-step democratic process, like the election for governor in the state for the election for senator, is really -- that is not an apt comparison/ what happens in two-step elections for governor, senator, or congressman is in the primary the candidates is -- the field of candidates is narrowed. electoral colleges, the field of voters is narrowed. trent knows this because i've seen him say it many times. the real election, let's be clear, happens in december when the electors give their votes. w

kamala harris hates the constitution. their base hates the constitution.about fundamental transformation of america they all do obama, both obama's, biden's talked about it kamala harris talks about it, what does that mean? the constitution does not allow a political party to fundamentally transform america. in fact it exists to stop it. what do you think critical race theory the 1619 project all these marxist movements are about? just during the constitution. it was not that long ago they were telling us the constitution is an old document written by slaveholders we've got to get rid of it. got to get around it. was ther their hero woodrow wiln the other entered 110 years ago. were talk might use in the courts to change the constitution and so what do they appoint? activist judges what is the purpose of an activist judge to get around this the constitution of the united states. they do not believe in the independence of the supreme court. kamaltrent took 13 beliefs we increase the number certainly were talking about and their party was to pack the court t

but not clear in the constitution. there's kinds of ambiguities, but there's this mythology that somehow the pardon power like that of king george, the third king pardons be conditioned in the same way. parole can be conditioned even they're not commutations or. yeah. so back to abraham lincoln's time, he conditioned pardons of confederate soldiers or people and participated in the civil war on behalf of the the confederacy. he conditioned those on taking an oath to that the national government in my book, john, who was white house counsel for richard nixon, writes the foreword and he talks about how he drafted a conditional pardon for a very high pardon, a jimmy hoffa gangster or teamster union organizer. ah, and that was later the conditional pardon by mr. claiming that that it was on he lost that. but that is also in our history now not expressed in the constitution your book it's incredibly wide ranging you know it goes back at a couple of paragraphs to the hammurabi code and something like. 1600 or 1800 b.c. and i

as a patriot, as a mother, as someone who reveres our constitution, i am honored to join her in this urgent cause. [cheers and applause] as we meet here today, our republic faces a threat unlike any we have faced before. a former president who attempted to stay in power by unraveling the foundation of our republic. by refusing to accept the lawful results confirmed by dozens of courts of the 2020 election. we cannot turn away from this truth. in this election, putting patriotism ahead of partisanship is not an aspiration, it is our duty. [cheers and applause] at the very heart of our survival as a republic is the peaceful transition of power. ronald reagan said this was nothing short of a miracle, that every four or eight years the most powerful office in our land, indeed the most powerful office in the world, is passed peacefully to a new president. the united states of america, violence does not and must never determine who rules us. voters do. [applause] and in this country, under our constitution, our president has a particular solemn obligation to ensure and guarantee the peacef