this is a letter from the james madison papers. is is a letter that madison wrote to jefferson in the summer of 1788. james madison was one of the authors of the federalist essays and later on he would draft the amendments that would become the bill of rights. in this period, he was not sure yet of the bill of rights. in this letter to jefferson, he says the delay of a few years will assuage the jealousies artificially created and will point out the faults which really call for amendment. he thought it would take a little time before they knew it would need to be amended. what he is saying is that a bill of rights should wait until later on. this is thomas jefferson's reply. what jefferson does is she thinks madison for -- he thanks for the news but says he knew it already. madison has sent him a copy and jefferson says he already has a copy. jefferson flatters madison and says with respect to the federalist, the three authors have been named to me. he says i read it with care and pleasure and was satisfied there was nothing in it b

sounds to me like there was political intrigue between john jay and alexander hamilton and then james madison when they got to philadelphia. >> it could very well be the case. we do not know everything about it. madison wrote a letter explaining some of the creation of the federalist papers and they asked others as well to join them, but were turned down. the interesting thing about that is that they also had day jobs while they are still cranking out two essays per week for seven months. it is really remarkable what they were able to accomplish. they did not have a lot of time to coordinate. they did not get to read each other's essays before they were printed. they had a general outline. if they came out a little bit different, that is just how they came out. >> so basically, no email. >> certainly not. >> did this ever get published in a book, all of these essays that were printed in the new york newspapers? >> yes, and that book is called the federalist, first published in 1788. they had to write their own essays. the first federalist paper was published october 27th, 1787. within the wee

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 three newspapers, a new york packet, the independent journal from october 1787 until august 1788. we are standing outside fraunces tavern which has been here since 1719. by the time the papers were published, it was one of the most reputable taverns and would have been well known to hamilton personally as he had been a member of the new york sons of liberty before the revoluti

james madison of the separation powers. and i just thought that was really, really cool feature of sort of this exercise that came out of it. it was so striking. and there are voices today on the left and the right that want to break up with the constitution or trash the whole thing. and none of our teams wanted to do that. as you said. they wanted to amend it or amended and all focusing on these questions of constitutional structure. well, justice gorsuch, you mentioned the ideals of the declaration, and you eloquently began to articulate them and the big ideas are liberty, equality and democracy. you can take them separately or together, but what do you want? our students on constitution day to know about those ideals of the declaration, liberty, equality and democracy? let's let's start with the last one. democracy. what does that mean? it means we're short of disagree, right. that we are going to govern ourselves. can you guys agree on where to go to lunch today? probably not. if i took a poll, there would be a severe d

so james madison, who wrote the virginia plan and. and worked on this thought that people are naturally ambitious for power and that you had to break power apart. and so you expect a democratic system to be a little messy and have disagreements. yeah. yeah, yeah. that's that's a feature, not a bug. okay. do you have a president disagree with congress? is that what he wanted? that's exactly what madison wanted. he said better decisions are going to come of it. when you throw all the ideas in the hopper and people fight with one another politely, politely. okay. that was it. all right. federalism. more separation of powers. right. what's federalism? who wants to help me with that? or somebody give me a hand on federalism, please. come on. you. you've spoken. you've spoken. give me. there's a hand that. a hand that. that's a hand you. what's federalism. go ahead. i appreciate that. first of all. no, that's much more generally now stuff. okay. okay. here we get a hand in the back. she said the details of the sharing of our state exam. she

written by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay.heory were later combined into a book called the federalists. because of the authors addressed a wide range of political issues including conflict between the states, taxation and foreign influence, they are still considered vital documents today for understanding the original intent of the constitution. the federalist papers continued to have an impact on the issues of contemporary america. >> welcome to books that shaped america, our c-span series that looks at how books have influenced who we are today. in partnership with the library of congress, this 10 week series looks at different eras, topics and viewpoints. we are glad you are joining us for this walk-through history. tonight, our focus is the federalist, compilation of essays written by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay. essays known today as the federalist papers. our guest this evening is judge gregory maddox and colleen sheehan, politics professor at arizona state university. professor sheehan, back in 1787,

there are nine public schools named after alexander hamilton, five for john jay, theres james madison university in virginia. there are mo tn 200 breakfastin to the federalistapers and supreme court decisions. more than 3000 references to federalist 78 by sreme court justices. there hamilton statues in washington dc. the james madison building at the library of congress and the john jay statue at new york city college. this is alexander hamilton. liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but what have everything to fear fromts what was the importance of federalist number 78? judge maggs: hamilton described the judiciary, talking about how judges were appointed, the tenure and powers and one of his famous quotes was, they have neither the sword nor the purse, they only decide questions. they cannot spend money or engage in any action except deciding questions. he wrote about the importance of having an independent judiciary. he said it does not make sense to have limited government without it because there is no way to enforce it. if you talked about judicial review be

the james madison building at the library of congress and the john jay statue at new york city college. this is alexander hamilton. liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but what have everything to fear from its what was the importance of federalist number 78? judge maggs: hamilton described the judiciary, talking about how judges were appointed, the tenure and powers and one of his famous quotes was, they have neither the sword nor the purse, they only decide questions. they cannot spend money or engage in any action except deciding questions. he wrote about the importance of having an independent judiciary. he said it does not make sense to have limited government without it because there is no way to enforce it. if you talked about judicial review before that but it is clear hamilton had thought about the idea that there were unconstitutional laws that would not be enforced. he also talked about the idea that judges had to be learned and know that presidents and the idea that they had to be independent to carry out duties. i think every judge is familiar with fe

so james madison wrote the virginia plan and worked on this thought that people aambitious for power and we had to break power apart and so you expect the democratic system to be a little messy and have disagreements, yeah. yeah. that's a feature not a bug. okay. the president disagree with congress? is that what he wanted? that's exactly what madison wanted. better decisions will come of it when you throw all of the ideas in the hot burner and people fight with each other politely. federalism, more separation of powers, right. what's federalism mean? help me with. somebody give me a hand. please come on. you've spoken, you've spoken. there's a hand. is that a hand? that's a hand. you. what's federalism? [away from microphone] >> go ahead. >> okay, okay. we have a hand in the back. exactly. [away from microphone] [inaudible] >> good for you. no. thank you. that's exactly right, okay. we havee some power we give to the federal government but do we give them all powers? can they doo everything? no. we have states too, right, and are states suppose today have a lot ofve governing power

james madison wrote that in the bill of rights but it didn't get fully ratified. a college student in texas wrote a term paper and said this is interesting, not that far off in application and maybe get a few more states, it could become part of the constitution. the teacher gave him a c. that was the craziest idea ever. it lit a fire under greg watson and he started writing letters. by himself. you know what they did, in 1992 got the 27th amendment. it became in a. >> what the national constitution center says is we have online. a scholar of the constitution, here's what everyone agrees about the right to free speech. two other scholars. 's where people disagree on the amount. and and here's what we agree on about these rights. >> and for your whole life. go to the interactive constitution, and we will go upstairs and launch in an hour, and you may know that from your math and science homework. the top liberal, with leaders and learn something, dig in deep and learning. and please join me in thanking neil gorsuch and janie nitze. >> c-span where history unfolds d

and james madison hold it they would listen to citizens they disagree with and that is why he adoptedhe constitution. justice gorsuch, tell us about medicine and civility at the constitutional convention. >> okay, we live in a time people are pretty tough, don't you think? and you think that is unique to our time and place. but it really isn't. and i'm not saying things couldn't be better now. i'm not saying that. they could be a lot better. but, the same sort of disagreements were going on in 1776. and in 1789. in 1789 when the constitution convention gathered, about 50 people from over the then colonies, the states, they weren't sure they were going to be able to come to agreement. most people thought it was futile. it wasn't going to work. you had big states versus small states. you had southern states versus northern states. you had commercial interest versus rural interests. the differences in those days. they may seem small to us today, but they were very big then. and one way they made sure they were going to reach success was by being kind to one another. those people who gath

doctor james madison of the 4—star marine — james madison of the 4—star marine general, trump's secretaryhat. earlier _ wholeheartedly with that. earlier this week, the chief of staff— earlier this week, the chief of staff 4—star generaljohn kelly staff 4—star general john kelly came — staff 4—star generaljohn kelly came out— staff 4—star generaljohn kelly came out and said on the record. _ came out and said on the record, that donald trump is a textbook— record, that donald trump is a textbook fascist would rule like a — textbook fascist would rule like a dictator. textbook fascist and would rule like a dictator. but trump's team have been doing their best to take the wind out of these types of accusations. the aim is to soften the former presidents image. as well as podcasts where donald trump talks about himself there's also been a series of photo ops where he serves french fries or plays golf. the latest of these was a visit to a las vegas bakery. he took that opportunity to deny reports that he praised hitler, telling reporters that his former chief made the whole thing up. take a li

james madison is on record, going to pay the chaplains, first federal congress comes around, james madison is on the committee, decided what sort of legislation chaplains are we going to have? this is 1789. one of congress's first acts is to select and had chaplains ever since, this is considered part of what we do in america. the us out front clause required a wall of separation between church and state, that would clearly be inappropriate. what the first amendment does is prohibits an establishment of religion, in the reasonable universes selecting a chaplain who leads people in voluntary prayer and establishment of religion which is why congress unanimously agreed to have chaplains in the house and senate and we've done so ever since and we do today. other than a few americans in places like the freedom from religion foundation, protestants and other americans united for separation of church and state does anyone worry about this. >> host: is a good thing? >> guest: it's a but 9 thing. would not bother me if congress decided not to do this anymore but it doesn't hurt most of anyone and

james madison is on the committee that decides. okay what sort of legislation legislative chaplains are we going to have. this is 1789. so one of congress's first acts is to select a chaplain for the house and a chaplain the senate. and we've had chaplains ever since. so this is just considered part of what we do in america. again, if the establishment clause required a wall of separation between church and state that would clearly be inappropriate. but what the first amendment does is, it prohibits an establishment of religion in no reasonable universe is selecting a chaplain who leads people in voluntary prayer and establishment of religion, which is why congress believe unanimously agreed to have chaplains in both the house and the senate. and we've done so ever since. and as you point out we do, too, today and other a few americans at places like the from religion foundation in protest and other americans united for separation of church and state. but does anyone worry about this? do you think it's a good thing. i think it's a

and now i'm honored to introduce our james madison lecture this afternoon. distinguished author and pulitzer prize winner, mr. jesse schiff. mischief is a graduate of williams college in massachusetts. since she's authored many, many articles for various publications such as the new yorker, the new york times, the washington post and many others. mischief is also the author of six books dealing with a wide variety of topics, such as benjamin franklin, the salem witch trials, cleopatra and one of my personal favorite historical figures. pilot and author antoine de saint-exupery. her book entitled vera ms. vladimir nabokov won the pulitzer prize for biography in 2000. her incredible 2005 book on benjamin franklin, which i think most of you have. entitled a great improvization franklin, france and the birth of america won the washington book prize, the the ambassador award in american studies and the gilbert chouinard prize. the book was also recently turned into a fantastic miniseries on apple tv plus called franklin and starring michael douglas. i think most

and now i'm honored to introduce our james madison lecture this afternoon. distinguished author and pulitzer prize winner, mr. jesse schiff. mischief is a graduate of williams college in massachusetts. since she's authored many, many articles for various publications such as the new yorker, the new york times, the washington post and many others. mischief is also the author of six books dealing with a wide variety of topics, such as benjamin franklin, the salem witch trials, cleopatra and one of my personal favorite historical figures. pilot and author antoine de saint-exupery. her book entitled vera ms. vladimir nabokov won the pulitzer prize for biography in 2000. her incredible 2005 book on benjamin franklin, which i think most of you have. entitled a great improvization franklin, france and the birth of america won the washington book prize, the the ambassador award in american studies and the gilbert chouinard prize. the book was also recently turned into a fantastic miniseries on apple tv plus called franklin and starring michael douglas. i think most

>> james madison, alexander hamilton, and john jay. >> the supreme court indicated courts are supposedaluate historical standards in deciding whether or not fire alarms regulation -- firearms regulations are constitutional. we will be at a tremendous loss if we do not know where we came from. understanding the federalist papers understand -- helps us understand what was going on when they wrote the constitution. we have to understand what it is we are trying to achieve so we can continue to become more perfect. the biggest challenge is the language. it is difficult to navigate. people are people but the way we talk changes. when we are thinking about what was written in the newspaper and compare it to a current newspaper articles they do not have much in common is of language and phrasing so getting the students to unpack the la is one of the biggest challenges. what i want my students to understand is that these ordinary humans were extraordinary heroes. we are having this national conversation about how we teach social science. the idea that multiple things can be true, we have peopl

it is in the spirit of james madison more than anybody else. his voice certainly is heard more than anyone else's voice in the book. and i think madison stands out in our political tradition for worrying about division. there are voices that worry about social order and dynamism. like hamilton. there are voices that worry something like social justice s and equality like jefferson. those voices are there in our political tradition. they are at their best. the right and the left. madison worries about social cohesion and unity in a way that almost nobody else does. lincoln does. and you can see why. but madison does it without without a civil war. it's what he worries about, above all, when he thinks about politics. in the era of the framing of the constitution. and so the book a lot from him. but i think there is a way that at at certain times madison is dismissive of the need for civic virtue. he thinks that the system can work as a kind of machine that resolves the problems of bad citizenship by the operation of the institutions. madison isn't

know of the federalist and anti-federalist and people like john adams and thomas jefferson and james madison and so on. the second party system had yet to be created and it was people like andrew jackson and henry clay and those guys and abraham lincoln. this was a moment of transition where the window was going to happen. the country was approaching its 50th anniversary and that was something of an achievement because everyone knew america was an experiment. that was the word that was often use. did the experiment worked and would we make it toto age 26? and with the values of the founding fathers were to continue on into the new generation? there was a lot of concern about that. even regardless of the sectionalism that were we continuing the story that we started in 1776. monroe invited lafayette under those circumstances that he was a figure of unity. some scholars will use the term a relic of the american revolution. in a positive sense not that he was president but he was a living reminder, a walking reminder of this and probably younger than some of the people here. he showed us the re

the system we know of from federalists and with people like like john adams and jefferson and james madison so on. and the second party system had yet to be created with people like andrew jackson and henry and those guys, and eventually abraham. so this was a moment of transition where no one knew what was going to happen the country. approaching its 50th anniversary and. that was something of an achievement because everyone knew america was an expert mean. that's the word that was often used. how would the experiment work? would we make it to 1826? and that also would the values of the founding fathers continue on in the generation? so there was a lot of concern about that even regardless of the sectionalism just were we continuing the story that we started in 1776 or so? monroe invited lafayette under. those circumstances that was a figure of unity he was a living and scholars will actually use this term relic of the american revolution as the positive sense that he was decrepit but that he was a living. remind you're a walking reminder in a sixties probably than some of the people here

what james madison said was these people don't trust us. we promise them would give them the bill of rights to ratify the constitution so we honored it was not to pullback our powers to protect the individual rights that people have. that's the reason why the bill of rights we have focused on individual rights because they could know of by the critics by giving them the bill of rights without leaving the structures of government and that's the reason and if edwards were satisfied with the amendment he cuts we are to have our individual rights but it turns out over time the anti-federalists were right. as government powers have expanded beyond the original meanings of the constitution we have become more and more dependent d on the right includg the bill of rights that we can thank the anti-federalists for portionsli of that. >> what you like like to be a libertarian at georgetown university? >> it'ss wonderful. it's great. my colleaguesy are great my colleagues treat me with respect and people think if you are a political minority and educa

so he's all about like james madison. let's let's ratify constitution. but then the way it's implemented is concentrating too much power. and the federal. so i don't think is a response to washington. i think there's a pretty consistent ideology throughout his life that you can follow. but i will say that i think washington's view of gates, which is pretty well documented as being being bad, has really clouded how historians. viewed gates especially look at read historians the 19th century. they hate gates even they want historians like gates, but especially like the 19 early 20th century's they're trying to celebrate washington this great founder of the nation and, he really doesn't like this other guy. the other becomes kind of the bad guy in many ways and ways that are sometimes another. washington's criticism always unfair. but i think the way that historians have often interpreted it has probably hurt gates's legacy a bit. and one way to think about it is it's not really much named after is like, think about the other revolutionary generals. there's

and james madison was a delegate. and james monroe was delegate. lot of luminaries and marshall wrote madison kind of poignant note where says jim says, look, i'm i can't come out of my room like, you know, from grief. he said, you know, i need not say how much i regret his loss. kind of like almost like, you know. right. he meant to me to the court are when i was a law student, i asked one of my professors who who's the greatest american lawyer, in your opinion? and his answer was, there's no such thing law as a collective prize. and i've come to see the wisdom of and that's especially telling when you look at it through ironically the life of the person. right. but a person who of embodied the spirit that the law be impersonal and i closed the book by saying that bushrod washington was washington's heir. but in a sense, we are all george washington's heirs because we are all trying to carry forward project that is america. he was the first that sort of had to of think hard about those things. but but we all have to do so as well. so i thank you fo