rakove: one quick response. if you know the second amendment stuff, that is a great example of repetition. that there was a standard model whose foundations were quite -- >> just a couple points about the things you said in relationship to the actual literature about the new originalism. think yourhing is, i two -- your dichotomy between these two approaches, right, that we have to choose between looking at a narrative versus looking at dictionary definitions, is a gross misrepresentation of what the new originalism actually says. so, on the one hand, it says that in order to understand what the words mean, what the communicative content of the text is, we have to put it in context. we need to put it in the context of the narrative. that is the only way to figure out where ambiguous terms are used, where we are trying to figure out the shape of an open textured term of what was actually communicated by the text. on the other hand, i think new originalists have been pretty consistent about disavowing the idea tha

it is a privilege that share to introduce jack rakove. jack briefed me how to pronounce his name, i think i screwed it up. even if i can't pronounce it, i've admired his work enormously. his first book, "the beginning of the national politics," was just published. it's a study of the continental congress. i remember being so impressed by it. it is a pathbreaking work, and it takes a different approach to the continental congress from what we have seen before. what set it apart from previous work was that it very thoughtfully and engaged with the members of congress as political actors confronting challenging issues in real time. he wrote in the preface, quote, "recognize a series of perplexing problems rooted in the distinctive character of the revolution and the dislocations it produced. novel issues, intractable problems, these were the usual determinants of revolutionary policymaking." this core approach of understanding, not just the ideology, not just the context, but very much the members of congress as political actors, is in appro

it is my pleasure to welcome rakove to the stage. [applause] rakove: thank you for the generous introduction. i know this building white well. a few seminars and constitutional history a few summers before. thought ofe, i georgetown law school as an outpost within the larger community. to come back to it now for another class and to see the remarkable development in this community the physical development and everything else is so much more impressive than it was a decade and a half ago. it is a pleasure. said, in terms of the dean, when i signed a contract a couple years ago one of the very first people i recruited was the dean because they wanted someone to write an essay on the -- the federalist as saying on the they had a book, the free exercise of religion so i spent a lot of time studying and i did notng understand if i did not have a lawyer's guide to know how to read them. some years ago, i was grateful to have been asked to write a brief. an interesting challenge and project. of theoud to be part should say the distinguished

it is a privilege that share to introduce jack rakove. jack briefed me how to pronounce his name, i think i screwed it up. even if i can't pronounce it, i've admired his work enormously. his first book, "the beginning of the national politics," was just published. it's a study of the continental congress. i remember being so impressed by it. it is a pathbreaking work, and

. >> up next, historian jack rakove on interpreting the u.s. constitution.e is the author of several books. one has the 1997 pulitzer prize for u.s. history. this lecture is about one hour, 15 minutes.