why was the constitution proposed? ter jefferson wrote the declaration of independence, the revolutionary war was fought and the 13 colonies created a government under a document known as the articles of confederation. it passed in 1777 by the continental congress. it was drafted in 1776 and approved in 1777. we see from the explanation it six pages long and contained 13 articles. but there was a problem with the articles of confederation. it was too loose a union. as a result the government that , resulted was not strong enough to wage war, to maintain fiscal unity, to manage the economy. during the revolutionary war, george washington famously struggled to get the funds necessary to actually conduct the war. he was always writing to the continental congress asking for more money. under the articles of confederation, the colonies are not able to avoid that problem of lack of coordination. as a result, there was unrest. debtors rebellions transfixed the framers. shays rebellion in massachusetts where debtors rioted and

a visit to the national constitution center in philadelphia to learn about the exhibit constituting liberty. our tour guide is president and ceo jeffrey rosen. mr. rosen: the national constitution center is a special place. if the only institution in america that has a charter from congress to disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis. we bring together all sides and the constitutional debate that transfixes america. you, the people can make up your own mind. we do that in three ways. with the museum of "we the people," a beautiful museum in independence hall. i'm looking at one of the most beautiful constitutional views in america, independence hall where the u.s. declaration of independence and constitution were drafted. and the philadelphia townhome. you can find his on c-span and also online at constitutioncenter.org. and the center for constitutional education. we are building the best interactive constitution on the web see you can click on any provision, here the best arguments about its history and contemporary meeting and decide what you think it me

, the last draft of the constitution looks the way we understand the constitution with seven major articles the draft before that had 22 article so the constitution didn't look anything like how we understand it and madison late in his life says it wants mores who took all these disparate sections and regrouped them into the way we understand constitution. >> we also tend to think of folks at the constitutional convention as framers. did they have a view on whether or not the notes, transcriptions of the convention should be kept confidential or private forever or not? did they have a consensus on that? >> one of the things i completely disagree with. there is a great myth that the convention was supposed to be secret forever and they did and allow the public in at the time. it wasn't unusual when the senate opened its doors in the new government, the senate doesn't allow anyone to come in either and only in the 1790s does it finally change its view that people should hear its deliberations. i argue in the books that no one at the time fox convention records should be secret forever, just t

the idea of a constitution. the notion is if you're going to write a constitution you must mean for it to be superior to ordinary law. as if that's a self-evident proposition. then later in the opinion he finally gets -- almost by way of afterthought, by the way, there's article 6 of the constitution. this constitution and all laws enacted in pursuant thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. so we start writing with the text but in marshall's times the general principles were so self-evident to him, that's where he started. finally, in talking about magna carta's legacy, i think there's the tradition of an organic evolving, unfolding constitution. looking around the room and i don't see justice scalia here. if he is i might be a little more careful in what i have to say. he can come up and beat up the lecturer. it brings us down to appearing lo american history, what today might be call the living constitution. the words justice scalia might not want to hear. one may object it to but it's there. so much part

there was no constitutional this point but making the case the we would recognize to be a constitutional case and decided with coke who had decided it case in 1610 pin or this language that's as after parliament it is nil and 40. but the doctrine never really took hold in but it was opposing the existence but in london with the government of the cabinet to make those excess of arguments at this point of the commentary on the law of england and says parliament makes law and calls the shots but did not recognize limitations in the past crazy laws and moral laws but they were the law hear they sit there are constitutional limits so on the two sides of the atlantic opposing please of view it is small wonder because english and the americans rarely this story after that with the philadelphia audience is still packed was passed they have the internal text into how the american colonist reacted to that. the also clean the trial cases that the courts had to injuries and didn't of trial by jury was the right back to magna carta. but with a firestorm of a quarter troops to dissolve the colonial as

i am a law professor i know the constitution. president bush the greatest problem is that is aggregating more power to the executive executive branch i'm going to reverse that. when the president makes an cost of -- it undermines their constitutional culture and that is unprecedented. bringing about how he's going to go run congress i don't think any other president has done it. undermining the oic as the president and they their cold in the beginning of the frustration. ackerman has been upset about that and for good reason. the increase in executive power often dramatic increase in emergencies depression world war i, world war ii the cold war. there've been no emergency to justify these things. instead of trying like clinton did to compromise republicans he will do whatever he wants and finally usually when a president has pushed executive power in one specific area like the nixon administration in vietnam to come up with but not broadly in so many different areas and parts of the law the way the obama administration is done. wh

to 49 of the 50 other state of the constitutions it's undemocratic because 49 of the 50 constitutions include some role for direct democracy. federalist 63 is where publius makes it clear that there should be no direct role for we the people in governance. the only thing we should ever do at the national level is vote for incentives who will do our thinking for us who will make the decisions for us. if you -- say if you look at the states as well as, you know, other countries around the world including switzerland or new zealand which we don't view as crazy countries or within the united states i would like to focus on main and ohio rather than california because there's the widespread view that california is crazy where as nobody ever says this about main or ohio. democracy can be a pretty important safety valve. one of the things that explains the tremendous anger in contemporary american politics at the national level specially is and all too plausible believe that elections really don't matter much at the national level because if you want to change things, if you like the status

delegate cannot be a voting member of the house under the constitution. his is a purely political symbolic movement of people who have been pushing for more power. nevertheless, the attorney general holder and by implication president obama himself would under man -- one of the very few checks on presidential authority at the beginning of the administration for basically no reason. to symbolism and politics. this reflected the the attitude that is worth coming later. there is nothing about republicans in congress that has to do with the separatist dysfunctional in congress, this was at a time when democrats controlled the house and senate by a large majority. another example of i want to spend more time war powers in libya. the war powers act was passed in passed in 1975, it five, it is mentoring and executive authority after nixon bombed cambodia secretly without congressional authorization, killing several hundred thousand people. the law says that when hostilities are involved with foreign countries that the president has to inform congress and it has 9

kim davis didn't violate a law, all she had was the kentucky constitution. the law the people speak of is the supreme court ruling made by the nine supreme court justices or five unelected lawyers. the court can't make law. that's been evident since the beginning of the constitution, jeffersoning affirmed that, madison, jackson, that makes the supreme court the supreme branch and overrules the other two. so congress can make a law, that's their constitutional duty. the courts can't. >> so in fact unless you see an affirmative law about same-sex marriage you don't believe that's the law of the land? >> well, there's nothing in the constitution that even speaks to marriage period. not just same sex marriage. there's nothing in the constitution that speaks to marriage at all. >> right. >> so how do the courts reach out and create a right that is never defined in the constitution if the limitation of their review is in fact the u.s. constitution? and that's what they're responsible for doing and they reach beyond their responsibility. i mean if you read kennedy's

the u.s. constitution. was on december 5, 1865 that the state of georgia ratified the 13th minute, ringing the number of ratifying states to 27. enough to put it over the top. 13 days later, ratification was officially certified and the amendment proclaimed to be part of the constitution by secretary of state when stewart -- william stewart, who had recovered from the wounds suffered the same night of lincoln's assassination. as a result of rebellion, the use of indentured servants was discredited. at the time to some, the difference between stably -- slavery and indentured servants -- to hear modern americans call the substitution of indentured servants -- the abrasive slavery was a near fatal error. it wrong turns in history can be difficult to correct. it wasn't because no one saw the danger. american quakers preach against it almost from the start. revolutionary war thinkers condemned it and try to come up with what they saw workable -- maybe slavery would have straightaway if the cod industry was not a

when the constitution passed, he congratulated maryland. an infantry regiment about how a mob attacked massachusetts troops as it passed through baltimore in 1861 and he noted the world has moved since then. ceases inlavery maryland. lincoln addressed the celebratory crowd of african-americans. it is no secret that i have wished mankind everywhere to be free. in lincoln'slted victory. republicans picked up enough seats in the house to assure the 39th congress would pass the amendment resolution. lincoln proclaimed victory. so did fragrant douglas. -- frederick douglass. lincoln worked hard to get the amendment passed by the house. the message was not a sure thing. many democrats continue to oppose it. others believe the amendment exceeded the scope of what article five allowed. it addressed slavery in the states. lincoln lobbied some democratic members. he met and the last week with two lame-duck immigrant congressman. john t stewart of illinois, he knew about a lobby effort to together by the secretary of i was not able to find a link betwe

the constitution had many people around the country were persuasivapprehensive about the constitutionthe federalist papers were fundamentally designed to convince voters that the constitution was a great thing. >> gentlemen stay with us. transambiguity informative messages and paying attention to >> welcome back to "inside story." i'm ray suarez. many of the world's great nations derive sense of themselves from the very idea that they are very old. even if their political systems are new, their peoplehood is ancient. think of russia, china, germany, the united states likes to look at itself as a very young place, even though its order is 225 years old. we aren't as obsessed with our history as people are in other places. as we appreciate alexander hamilton, i want to ask my guests whether americans can manage the trick of being very much in the now while still keeping in mind the memory of the man, who was the first treasury secretary , professor green, douglas hamilton, how do we balance the need for modern heroes and heroines, with someone like your great great great great grandfath

at the time they were writing it they were avoiding a lot in writing the constitution. new that there were people being born in the united states at that time who would not get citizenship, slaves, none of them would get citizenship. the natives on reservations, none of them would get citizenship. so they were very conscious of this. so the ambiguity by the constitutional scholars who have studied it, they feel there's a certain intentional failure to define this specifically and so then you're left with this guesswork of what did they mean in searching all of these extra sources a the time. and ted cruz just doesn't want anyone to get deeply involved in that scholarship right now. >> he sure doesn't. and trump, look, trump is brilliant. he may not -- he's not a sophisticated legal mind. probably never -- didn't know who laurence tribe was until three days ago. >> his first quote of laurence tribe ever. >> exactly. none the less, trump has honed in on the fact that it is ambiguous. we don't know. it may have to be litigated. and so how can a national political party roll

the constitution. ere are 27 amendments to the united states constitution passed and ratified by the united states of america. however, that said, the constitution is amended every single year, by just people who wear robes on the united states supreme court. and so often times it is contrary to the people of the united states. even worse, you see the supreme court actually rewrite laws, embarrassingly what chief justice roberts did in the obamacare case where the supreme court played the role of a super legislature. >> but the founders didn't want to just cede everything to the majority. that is not the kind of republic they envisioned. your version, if we had the supreme court, let's say the supreme court decision casey where they looked at planned parenthood and said yeah, we're going uphold roe versus wade but uphold the rights of lawmakers to curtail those rights. they could erode abortion rights on the edges. let's say two-thirds of the states said no, no erosion. then it would just be the will of

father of the constitution? >> i don't know that he was the father of the constitution but the thing i came away from was how terribly important it is not as objective record but has a way for us to understand how difficult be problems were that they face. i came away with the enormous respect for how close the country was to falling apart and how much different people with different opinions struggled to try to hold it together, how remarkable the document was that was written in philadelphia, but how different it looked to them than it looks to us. this is not the document they thought they were writing, and great surprise to all of them. >> mentioning a couple things about the building. we actually have a place where you will see the life-size model of the framers so you see how short james madison was which may be a real victory for short people. mary's book, in the kirby lobby, thank you for sharing. >> thanks very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> next, melvin urofsky from the bill of rights boo

the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis. i cannot imagine a more inspiring for film and of our congressional charter than the program we are about to share with you today. with our great partners at the federal judicial center led by judge jeremy fogel we have assembled some of the greatest federal judges in the country for two days of discussion and conversation about the historic and contemporary meaning of the reconstruction amendment. the reconstruction amendments are the amendments that were passed after the civil war to end slavery and guarantee equal rights. we have assembled the greatest historians in the country to talk about their historic and contemporary meaning. this symposium is bipartisan and assembles people of different perspectives for conversation and debate about the meaning of this text which unites us. this is the central purpose of the national constitution center. we recently launched exciting interactive constitution which we believe is the best on the web in partnership with the federalist society an

administration while the living up to our conception of a limited constitution. and so, that affords us ample opportunity to hold forms as far as the eye could see which is why we exist to change. we have time for just one more question. that's okay. this gentleman right here in the front. if you could wait for the microphone please. >> i think you can make an argument about carter and ronald reagan violated the spirit of the law but when would you begin or what you tell us about the first presidents in the postwar period who may have set in motion the trend to take it easy >> you have had limited to the postwar period when in fact it should be limited dan batt and teddy roosevelt is exited a from the limited government. the president vetoed a bill of hundred years after the constitution was written and provided the sum of $10,000 for the relief of texas farmers who were suffering from a drought and he said he could find no authority for this expenditure under the constitution. that is a constitutional veto. rarely do you find that kind of statements today. it doe

the supreme court. we can find out whether it's constitutional or not. the members of congress who vote on laws have taken an oath to the constitution, the supreme law of the land. they have an obligation to figure out for themselves whether that violates the constitution before it ever gets to a lawsuit. the president of the united states who signs bills into law has the same oath and has an obligation to evaluate its constitutionality. every branch of government, every official of government takes an oath to the constitution. you know, to some degree, these issues need to be settled in the political process, through elections, not just through litigation. so i would say to you, you know, the mayor of new york made his pitch. and maybe in a few years, the voters won't like what the result has been. and maybe you'll get a new mayor with a different kind of perspective. but we can't cede all the power -- i say this as a federal judge -- all the responsibility and all the power to the courts to make the ultimate constitutional determinations. other branches

the average life expectancy at the time of the constitution was about 50 years old. they didn't expect that. the way the escort is built, presidents are -- what they try to do is find the most ideologic individual who's young enough, who's old enough to have some experience but young enough they can survive another 40 years. you look at the last set of nominees, roberts was 50, kagan was 50, alito and sotomayor was also 50. what the presidents were incentivized to do is find somebody who is very ideologic and already has these entrenched views. most of the justices in the supreme court worked in a presidential administration, whether it was reagan or ford or obama, most worked in a presidential administration, i don't think you want third parties deciding how to interpret our laws. >> this latest era that gabe defines really start with clarence thomas who was young was ideologic could be expected to be around for a long time on the bench ? >> well, i do think it started about that time. and clearly, it's become the trend . i think in the past 30 years or so justices s

here is washington with his own copy of the constitution outlining his role as president and setting the precedent for the future. something like that is so historically significant. things might be valuable, but there will be another copy of a book. this has meaning beyond compare. >> when i was first asked what i thought of this acquisition, it immediately -- i knew that it was a top priority from mount number onehin our category of trying to return original objects, but in my mind it exceeded that because of the fact that it is so crucial to the formation of the early years of government as an american experiment and republican democracy. just in term of george washington's wonderful and remarkable legacy. it really is above a top priority for mount vernon to have a magnificent work like this here at george washington's home where it can be appreciated and enjoyed by millions year. >> i am the 20th regent of the mount vernon ladies association. i represented the ladies at the auction in christie's. you could feel the energy in the room and as it neared the actual suddenlyheightened

a new constitution. thegovernment has made it absolutely clear however that notwithstanding the establishment of a constitutional parliament, the existing procedure is going to be followed with respect to the final adoption of a new constitution. so the constitutional assembly will propose a draft to parliament, parliament will then have to pass it with a two-thirds majority vote. and after that the approved constitution will have to be approved by the people at a referendum. >> what are some of the most important changes that are expected to be debated? this is very much an inclusive process as we've heard the government announcing from day 1. what are the main changes that are expected? >> well, the existing constitution is fundamentally flawed for one way, electoral reform, to introduce a mixed electoral system which will hopefully produce a more inclusive parliament, the bill of rights will have to be amended and with respect to the judiciary and the supremacy of the constitution. however the tamil polit

the constitution is clear, sort of, on who can be president. why was that qualification in there in the first place? has our interpretation changed over time, who's natural born? it's the "inside story." welcome to "inside story." i'm ray suarez. you heard it from republicans during the rise of arnold, when the governor of michigan. too bad they can't run for president. the constitution bars the foreign born from taking office. doesn't it? the speculation about the meaning of article 2 comes from how plain and opaque it is at the same time. no person except a thats-born citizen, or a citizen at the u.s. at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office the president. neither will have shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of 35 years and been 14 years a resident within the u.s. ted cruz moved to the u.s. when he was four, so check. he is 45. check. not born at the time of the constitution, so that doesn't apply. that opening clause, no person except a natural born citiz

after the constitution -- you can't amend the constitution afterwards. at congress passed the statute that said if you're born abroad to a u.s. citizen, you shall be considered as a natural born citizen. being considered as something is not the same thing as being something. i mean, i may say i consider you as my brother. that doesn't mean i had a dna test and it turns out we share the same parents. it meanings i treat you like i treat my brother. >> wouldn't it mean to that congress you get all the privileges of the natural born citizen? >> well, as madison made clear, congress does not have the power to define constitutional terms. the only power congress has was to naturalize citizens. that is naturalize somebody who's an alien into a citizen. so madison actually said when they reconsidered that said, well, you know, that phrasing isn't actually quite right and they amended the statute to drop naturally born to just say people who are born abroad to a u.s. citizen are automatically citizens. but not that they're naturally-born citizen. >> and it's wort

he is a strong and principled believer in the constitution and the liberties. i am grateful for his testimony about the campaign. i am here today because i want you to caucus for me in iowa. it is the most and port in -- most important privilege we are given in this republic. it is the most important right to be able to choose our leaders. here in iowa, you place such an extraordinary role in choosing a president. in 33 days, when the country decides who will lead the nation in the aftermath of barack obama, i hope i earn that support. if you already are on our scene, our hope is to find more people to support us. i cannot emphasize how important this election is for america. and this is by far, the greatest nation in human history. there has never been a country like america and the history of the world. it was founded on a principle that our rights come from god, not the government. and you and i on the principles that all human beings are equal in the eyes of our creator. therefore, that is why we believe that all human life is worthy of the protection of ou

," exploring the constitutional dramas between several supreme court decisions. >> number 759. chief justice burger: we will hear arguments for number 18, roe v. wade. >> quite often in many of our most famous decisions, the court took quite unpopular cases. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in this society of 310 million different people who help stick together because they believe in the rule of law. host: good evening, and welcome to c-span's "landmark cases." tonight, the 12th and final in our history series, the 1973 roe v. wade decision, a decision that continues to rock the american political landscape. we will learn more about that in the next 90 minutes, but, first, we are going to start with a "cbs evening news" report on the night of the decision was announced. mr. cronkite: in a landmark ruling, the supreme court legalized abortions. a majority in cases from texas and georgia said a decision to end the pregnancy during the first three months belongs to the woman and her doctor, not the government. thu

the constitution is not that specific about what it is. time to time, this needs to be given on the state of the union. in 1913 we had a new president to have been trained as a political scientist. he had a phd in political science. woodrow wilson written a dissertation about congress and congressional government. one of the things he felt was the american president needed to be more like the british prime minister. he couldn't be separate from the legislative branch. he had to be the chief legislator and chief executive. wilson decided he would go in person to deliver his message. the first was in 1913. it was not a state of the union per se. they didn't know what to do with it. the president was going to speak to them? they decided they would do in the house chamber and invite the senator is over. there was a lot of grumbling. they probably would not have one of the president to come. the president said he wanted to end the party said ok. he began the tradition of presidents going each year to give their state of the union message. he gav

the second amendment. dr. malcolm is an historian and constitutional scholar active in the area constitution has great focusing on development of individual rights and great written in america. she has written numerous books and articles on gun control, the second amendment and individual rights. .. university and cambridge university. i want to thank all of you for joining us here today and we will start with attorney general strange. welcome to the committee. mr. strange: thank you. i thank vice-chairman mikulski for inviting me. i'm honored to accept your invitation to speak on an issue of importance to all americans -- reducing gun violence while ensuring the fundamental right of citizens to bear arms is not infringed. i wish to commend your centrally for convening this panel because these goals are not mutually exclusive. my duty is to enforce the law and i am here today as the chief law enforcement officer to deliver the law enforcement officers on the streets perspective on this issue. for the last five years, i have witnessed the challenge of safeguarding the gun rights of law-abiding citizens alsork l

the constitutions that exists today still the best constitution but i think we would have been better off if these states had stayed 13 states instead of coming together in a federal government. nobody observes the constitution if you read the constitution it's been interpreted out of existence even in the bill of rights it's meaningless in the day and i make a point about the fact country would have been better if it had never come together or stayed an independent state. >> as a business person how much involvement in the government do you have? >> i try to teach my hobby for the last 30 years has been going to third world countries often military dictatorships and things like that and talking to the guys that run the country, giving them a radical program to take their place off the bottom of the totem pole and turned it. so i've had some wonderful adventures doing that. for the last month i spent ten days in the islamic republic talking to the governments and the rich guy is about the modifications to my usual plan making it into a free state. will i succeed, not so far this is a

the u.s. constitution. "no person except a natural born citizen or citizen of the united states at the time of the adoption of this constitution shall be eligible to the office of president." expatriate?next patrio guest: this goes to renouncing one's citizenship. i would suggest possibly you wouldn't be eligible. congress has an enumerated power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. and unlike now, to naturalized someone -- when parliament naturalized someone, they could make individual foreign-born people into english subjects, but they could also define what the concept of natural born citizen was. of thesed do both things and that is the power of naturalization the congress got. nichols putr john forth legislation to define this term. senator orrin hatch took one step further introducing legislation called the equal right to govern amendment. it would have allowed immigrants who had the naturalized and lived here for at least 20 years to run for president. ruth marcus in the washington post poin

a visit to the national constitution center in philadelphia to learn about the exhibit constituting liberty. our tour guide is president and ceo jeffrey rosen. mr. rosen: the national constitution center is a special place. if the only institution in america that has a charter from congress to disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis. we bring together all sides and the constitutional debate that transfixes

. >> the president of the united states is the chief constitutional officer of the country. the current occupant of the white house is a lawyer, and a be constitutional law professor, who as he noted today knows what the constitution says, but when he uses his executive power and tries to get around or ahead of congress, he has often drawn criticism. the speaker of the house, paul ryan of wisconsin, was harshly critical of the president's action, saying from day one, the president has never respected the right of safe and legal gun ownership that our nation has valued from its founding. it does not stem from the speaker or the president being wrong or deluded or criminal, but the way that the u.s. code is written in the first place, that is open to interpretation. when the president talks of extending background be checks, he, in effect, is applying the definition of a gun dealer to more people. the u.s. code defines people as a, any person engaged in the business of selling firearms in wholesale or retail, or b, any person in the business of repairinger firearms, or making

it had been all but redacted from the text of the constitution. redacted is a lawyers term meaning excised or eliminated. for this reason, perhaps it is no surprise that the court's decision in slaughterhouse has been widely criticized by constitutional scholars. as yale law school has said, no serious modern scholar thinks that slaughterhouse is a plausible reading of the 14th amendment. not that the modern consensus is unanimous. university of illinois law professor kurt lash has taken up the mantle of defending the court's opinion in slaughterhouse. professors michael ross and pam brandywine have also had some kind things to say about the opinion in the case, as do jonathan lorre in his marvelous 2003 book about the case. many of these are down in the book store downstairs. i know they like when i say things like this. [laughter] mr. barnett: i will not litigate the dispute. my own view is that the majority misrepresented is a matter of public record. i think in the interest of full disclosure i should mention that law professors richard ames, s

of the united states of america and not dismantle the constitution. i do find it aan affront that people will choose to circumvent that. >> some people are passionate about it. it is not so much the arms but what the governments saying what they can or cannot do. >> reporter: the white house says it is too easy for someone who wants to commit a crime to acquire a gun. a result is expected to come as early as this week >>> to a century's old tradition. jinlt size puppets are no longer used to ward off evil but they are thriving in other ways in the capital of jakarta. >> reporter: giant puppets are used here. a frame is made of bamboo and hollow, allowing the puppet master to crawl inside and bring his puppet to life. they were originally made to represent an says tores to ward of spirits spirits. they're still popular and sought after at weddings and circumcision ceremonies. children get a kick out of seeing the puppets walk through the streets. >> it is fun and it is entertaining. >> reporter: on weekends and public holidays these are usually at the s