at the philadelphia convention, the framers of the constitution spend more time discussing the processof judicial selection than the criteria. according to madison's convention notes, the delegates considered appointment of federal judges by the national legislature. james wilson, pennsylvania's representative, opposed the proposal are doing it that intrigued, partiality, and concealment resulted from judicial appointments by legislatures. the primary reason for cceating a single executive, wilson reminded them,,was that one official would be responsible for nominations. john rutledge of south carolina who chaired tte committee on detailed countered that iraq -- granting so great a power to a single person would cause a person to think we are leaning towards a market. john rutledge would receive two appointments to serve on the supreme court. he resigned as a source it justice before the court convened to except appointment as the chief justice of the south carolina supreme court, thinking it would be more powerful. congress failed to confirm the is a recess appointment in 1795 after h

that were intended toendure for -- to endure for a long time and to be applicable to a nation that the framers knew would emerge, but they did not know in what form. that is why the most important part of the constitution are written in broad and sweeping language. one thing we know is that, at the second framing, in the reconstruction era, when congress fundamentally remade the united states -- before the civil war, if you read supreme court decisions that talked about united states, they used the plural. the united states are at war with britain in the war of 1812. after the civil war, that is where you get it being used as a single phrase. the united states is at war. when the reconstruction and amendments were enacted, what they said was -- they gave congress special power to enforce, by appropriate a decision, the guarantees that go into the rights of citizenship, the guarantees of the privileges and immunities clause, the " protection clause, -- the equal protection clause. they distrusted the supreme court. the supreme court is living off of the fumes of brown against board of education

they said that the second amendment, the framers were really first concerned with disarming the militia and self-defense was a secondary concern. justice breyer said that he didn't feel that you can say this was a fundamental right deeply embedded in american history and tradition because there is a lot of disagreement. there is no consensus about gun rights in this country. he felt that state legislatures, not courts, were the proper place to work through these issues. >> brown: so this gets sent back to the lower court, right? >> yes, it does. the court did not really rule specifically on the constitutionality of the chicago and oak wood park gun ordinances. it dealt with whether the second amendment could apply to the states. now it goes back to those lower courts where it seems almost inevitable that those gun ordinances will be struck down. >> brown: finally, marcia, in our first go-round with you, what was the atmosphere in the court today? what was it like? >> it was subdued actually. i think it's because justice ginsburg's husband died yesterday. she was actually on the bench. s

. >> the framers created it after studying the great law givers in history. >> the government concedes that the destruction of documents in anticipation of a proceeding -- >> these cases are very important. we don't sit here to make the law. we decide who wins under the law that the people have adopted. >> if there are 4-9 of us that want to hear any of these cases, we'll hear it. >> we cannot have a decision of this court. >> why is it that we have an elegant imposing, impressive structure? it is to remind us that we have an important function and to remind the public of the importance of the knew tralt of the law. -- the nutrality of the law. >> it amazes me and gives me faith in our country to know hoo much people trust the courts. >> i think the danger is that sometimes people come into a building like this and think it important. that is something that i don't think works well for this job. >> outside, almost daily protests take place. inside, the law dominates. all around there are public faces continuing the symbolism of the law and artwork reminding us of those that have served

. >> the framers were incredibly wise men. if we always remember that, we'll do pretty well. because part of their wisdom was that they wrote a constitution for the ages. this was very much in their mind, this was part of their consciousness. even that phrase that i quoted yesterday from the preamble of the constitution, they said that the constitution was to secure blessings of liberty. i didn't quote the next part of the stage. he said lessons of liberty for themselves and their posterity. they were looking towards the future. they were looking generations and generations and generations ahead. and knowing that they were writing a constitution for all that period of time. and that life -- and that circumstances and that the world would change. just as it had changed in their own lives, very dramatically. so they knew all about change. and they wrote a constitution, i think, that has all kinds of provisions in it. so there's some that are very specific provisions. it just says what you're supposed to do and how things are supposed to work. so it says to be a senator, you have

. >> this is the highest court in the land and the framers created it after studying great lot givers in history -- lawgivers in history. >> the government concedes the destruction in these proceedings. >> we do not make a lot to decide who we want to win. we decide who wins and a lot that people have adopted. >> -- under the law that people have adopted. >> he would be surprised at the high level of congeniality. >> there are four a of the nine that want to hear these cases. we will hear it. >> cannot have a decision of the sport -- >> why is it we have an astonishingly beautiful, imposing an impressive structure? it is to remind us that we have an important function, and to remind the public when it sees the building the importance and centrality of the law. >> it always thrills me, amazes me, and gives me faith in our country ought to know how much people trust the courts. >> i think the danger is that sometimes you come into a building like this and think it is all about you, or that you are important. that is something that i do not think works well with this job. >> good evening

he took on how he interprets the constitution, which he felt went back to the original intent of the framers , and when he did that, he didn't find a right to privacy in the constitution. and this ignited a lot of debate and discussion outside of the judiciary hearing room. but with thomas, there was a charge of sexual harassment. and it was something that reflected on his character. but it became a very bitter sort of confirmation. >> there is nothing this committee, this body, or this country can do to give me my good name back, nothing. >> today, everything seems more highly partisan so i don't think you can just blame supreme court confirmations for that. we see it on just about every issue and so do the american people see it on just about every issue that goes into the halls across the street. >> brown: the hearings for elena kagan begin monday. watch them live from gaffe toll gavel with judy woodruff and marcia coyle on our web site and on many pbs stations. >> brown: and again to our honor roll of american service personnel killed in the iraq and afghanistan conflicts. we add them as

the framers created it after studying the great lawgivers in history. >> the government can see the destruction of documents in anticipation of a proceeding. >> a lot of these cases are very close. you do not decide who wants to win. we decide who wins under the law the eople have adopted. >> you will be surprised by the high level of congeniality here+ >> why is it we have an astonishingly beautiful, impressive structure is not to remind us that we have an important function? it is also to remind the public when they see the building of the importance and the centrality of the law. >> it always thrill me, amazes me, and gives me faith in our country to know how much people >> i think the danger is that sometimes you can come into a building like this and think it is all abbut. that is something that i do not think works well with the straw. -- with this the drop from grew 0. >> home to america's highest court,,the role of those who serve here is to interpret the constitution of the united states. outside are those wishing to take up their case or have them grow in their favor. inside, a centra

that we intended toendure for -- to endure for a long time and to be applicable to a nation that the framers knew would emerge, but they did not know in what form. that is why the most important part of the constitution are written in broad and sweeping language. one thing we know is that, at the second framing, in the reconstruction era, when congress fundamentally remade the united states -- before the civil war, if you read supreme court decisions thatalked about united states, they used the plural. the united states are at war with britain in the war of 1812. after the civil war, that is where you get it being used as a single phrase. the united states is at war. when the reconstruction and amendments were enacted, what they said was -- they gave congress special power to enforce, by appropriate a decision, the guarantees that go into the rights of citizenship, the guarantees of the privileges and immunities clause, the " protection clause, -- the equal protection clause. they distrusted the supreme court. the supreme court is living off of the fumes of brown against board of education.

at the philadelphia convention in 1787, the framers of the constitution spent more time discussing the process of judicial selection than the criteria for choosing federal judges. according to madison's conviction that, the delegates initial -- initially considered appointments by the national legislature. james wilson, pennsylvania's representative, oppose the proposal. he argued that intrigue, impartiality, and concealment resulted from judicial appointment by the legislatures. the primary reason for creating a single executive, wilson reminded his colleagues, was so that one official would be responsible for nomination. john rutledge of south carolina who chaired the committee countered that granting so great a power to any single person would cause the people to think that we are leaning towards market. rutledge would receive two appointments from president george washington to serve on the u.s. supreme court. he resigned his associate justice seat before the court ever convened to accept an appointment on the south carolina supreme court. congress failed to confirm his a recess ap

six years, and then go home, it's somehow going to lead to the kind of serious to liberation that the framers in mind. listen, that's the anti-federalist sentiment in american plitics. it was present during the founding of the republic. it comesup all the time, but it doesn't offer much, other than a kind of visceral feeling,ou know, by god,hat will keep them controlled in some way. >> we just hava loser. [laughter] >> i actuall and a half. >> great. i don't know if you've also trust me because i followed american idol for the whole ason. [laughter] >> and i also wanted to reveal that i voted for the loser. [lauter] >> i actually want to go back to something that clrissa said in the last panel which i think was really profound. and it really had to do with how people are activist right now and participating right now. so i don't think we're talking about getting out participation a little bit. i think what we are doing is talking about what kind of policy destruction is actually create the kind of vibrant and inclusive democracy that we're really striving to achieve. and i think what we're re

indeed, the framers thought of this themselves in article 5. the constitution tells us there are two different ways to change the constitution. first, congress can propose amendments that all the states can apove or a requisite number can approve. secondly, congress can call for a constitutional convention to propose amendments. either way, preserving the ultimate power of the people to control their constitution, not the courts. that as i said, what i would call the traditional view. we can contrast that traditional vision with the activist vision. under the activist vision, the supreme court feels prefreeh to change the constitution when they see a problem they wish to solve. according to this view, the constitution is a -- sometimes called a living document. it is a living document because the judges change it when they want to without requiring the consent of the people. this activist vision takes the power of the people to make the law and change the law and gis that power to a judiciary that is unelected and that imposes its will on the re

principles that were intended to endure for a long period time and to be applicable for a nation that the framers knew would emerge but they did not know in what form. but that isswhere the most important parts of the constitution are written in broad, sweeping language. one thing we do know is that at the second framing it in the reconstruction when they remade the united states, it is hard to understand how profound it is. before the civil war, supreme court decisions talked about the united states, they used the plural, "the united states are at war in 1812." after the civil war, the menendez states is used as a singular -- the united states is used as a singular. when the reconstruction amendments were enacted, they give congress special power to enforce by appropriate legislation the guarantees that go into the rights of citizenship, the guarantees, privileges, the equal protection clause, the amnesty process clause. they gave congress that power in part because they distrusted the supreme coort. today, the supreme court is living off of the few. that is why they have such power. at the midd

the framers created it after studying the great lawgivers in history. >> the government concedes that the destruction of documents in a proceeding -- a line >> you do not sit here to make the law, to decide who you want to win, we decide who wins under the law of the people have adopted. >> you would be surprised of the high level of collegiality here. >> we're here to decide and we decide. >> we cannot have a decision of this court. >> why is it that we have an elegant, astonishingly beautiful imposing structure? it is to remind us that we have an important function and to remind the public when it seized the building of the importance of the centrality of the law. >> it amazes me and gives me faith in our country to know how much people trust the courts of. >> i think that the danger is that sometimes you come into a building like this and think it is all about you or that you are important. that is something that i do not think works well as in this job. >> good evening and welcome, my name is susan swain and i am with c-span. we have our 270 colleagues and with a c-span. dr. james

the rev. martin luther king to reflect my sentiments and framer reference shaped by him and his exceptional documents for the words speak to the hope i have for us all. we have inherited a large house , a great world house, in which we have to live together. black and white, eastern and westerner, gentile and you, catholic and protestant, muslim and hindu. the family unduly separated in ideas, culture, interests, and who because we can never again live apart must learn some how to live with each other in peace. we must rapidly began to shift from a team oriented society to a person oriented society. when machines, computers, profit motives, and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and millet terrorism are incapable of being conquered. we still lead a choice today, nonviolent existence or violent annihilation. this may be our last chance to choose between chaos and community. i have received more my share of recognition of kenyon college through the years but today's honor represents the epitome of distinction and i will cherish the stay

the rev. martin luther king to reflect my sentiments and framer reference shaped by him and his exceptional documentshe words speak to the hope i have for us all. we have inherited a large house , areat world house, in which we have to live together. black and white, eastern and westerner, gentile and you, catholic and protestant, muslim and hindu. the family unduly separated in ideas culture, interests, and who because we can never again live apart must learn some how to live with each other in peace. we must rapidly began to shi from a team oriented society to a person oriented society. when machines, computers, profit motives, and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and millet terrorism are incapable of being conquered. we still lead a choice today, nonviolent existence or violent annihilation. this may be our last chance to choose between chaos and community. i have received more my share of recognition of kenyon college through the years but today's honor represents the epitome of distinction and i will cherish the stay forever. t