the framers do not want to executive power with angress and the president has term. we begin to see two thirds of state legislatures call another convention, and that is the final version of the constitution and even today, a number of states have called for a convention of the states to call for a balanced budget amendment. that provision was never evoked after the original in american history and part of the constitution, and the final ratification, we have more information about ratification but a blank space required to approve the constitution and the ratification of a certain number of states shall be sufficient for organizing this convention. this is crucial. the constitution, the ratification process, specified even in the second draft, is illegal, according to the ratification articles in the confederation, where they can be amended only with the anonymous consent of all 13 states. this provision says a certain number of states, less than possibly the whole, will be sufficient to ratify the constitution in the name of we the people. it was illegal because th

by the amendment process that the framers set out in the constitution. it is a legitimate -- it is illegitimate for judges to themselves amend the constitution and the resolution of that in during battle is absolutely vital to the future of freedom in our country. as a result of that, in my view, and i think especially recent the mostear this out, important and enduring decision a president will ever make is who to appoint to the united states supreme court and to the federal judiciary. >> [applause] justice bolick: justices usually far outlast the presidents who appoint them. and just think about it. ronald reagan has not been president since 1988. but as of only a year and a half ago, two members of the united states supreme court and now one were appointed by ronald reagan. boy, that is a legacy that far outlasts the president. justice kennedy remains on the court. he is the remaining ronald reagan appointee. and the impact of those justices can be extremely significant as well. for both good and bad. in fact the dwight eisenhower, some of you may be

the framers gave us not one but two ways to change the constitution. the convention idea has not been used since the 1780s, but it is a mechanism that the people themselves can use to alter the constitution. there is a tremendous division among conservatives and i hope it is one that does not spill over because the people on both sides of this debate are of entirely good faith. and i hope that we'll respect each other's opinions and the good faith with which we hold our opinions. i do note, i'm sure all of you know former senator jim did he minute stepped down as president of the heritage foundation. he has now joined the convention of the states idea in a formal capacity. i tend to support the idea. and i'm not hugely educated on it and i'm not directly involved in the effort. but i think -- here is the ultimate safe guard of a convention. i know people are terrified of a convention. 38 states have to ratify any constitutional amendment that is proposed by a convention. if we have 38 states rat fying a anti-freedom amendment, it's done, we're done, al

the people. it was illegal because framers were invoking their natural law. their natural and inalienable andt to abolish government reverting to that original power they insisted they could choose , a ratification procedure that was illegal according to the existing methods of ratification. all of that, just in the second draft. so exciting. and now, we are in early august. let's now move further along in august and see in the next draft the preamble that we know and revere today we the people , of the united states. let's go see it now. welcome to draft three of the constitution. it is september 12, 1787, five days before the constitution is proposed. a lot of really important , crucial changes are being made at the last minute. these changes come out of the committee of style. that is a committee with an elegant name and impressive group of members. they include alexander hamilton, and governor, morris. governor morris was an impressive delegate from pennsylvania. he had a peg leg and he was a beautiful stylist. and he was responsible for the crucial stylis

the framers did not is the phrase "bill of rights." we call it that because abraham lincoln called it the bill of rights. that is why we call it that. once you understand that, lincoln's generation, the framers of the 14th amendment believed in the freedmen's bureau bill of 1866 which is a , companion to the 14th amendment proposed in 1866. this is a direct quote -- "every citizen is entitled to personal liberty, including the constitutional right to bear arms." no mention of militias. they did not love militias. militias took up arms against lincoln. they like armies, national armies. they understand that it is not about the militia anymore. black people in their homes are entitled to have guns for self protection because they cannot count on the cops to protect them. when guns are outlawed -- that is what the framers of the 14th amendment vision. the nra is founded after the civil war by a group of ex-union army officers. that is part of the story. the second amendment vision is still important, it is more about the military, and her

it does not have the vetoes of ratification. ae framers are proposing constitution, but it is not until it is ratified that it achieves the status of supreme law. the first draft says there should be ratification because the people choose represent -- representatives. do people are sovereign, the constitution can only be ratified in our name. our right to govern comes from god or nature, not from govern. we have a right to abolish government whenever it fails to protect citizens. thee are spelled out in bill of rights. that is represented by the ratification process. the ultimate contribution of james wilson, the preamble. let's look at the second draft. we're going to see for the very first time the constitution expresses the idea of we the people. see there going to second draft, also written by james wilson. this was written august 3, 1787, after a 10 day break. the committee of detail, which was a geographically diverse group. amazing to read. also to see how dramatically the constitution is evolving. the most important evolution in th

the framers wanted to insulate a president from the changing winds of politics.able to have a president who could be impeached simply because people disagree with how he views kneeling in the national anthem. that's a dangerous concept. we need to seriously take a breath. >> dana: it's interesting because the left has been calling for impeachment even before he was sworn into office either because of alleged collusion with russia during the campaign, now you even saw after charlottesville some people thought it was insufficient what he said in response to alt right groups or neo-nazis. when it comes to speech you can't impeach somebody for that. >> right. the old adage if you only have a hammer every problem looks like a nail. democrats seem to act like impeachment is their only tool. >> dana: they want to run the nixon playbook over and over again. >> right. this is a dangerous game the play. when you lower that standard, you have to keep in mind this will not be our last president. and you cast into the wind a very important standard that the framers came up wi

>> guest: the framers of the constitution never considered whether corporations should have constitutional protection. never came out in the constitutional convention or it never came up in the ratifying ratifying -- studies have shown they were less than half a dozen or less than a dozen corporations formed in the decades before the constitution was written. very few corporations but it didn't stop her operations from seeking constitutional rights and among those very few corporations of the early era were several who ended up going to the supreme court claiming constitutional protection. >> host: give us an example. >> guest: one of the most prominent example of a great american corporation was a company called bank of united states. sounds like they would be a government agency but it was a private company set up by the federal government but it was private investors who sold stock in the market to this was the first great national corporation in america in the 1790s. that corporation brought the first corporate rights case to the supreme court. to put this in perspective the very first

the framers did not make that an issue when they impeached the first person, judge pickering. and it is not an issue to the extent that most of the people who have been impeached have not been charged with a criminal offense. not. n-o-t, charged with a criminal offense. i close with this. the framers, very much --ed -- concerned about a runaway president, runaway president, very much concerned about the awesome amount of power that they were according one person. the power to be commander of all of the armed forces. the power to send persons into battle. the power to send people, literally, in harm's way such that many might not return. with mere, impeach nearly with impunity. not with absolute impunity, but nearly with impunity. there are some circumstances wherein the president's impeachment can be challenge and the president might be impeached for -- excuse me, there are some opportunities for the president with ide a person not impeachment but with exoneration for a crime and that president could be impeached for the way the exoneration took place depending on the relation

>> the framers never considered whether corporations should have constitutional protection it never came up in any ratifying conventions and they never thought about by debt in part because in the founding era corporations were few and far between. studies have shown there were less than half a dozen or less than a dozen corporations formed in the decade before the constitution was written. so there were very few corporations, but did not stop corporations from sinking rights that among those very few corporations of the early era were several that went to the supreme court and claimed constitutional protections. >> host: give us an example. >> guest: the most prominent example is a company called bank of the united states. sounds like it would be a government agency, but it was a private company, private investors that sold stock to the market and this was the first great national corporation in the-- in america in the 1790s and it brought the very first corporate rights to the supreme court. to put this in prospective the very first african american rights case, 1857 in the first women

madison decided we're going to do it differently and in the framers and those -- and the framers andthose who voted with him in philadelphia agreed. in the constitution minutes taken by madison and others, it is demonstrate what had they were trying to do. madison explained it in a letter to president jefferson about ten years later when jefferson was grappling with questions of war. madison wrote in the letter, our constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrate: that it is the executive most interested in war and, thus, most prone to war. for this reason, we have with studied care placed the question of war in the legislature. madison was trying to change it so that war could not be initiated without a vote of congress. and so in my view -- and i was tough on a president of my own party about this. when president obama decided to initiative offensive military action against isis in august of 2014, i said, you must come to congress. when president trump used military might in this instance weapons against syria to undertake the laudable step of punishing use of

. >> i don't care a fig for the framers. care for the people that ratify the constitution. i don't believe in original intent. i believe in original meaning. what w the meaning of e constitution. when the peoe ratified it. you quoted jefferson, that the validity of government depends on the consent of the governed. you find that consent in what the people agreed to. what the people agreed to when they adopted the constitution. what they agreed to when they adopted the bill of rights is what ought to govern up. >> for the past 30 years. the video library is your free resource. for politics, congress, and washington public affairs. whether it happened 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago. find it in c-span video library. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. >>> up next. conversation about the legacy of the supreme court justice antonin scalia. approach to interpreting the constitution. and noteworthy rulings. from the hoover institution in washington. this is an hour 20 minutes. >> all right. good morning. i'm the director of the program on education policy and governess at harv

visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2017] >> i don't care a fig for the framers. i care for the people that ratified the constitution. i don't believe in original intent. i believe in original meaning. what was the meaning of the constitution when the people ratified it. , the oted jefferson validity of government depends upon the consent of the governed. you find that consent in so what the people agree to when they adopted the constitution, what they agreed to when they adopted the bill of rights is what ought to govern us. announcer: for the past 30 years, the video library is your free resource for politics, congress, and washington public affairs. whether it happened 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago, find it in library atdeo c-span.org. c-span, where history unfolds daily. tonight on c-span, senate leaders announced they will not move forward with it drama-cassidy health-care plan. president trump was the premise or of spain and attorney general jeff sessions talked about free speech. we will start on capitol hill where yesterday senators susan collins of main

was founded, who founded it, and it's primarily a response, an attack against the originalists, the framersd who they were and how they were and what they really thought. i mean, to have a supreme court justice who poisoned the whole supreme court by talking about the originalists. he knew what james madison was thinking. he knew what alexander hamilton was thinking. just listen to him. he inhabited their souls. he dug down and infested their ashes. and he came up with the answers so that skicitizens united, corporations can spend billions and be acting like one person. people can have guns all over the place because that's what the second amendment gives them. ah, god. >> i guess you won't be selling this book on fox news. >> what? >> you won't be selling this book on fox news? >> well, the way fox news has been cashiering so many of their people, they might have room for me. [ laughter ] >> in the midst of all of this disappointment and disgust about what's wrong with our country, you still find something -- >> hey, let me give you the bottom line. >> give me the bottom line. >> we've bee

is a horrible word but because doc was merely a policy not a law even the framers of this process knew full well that that promise to dreamers was not binding so that was in two thousand and twelve through executive action and now it's just the policy has been on policy well that's why the this particular dreamers. you know scandal is so important for every american is that it shows what happens when governments go rogue so the american government under obama went rogue they went in they violate the constitution the bill of rights by collecting data in a way that violates privacy and violates you know most of the bill of rights and so this is it's not an immigration issue it doesn't matter how you feel about immigration or the wall if you're an american you would take side with these eight hundred thousand or so that are being essential a put on boxcars effectively in the twenty first century and sent to in many cases death that's your america today now if you want something if one a different outcome there's got to be different political dialogue but not amongst the current crew runni

insightful story about a remark made by benjamin franklin, after he finished the liberating with the framers in philadelphia. as the story goes, franklin was walking home from the constitutional convention when he encountered a woman named mrs. powell who approached him with a question. she asked dr. franklin, what sort of government the founders had created. franklin replied with these words, a republic, madam, if you can keep it. mrs. powell's question illustrates that it was not inevitable that our nation would begin as a democratic republic. and franklin's answer reminds us that it is not inevitable that our nation will remain a democratic republic. franklin realized that the constitution comes with a condition. you need to keep it. when we use the word keep in modern english, we usually mean it in the sense of holding something in our possession. here's a $20 bill. keep the change. keeping something in that sense is passive. but that's not the meaning that franklin intended. he used the word keep in the same sense that someone today might say, keep the sabbath. it's an active verb. it m

the framers of this message should be cognizant of the fact that these groups, although often seen as adversaries, are potential allies in a reform coalition because they suffer from a common problem -- economic distress caused by forces outside of their control. and this argument is as true today as it was when i wrote "the bridge over the racial divide" in 1999. and it is being repeated by some observers in the u.s. postelection analysis and debates, including those who maintain the democrats' emphasis on identity politics and attempt to mobilize people of color, women, immigrants, and lgbt community tended to ignore the problems of poor white americans. and one notable exception, they pointed out was bernie sanders, progressive, a unifying populist economic message, in the democratic primaries, a message that resonated with a significant segment of the white lower and working-class populations. however, sanders was not the democratic nominee and donald trump was able to capture notable support from these populations with a divisive, not unifying, populist message. so, i end this le

the framers of the constitution were religious men. i do mean zealots anyway or that sort of thing. they were on religious men. i wanted to look at all the back of the they talked about jefferson -- used to religious. i'm not aware of any atheists but it doesn't matter. it's irrelevant. the constitution doesn't mention any specific religion. the constitution doesn't even mention god. the reason why we're such a tolerant society, the reason why you look in the first amendment about not establishing a religion like to do in the middle east and other places of the world is because the men who met in philadelphia believe in the judeo-christian set of areas. and they did not want to create a theocracy and they did not want to impose their views on people. so they traded a very tolerant society. now, what i see people is you don't have to be religious. you don't have to believe in anything but you get to benefit from the society regardless because of what was created. that's okay. there are people have said to be very interesting question. the declaration, loss of nature and natures god.

. >> guest: i made the point in my first, liberty and tyranny, the framers of the constitution were religious men. i don't mean zealots in any way but they were all religious men. i looked at all of their backgrounds and they talk about jefferson was a deist he was still religious. i'm not aware of any atheist but it doesn't matter. it is irrelevant. the constitution doesn't mention any specific religion. the constitution doesn't even mention god. the reason why we are such a talent society and the reason why you look in the first amendment about not establishing a religion like they do in the middle east and other places of the world is because the men who met in philadelphia believed in the judeo-christian set of values and they did not want to create a theocracy and they do not want to impose their views on people. they created a tolerant society. now, what i say to people as you don't have to be religious, you don't have to believe in anything but you get the benefit from the society regardless because of what was created. and that is okay. there are people who said to me very interesting

do and human rights organizations with lots of lawyers to turn to do also see a logical as the original framers of the term genocide raphael and kimball were would want it and so you know if you look at it well then tell me what you think is hand and what the military is trying to achieve here what is authentic. that the military is trying to clancy and tire area and resist to the religion or state which they think has no muslims historically there and so i think you know the experts expelling people driving then you know by the thousand starting in one thousand nine hundred ninety eight with spikes of muslim violence killing thousands raping hundreds of woman preacher your italy every ten fifteen years the army has been doing it for almost forty years and if you look at the the conditions physical and biological conditions under which the hentai are ruined our population has been kept the intent is to stude gradually debil you know physically destroy this community biologically stop them ok i'm going to bring it up bill russell i mean why do you sentient it can't be done if we're seeing a form

this is the way the framers intended it. there's supposed to be deliberation and discussion. these big ticket items, making sure there's aid for people in texas, making sure the government doesn't shut down. they'll be lucky to get that done. >> it's an incredible statement. they'll be lucky if they can fund the government. lucky if they can keep the government operating the way it's intended to operate, the way we pay them to. the it's remarkable. peter baker, the head line, trump skills in art of the deal yet to pay off. this is the test. september is the test. >> i saw that artful head line. i didn't want to quite say in the headline he can't make a deal or incapable, but somehow, where is this magic sauce that you promised us to grease government so it runs smoothly? well, one thing is that government like reporters work best on deadlines, and we've gone through this even in calmer times about raising the debt ceiling where it always goes to the brink, if not a little bit kbrond beyond. but we have so many things on the plate right now. congress can absorb a lot, and even

the language the framers inserted into the constitution was unequivocal upon this point, mr. president. it said, no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the united states. now, when the founding fathers wrote the word "ever" they meant it. that word means something in the constitution, and we need to protect it. i feel the need to stress this point because of the conduct of some of my colleagues. yesterday notre dame law professor amy kony barrett came before the judiciary committee on which i serve. she had been nominated as a prominent legal scholar and lawyer in this country to be nominated as a circuit judge. that's why she was before our committee. her nomination has been endorsed by prominent legal scholars from across the political spectrum and across the country, including neal katyal, president obama's acting solicitor general in the previous administration. at ms. barrett's confirmation hearing a number of my colleagues insinuated that her catholic faith would somehow prevent her from applying the law freely an

that is how the framers drew it up on the blackboard. 1973d it was rolled in that the attorney general violated -- >> way after the fact. that wasn't what exercise everybody the day after the thing. let senator lee direct the discussion. >> thank you. the overriding concern that i have, whenever we are talking about this area, is that bad things happen when we depart from the three branch structure of the federal government. one branch is in charge of executing and enforcing laws. i do not always like the way that every president chooses to exercise that power. i have frequently disagreed with presidents of both political parties in the way they have chosen to enforce or not enforce the law in certain areas. time that in a think echoes back to was loudly the fact that there are dyer cirque -- dyer consequences from departing. in the senate, we serve in an institution that delegated lawmaking power. we do not legislate anymore. instead, we pass laws. agency why the power to make good law in area acts. from that moment forward, the good people who work at agency y , and they are well edu

it is not an any original attempt of the founder or the framers of the 14th amendment. it disregards presidents, it overturns a decision of state and local decision-makers so to the extent that justice antonin scalia excessive untaken view, he is contradicting everything he claims to stand for and this is pure policymaking of the sort that justice antonin scalia condemned others for doing. what i would like, the way of response that. i think this goes to a fundamental part of his prudence is to understand that justice scalia did not claim there would be one way of determining if and what was unconstitutional. but rather there were a variety of considerations that needed to be taken to count. to some extent, it makes it hard to say that the rule of law is a law of roles because it requires some consideration but of these balancing and looking at these hard cases but what were these series of considerations? particularly important to him? first and most important obviously was the text of the constitution. and as paul said, the original meaning. but justice scalia present

a fake for the framers, i care for the people who ratified the constitution. i do not believe in original intent. i believe in original meaning. what was the meaning of the constitution when the people ratified it? , theuoted jefferson ability of government depends on the consent of the government. in what that consent the people agreed to. towhat the people you agree when they adopted the constitution, what they agreed to when they adopted the bill of rights. >> for the past 30 years, the video library is your free resource for washington public affairs. whether it happened 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago, find it in our library at c-span.org. c-span where history unfolds daily. next, a look at president trump's first year in the white house with historian h w brands. and douglas brinkley. the hour-long event was part of the annual texas tribute festival at the university of texas in austin. >> as they were saying, i am happy to welcome you to the texas tribune-fest little and to trump and the presidency. a very rich panel.

. >> i don't care a fig for the framers. care for the people that ratify the constitution. i don't believe in original intent. i believe in original meaning. what w the meaning of e constitution. when the peoe ratified it. you quoted jefferson, that the validity of government depends on the consent of the governed. you find that

. >> i don't care a think for the framers. i care for the people that ratify the constitution. -- i don't believe in original intent. i believe in original meaning, what was the meaning of the constitution when the people ratified it. you quoted jefferson. the validity of government depends upon the consent of the governed. and you find that consent in what the people agree to. so what the people agree to when they adopted the constitution, what they agreed to when they adopted the bill of rights is what ought to govern us. >> for the past 30 years, the video library is your free resource for politics, congress and washington public affairs. so whether it happened 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago, find it in c-span's video library at c-span.org. c-span, where history unfolds daily. six senate democrats, including minority leader chuck schumer, held a press conference on their opposition to republican efforts to refeel a confumer financial protection bureau rule which would require forced arbitration clauses in contracts with cons

the framers of our constitution did not intend for members of this body to remain seated for 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years. but rather they fundamentally believed they government should be designed one of the people and for the people to experience regular turnover. because ultimately the greatness of this country has always rooted in the american people themselves. and i want to get more of those american people up here serving in elected office. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today. house republicans will be meeting tomorrow about a tax reform plan that will be unveiled this week. so tomorrow the house won't be session until 4:00 iron time. they may take up a bill to re-authorize the children's health insurance program. which expires at the end of the month as well. while the house is out we take you live to the senate judiciary committee hearing on special counsel and the ability of the president to fire a special counsel. vermont senator patrick leahy

the framers, i believe wrote it in such terms as a judge i certainly believe that marshall looked at it as an organic document. otherwise it would not survive this long. wil: one of the senators asked marshall, how come you don't rely or doubt voluntary confessions. and thurgood marshall said, well, i had a client once, black kid, he was beaten for six days and finally voluntarily confessed. [laughter] algenon: there is a little known fact that the hearings were not going that well, at least through the first three or four days, even through day five. and as the hearings were dragging on, lbj plotted an alternate strategy. wil: they were not consecutive days. they were spread out over 12 days, which made thurgood marshall and the white house were very nervous. on the second day of hearings, president johnson was so nervous that he said to his aides, wow, my guy might not make it. they are tough. goodness gracious. and so johnson was hell-bent on integrating the supreme court. so he stealthily summoned william coleman to the white house. william coleman was an african-american lawyer a

i think what you are going to see this week the framers of this bill, the graham-cassidy bill have tweaked it a bit. there is more money in the new bill going to a place like maine where susan collins has a problem with this. like kentucky, arizona, where john mccain has a problem. we'll see if there is a way to change this bill enough so that they would approve of it. >> bill: do you characterize it as bribes or inducements. >> it's legislation. this is in the grand tradition of the obamacare. the corn husker kick back. ben nelson didn't want to go along with obamacare. they needed every vote and they made money available for nebraska. >> bill: countdown begins. shannon, what's next? >> shannon: bill, one person is dead, seven others wounded in tennessee after a gunman opens fire during a church service. nashville police arrested 25-year-old emmanuel samson, an usher confronted the shooter in order to stop him. >> i sit and think what if. what if he had pulled the trigger. because he had the gun pointed at him. yeah, i'm proud of him. >> shannon: a lot of what if this morning. live from a

feldman,rom professor "the framers of the constitution thought about immigration and wanted congresson is with us and martin joins us, the senior executive editor for government. what a strong weekend for thinking about this issue. the romance of getting congress back to the 1950's congress back to the 30's, back to tommy lee emancipation proclamation with abraham lincoln. is it going to happen? iti think it will because was the intention of the founders to have congress settle on issues of immigration. donald trump's punted this issue back to congress. wherehere was that point tommy lee jones and daniel day abraham lincoln, the president is not that powerful. that was the way it used to be? the generations moved through the presidency, gained much more power. this is a throwback to the fundamentalist view of the constitution. marty, what is the common misconception when it comes to these things? >> some of it is borne by president trump himself when he imposed the ban on immigration early and his presidency, he inserted that it was the purview of the president to decide who can come