That led to drafting the constitution. I want to talk about that. Lasttried to communicate week, the drafting of our institution, the history of its formation is extraordinary to say the least. Moment in allle of world history. We are here at 233 years later and our constitution is in the daily, being referred to as we almost speak here tonight, again and again. It isrticular aspect, but alive and well. To think about the fact this came together from a period of midmay until midseptember of 1787 is remarkable. Said the that we revolutionary war, and a lot of folks are not clear on the sequencing. It is important to note conflict began with lexington and concord and massachusetts in 1774. These very independent colonies, british colonies that operated with their own governments and their own leadership and support , suddenly had to come together and form a military alliance. It was not easy for them to do that. They had a lot of hesitation and concern about what it meant to be together. But the enemy was the justification for their alliance. They formed that alliance of the First Continental Congress and in 1775 they come together. 1776 they make a declaration. We see a nation starting to be born at least for purposes of declaring independence and working together for a common military purpose. That, and a half after they form the articles of confederation. The articles of confederation become the next step in an effort to have some type of connection between these colonies. We looked last week at the articles of confederation and we note it referred to, the colonies referred to themselves as a firm league of friendship, interesting way to describe this new United States, almost like nato or some type of International Treaty of countries, individual countries coming together. It took 3. 5 years for those articles to be ratified and to become effective. Think about that. Here the necessity to form a nation was clear. They put together articles that are very loose, dont require much, very minimal in terms of government structure and yet it took 3. 5 years for everybody to get on board and agree. Course severe limitations, significant weaknesses to the articles of confederation. As those articles of confederation were being considered, shortly after they were considered, they were approved by a sufficient or by 1781, thees, march of british surrendered at yorktown, so it was very conflict was over by the end of night of 1781. Now there is sort of peace although the british army is still present in new york and it took a while for them to actually leave the new union. During this time the articles are in operation and the limitations are very clear. During that time we see that the articles of confederation, they did not provide for an executive branch. There was no independent judiciary. There was a one body, one house congress. Everyone had to be in agreement to do anything. It gave the states tremendous power, virtually all power. As a result lots of things were going on in the states that were really unsettling with regard to recognition of Property Rights and doing justice. This was something madison was concerned about. That time, the 11 years between the articles of confederation 1787 and the Constitutional Convention is a fascinating time. As i was preparing, i pulled from myself a book called the confederation and the constitution. This is a book that i had to buy for my Early American History think. In 1977i very long time ago. But i keep all of my books. I was a history major. For those of you who like books, you notice in your 60s, you will have some College Books around. I had a lot of mine. It was useful. A fascinating time in which the country is trying to come together and be a nation. It was not working and as i talked about last week, Alexander Hamilton was especially concerned. So there was a meeting of five 1786. In annapolis in at that meeting, hamilton was callng for the congress to a special convention to presumably modify the articles of confederation. Successful. In february of 1787, the congress did call for a Constitutional Convention. And this convention was instructed to do what was necessary to fix the problems are the of the articles of confederation. As we said last week, something much different occurred. In the book i recommend it to you, the paulson book, they referred to it, father and son, referred to it as basically a coup detat, that the framers came together and formed the document that was completely new. Threw outghout the the articles, formed the new constitution, something beyond their mandate, and were able to get that ratified. Was a majorlf milestone in American History. Hamilton was the instigator who was able to get this convention called and to encourage it to be pulled and take action. George washington was thought to chair the proceedings. He did not say much, but he encouraged them to be bold and do what is necessary. Madison was the architect, the one who did the most work, came brought aeally constitution basically with him and was prepared to lead everyone through it. Didnt miss anything in the proceedings and took extensive notes. His notes we can rely on the most to know what happened during that convention. Wilson from pennsylvania was the draftsman who helped, worked with madison to get the provisions right and then Gouverneur Morris was the wordsmith who wrote some of the words that have become famous and the preamble in particular. When madison came prepared, he came with the virginia plan. The virginia plan called for what we think of today in the structure of the constitution, the separation of powers and federalism. That is tonights focus. The one weakness was that it called for representation based on population for the house and senate. There was a bicameral toislature and i was going be an improvement over the articles of confederation. That was not unprecedented. That was existing in parliament but the senate would be elected based on a population. That was objected to by the smaller states of course, and the great compromise came forward which was something from Roger Sherman of connecticut, sometimes called the connecticut compromise. It was we like what you have done, mr. Madison. It is a great framework, but this will not work. We will go with something different. Every state will get to senators ,nd will have representatives populationbased representative. Elections for the house. That is how they worked that out. There were many other debates over lots of other important things. We will talk about those tonight but by september 17, they were able to sign that constitution. Famouseveryone, three participants, ended up not signing. But lets, they came together to sign the constitution. And then the ratification process began. At this point you have to appreciate how controversial the document was. It had strayed from the mandate as to amending the articles of confederation. The states, so independentminded, were very concerned about what had been created. There were objections throughout the colonies. As the various states held the ratification conventions, and that is the way it was set up, they would have special conventions for purposes of ratification, not just a vote in state legislatures, but in those reallyions, there were fierce debates about whether or not this was the right direction. The concerns were over the fact that there was a National Government being created that would have too much power and the other was there was not enough protection for rights, that there were not enough safeguards in place. Between the two things, centralization of power and the guaranteed rights the lack of guaranteed rights, there was a lot of difficulty getting the states on board. One great description that is part of a wonderful introduction to my copy of the federalist papers, going to talk about them in just a moment, but the columbia historian, who wrote the introduction to the publication of the federalist, he describes it this way. We forget how controversial the constitution was in a moment of its birth. In the moment of its birth. It was drafted in secrecy by men who knew that they had acted beyond the mandate given to them. Sent as state delegates to philadelphia to discuss problems in the new union, they had been told to make any adjustments within the articles of confederation as the official compact of union. The articles had been drafted in the antiauthoritarian moment and spirit of 1776. It was a companion document to the declaration of independence and it left autonomy in the hands of the states. Before thewould pass apprehensive states approved even those, this close coalition. They did so in 1781 after many revisions by leaders who feared centralized authority. The framers of the constitution basically ignored these fears. Instead of tinkering with the arrangement, they dumped the articles altogether and wrote out their own document of principles. When they were done, they had substituted a much stronger ideal of union that a suspicious compromisers of the original confederation had contemplated or would have allowed. Of see what was in front those who supported the new constitution in order to be able to get support throughout the new country. And so that brings us to the federalist papers. About a month after signing the 17stitution, after september , 1787, the first one of these pieces as we think of them today, they were essays, appeared in a new york application late october, drafted by Alexander Hamilton. Inwrote the first paper defense of the new constitution. Jay,ton, madison and john who was not even at the convention, did not sign the constitution, the three of them teamed up to write these federalist papers. There were 85 in total. They were published from october through to august of 1788. At one point before they were even all done, they were collected in a publication. That is when they were called the federalist. Today we are to them as the federalist papers. Ay only wrote five of them. He fell ill. Hamilton and madison split the job. Hamilton did more than madison. They used a pen name for them. The pen name was probably us p s publius. That was not unusual. It was a statesmanlike educated persons way of communicating. It was known who were the advocates for the new document. And jefferson, who was not at the convention, didnt sign the constitution, when he got a chance to read the federalist , they are thed best commentary on the principles of government, which never was written. Ever was written. Of theread a few lines first federalist paper. This is how the federalist papers begin. Experience full experience of the insufficiency of the existing federal government, you are invited to deliberate upon a new constitution for the United States of america. The subject speaks of its own importance, comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the union, the safety of the welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been preserved to the people of this country to decide by their conduct and example the important question whether the species of man is capable of establishing Good Government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to defend for their political constitutions on accident and force. That is a taste of the brilliance of the federalist papers. So those papers came along side the ratification process and helped to address every argument and issue being thrown up against the new constitution. Lets jump into the new constitution and see some things that for many of you are very familiar and for those of you who took the class so you could understand it, i will not make assumptions. Lets look at the structure. It is brilliantly simple, isnt it . You have the preamble. Eloquence reflecting the language of the declaration of independence with regard to the will of the people. To express their own form of government. So we have the legislative branch, article one. The executive branch, article two. The judiciary, article three three you often hear of article three judges, meaning judge appointed according to this article of the constitution. States to state relations and federal to state relations in article four. Article five, how the institution is amended. Article six, dealing with National Debts and article seven, how to ratify the constitution and then the bill of rights. There are 27 amendments to the constitution in the bill of rights. Particular rights in is referred to the first 10 amendments because that is the bill that was introduced by madison. So to be ethically precise, you have the bill of rights in the first 10 amendments that were ratified and then you have had additional amendments since then. There was quite a stretch of time between the initial bill of rights and a couple of things that are after that and then the civil war and the 13th amendment. So that is the structure. Havean look at the one you in your hand. You have basically articles, sanctions sections and clauses. We will say article one, section two, clause three. There are terms if you go to law keywordsu learn about that are referred to as clauses as well. For example with article four, we will talk about the supremacy clause. It is located within article for, section such and such. Refer toterm to portions within each article. Outlineis kind of the of our class. When we get to the bill of rights, we will spend half of the class in future lectures going through those amendments. But we are going next week we will talk about judicial interpretation philosophy, how do we understand what this document says, then we will jump into the legislative branch the week after that. So that is our structure. The bill of rights is an important part for us to sort of touch on right now. If you look at your constitution, turn to article five. Page 43 of the booklet. And we see how the constitution is to be amendment amended. Basically what this says is there are two ways to amend this constitution. The first is that an amendment to the constitution passes the congress, both houses have to thirds, two thirds vote in order for the proposed amendment to go forward. From there it goes forward to the state, and then you see it says two thirds of the several states shall be required to approve of the proposed amendment. Way to do it. E there is another way that has never been done. That is to have another Constitutional Convention. If you read the language, it describes what would be required to have another Constitutional Convention. Now of course the one advantage of a Constitutional Convention is you get a lot of work done and you could do it more effectively in terms of changing the constitution. The great danger is once again those folks together rumor what happened in the summer of 1787 when they were supposed to amend the articles, they came up with a different document. If you brought people, the states together, delegates to have a Constitutional Convention, it would be wide open. There was a movement in the 1990s to try to form a Constitutional Convention. That is still going on today. I have rents who will tell me about getting mail and so forth, calling for a Constitutional Convention. That would be quite an amazing thing if that were to color that were to occur. In the process of the states considering whether to ratify the constitution, there was a great deal of convention deal of attention on this idea of rights. It was raised again and again. New york said we are only on board if you have a bill of rights added. That was not their only point, but it was a suggestion and along. A demand for going madison and others basically promised once the congress was with a new constitution, it would be the first order of business. There was resistance on the part of the federalist to have a bill of rights. They thought it was not necessary since the constitution enumerated what the powers of the new government would be and therefore they were not enumerated, no one should worry that those powers would exceed their boundaries and the rights would be threatened. But of course that was not sufficient response. And to be fair, the enumerated powers are very broad and it was not clear as to where they might go with that. Introduce promised to the bill of rights and did as soon as the new congress was formed in june 1789. The bill of inch the bill of rights is introduced. Madison became a member of the house of representatives when it was initiated. And then the rights were passed september sent to the states for approval. And then you have the interesting thing that happens. Amendmentsal, those actually were 12, not 10. 12 amendments went to the states for ratification, but two of them did not make it. To be clear, madisons proposal had 12. One of those did not even make it, the two thirds cut. One of them did but it didnt get confirmed by the states. If you turn in your book to the on pagendment, which is 56, you see this. The 27th amendment was proposed on such over 25, 17 september 25, 1789. That is the date the congress completed passing them on. On may 7 atified what . 1792 . 1992. It took a little while for that amendment to get the two thirds support. Michigan finally passed this amendment in 1992. It says no law the compensation for services and representatives shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have been convened. Congress congress cannot vote itself a pay raise. It will not get the money. The next congress will hear that is what this says. It dawned on people that in the 1980s or so that, there was this amendment at the beginning with James Madison and the bill of rights that never got finished. It was a nice amendment to stick it to the members of congress who want pay raises. A bunch of states got busy and by 1992, michigan was the last state they needed and it became the 27th amendment. You have 12, one of the bites the dust, 11 go to the states. One doesnt make it. One of the 10 do. That is why we have the original 10. In fact the First Amendment we always think of freedom of press and religion, that was actually the third amendment of the original proposal. That is the story. This is a timely conversation because if you have been paying attention to some of the lesser headlines in the news, there is there28th amendment out that is going to be the subject of greater attention increasingly. What happened is in the 1970s, the old rights amendment, guaranteeing equal rights for prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex, was passed and sent for ratification. Here is an interesting thing. Amendments proposed to the states have had timelines in which they can be considered. Not the 27th amendment. That one obviously had no timeline. The group did not have a timeline so that one hung out or 200 years. But most of them have a timeline. Had ar a had e. R. A timeline. It needed to be either ratified by the early 1980s or not. It did not get ratified but virginia just voted in the last few weeks to ratify the 28th amendment that was proposed by congress in the 1970s. That put the number over the threshold. Now the question is does it become the 28th amendment . The position being taken by the national archives, which is interesting, like who decides . The keeper of the constitution it is not being recorded because it passed the timeline. In the last day or so three attorneys general, state have filed aeral lawsuit against the archivists claiming that is to be recorded. The department of justice has taken the position that time is up and it cannot be done. Evenuestion will be, are timelines constitutional . There is nothing in here about timelines and the language is not in the actual text. So can you still have those limitations . Very interesting. It is happening now. We will see where that goes. Lets move on to the major principles in the constitution. You have got the structure in your mind. You understand how we got there. Document wasle created and then provision for amending it, and it has been amended. But what are the Core Principles that really shape the document . In thinkingtion about the principles of our constitution is question of where does the power reside . It is all about political power, who holds it, is it shared . How is it shared . That is the issue. These framers understood well because they were basically coming from a system of government that had the king who had abused that power over the centuries and had elected parliament that was trying to establish its own power. The question of vulnerability and risks to power was the first issue. There were basically three principles that shaped that question or answer that question of what to do about power. The first is republicanism. The want to show you before i jump into that, something that i at then i was Constitutional Museum in philadelphia. I mentioned this last week. I am a museum nerd. I go to museums i went to the post office is he him during the winter break. I did not see any of you there. But i thought it was really cool. Is really great. As i was going through it slowly, i came to this little spot. I looked at this display and all of these sort of great ideas that have been known by the founders, the framers at the time of the , thesen of our country were learned people. And madison was in his 30s and so was Alexander Hamilton. Madison, his awareness of political philosophy at that point was profound. This little display is cool because you push the button and it gives you a little excerpt. I said that is the reading list we should have for if you are not a senior, be with ourwe may tinker humanities courses. You can get a preview. It would be great. You will have montesquieu in the group. He is mentioned in the paulsons book as one of the real influences for madison. There is your reading list if you want to get into political philosophy. As you understand more and more about the philosophy they knew well, you understand where these principles came from. Lets start with republicanism. Let me read from federalist the defense ore the explanation is by James Madison, really gets us clearly grounded in the idea. 39, this isaper what madison says. The first question that offers itself is whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident no other form would be reconciled with the america, the people of with the fundamental principles of the revolution. For with the honorable determination which animates. Very rotary of freedom to rest all of our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for selfgovernment. If the plan of the convention be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as the longer defensible. Madison asement by to how committed the constitution is to the idea that when we say republicanism, what we mean is the government is formed by the people. That the people have direct or indirect control over all of those who serve in the National Government. That there would not be hereditary or other ways in which power would be obtained. It would only be through the rights of the people to elect to choose representatives. It would be a representative government, not direct democracy, but it would be fully controlled by the choice of the people. Article four guarantees a republican form of government. One, sections nine and 10, it refers to titles of nobility and you cant have titles of nobility and there be no federal titles. Trying to get away from what they were so familiar with in Great Britain with having hereditary and other forms of titles that came in one way or another from the monarchy. The basic concept we would take for granted today, but it does have real impact in a lot of different ways. The way the senate was set up originally, where the state with select the senators, the pushedal republicanism against that until they amended the constitution to have direct election of senators. We see this today. I will talk about this when we two and thele executive, we will talk about the electoral college. There is definitely a lot of discussion today about whether witht that is consistent the principles of a public and government. Is a part of the debate. So this is the first of the principles. The second is that of separation often thinkr as we about it which includes the ideas of checks and balances. Here it was federalist 51 comes into the mix. I had you read federalist 10 before tonight. Let me take a moment to say a before i jump into federalist 51. Federalist 10 is the one i asked you to take a look at. Federalist 10 is a remarkable that demonstrates what i was talking about before regarding the incredible knowledge, the philosophy, capability of madison as he works his way through the question of how to control government, factions within government, those who are in who can do harm to those in the minority. Madison was concerned in the way these factions especially in the states were operating and running roughshod against those who did not have power. He goes through an federalist 10 the problems with these factions. He defines problems by saying a faction, i understand i understand a number of citizens whether amounted to a majority or minority of the whole or united and actuated by some common impulse, adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. He defines the problems that way, and then asks the question, what are we going to do about that, given the difficulties we see in the troubles with controlling human behavior. He looks at the fundamentals of all ability of vulnerability of people to govern themselves. He comes to the conclusion that in one sense human nature is what it is, but at the end of the day we can try to control the effects of human nature. So he has got fantastic language to summarize these arguments. So strong is the propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities that were no substantial occasion presented, the principal distinctions have been sufficient to kindle unfriendly passions and excite conflicts. The most common and durable source of factions has been the various and Unequal Division of property are those who hold and those who are without have ever formed distinct never formed distinct interests in society. He gives examples and talks about the causes cannot be removed and therefore we have to control the effects. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such action and to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government is the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Him byhe great desire of which this form of government can be rescued. Republicanup for why form of government can be more effective in a growing country, which was counter to what people thought. People thought the government control controlled by the people is fine and good in a small limited way, but when you spread it out for a growing country it would not be effective. He turns the argument around and said this is the best way to secure peoples rights, by this kind of republican form of government. Have an federalist 51 political basic philosophy of madison that informs the constitution. It is often said federalist 10 i should have said federalist 10 and 51 which is to come next, those two documents really summarize, of all of the federalist tapirs, they capture the principles of the new government. Now to separation of powers. That is when we get to federalist 51. In the interest of time i will you read that between now and next week. The key interest is how we see the reference to double security. We are talking about the security of the peoples rights, liberty of the people, it is made secure by separating powers among the divisions of government and also between the federal and state level. That is the double security. These are cocoordinate branches of government which is laid out in federalist 49. They are equal, separate and equal. They have overlapping powers. We saw the clip of the war powers debate last week. That is a great example of the overlapping powers, that congress has the sole power to declare war and yet president is the commander in chief. He will decide how the war is executed, where we are going to fight, how we will. But congress has the power to declare war. Even legislation, Congress Passes it but the president signs the bill into law. If he vetoes the bill, congress can override his veto. You can see the founders were really thoughtful about how to try to create these balancing powers. Which brings me to the final point tonight. That is the impeachment power because it is one of the checks and balances we have in the constitution. And it is the one that is getting a little attention these days. I thought i would make sure your perspective of where it is in the constitution, your way around the power of impeachment. Article one, section two, clause five. The house of representatives shall have the will power of impeachment. The house has the power to charge, to bring indictments against the president. Article one section three, clauses six and seven. The senate shall have the power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that, they should be in both or affirmation in oath or affirmation. They take a special both a special oath very the senators all stood and did that. In 1999i was on the senate floor as a part of the clinton impeachment for the house miniatures. I was a lawyer. Openingthe chairmans speech and used that, wrote the language to play off of the oath the president had been accused of lying under oath. I thought it would be interesting to have connection but didnt work so well. Anyway. [laughter] have, take a special you see it goes on to say than the president is tried, the chief justice shall preside. Chief Justice Roberts has been sitting there, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States, but the party shall be liable and subject to indictment trial, judgment and punishment. About theage president not being subject to prosecution until removed them office and then also the idea that next is article two. Section two, says the President Shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States except in cases of impeachment. Are four provisions, article one, section two about the house having the power. Article one, section three, six and seven talk about the senate and how it shall have the power to impeach and that procedure, the oath of office, the chief justice presides. Article two,have section the shall have this power and great pardons. On the case of impeachment and finally the president and Vice President and civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for an conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. It is interesting to note alan dershowitz, harvard law professor, when he was defending the president of the senate floor earlier this week, provisions the involving pardon for crimes and when the president could be indicted to strengthen his argument that only crimes could be included in the definition of high crimes or misdemeanors which is a key issue for the current impeachment process because the articles of impeachment against President Trump dont allege any particular criminal violation. One of the questions is whether or not that meets the standard in the institution. Many scholars say it does, but dershowitz has taken the position it does not. That has been fascinating. Provisions in the constitution. I said that quickly. Finally about impeachments are there have been 20 impeached officials in our history. Johnson,sidents, clinton, trump. Secretary of war, senator, 15 judges. , 15etary of war, senator judges. Eight have been found guilty and removed. Seven acquitted, others resigned before the trial. Only seven in the last 80 years. My favorite one is the very , one supremee one court justice. Pickering from new hampshire. Impeached in the early years of our country for intoxication on the bench. And when he decided to appear before the house, when they were having a consideration of the articles of impeachment. He testified in his own defense. Theaid, with reference to intoxication, he said i shall be sober tomorrow. I am now damn drunk. Not really effective defense in my view but he was honest. I can understand why somebody might want to drink before appearing before the house judiciary committee. That was 1802. We have had that is the track record of impeachment. Im afraid our time has run out. I will turn to your questions next week. Towill pick up on federalism look at the coming attractions. It will be very quick. Then we are going to jump into one controversy. That is the proslavery provisions in the constitution. Of course i talk about the persecution in glowing terms, but there is one major flaw to the original constitution. That was the way the original constitution dealt with slavery and the constitution made slavery a bigger problem. We will start next week with the three proslavery and then jump into interpretation principles. Let me see if anybody has any questions. Take one right down there at the front. Hello. I am wondering, i know the new jersey plan contributed to and thehe Senate Constitution in general but i am wondering if there are arguments about having state representation now. Many people would agree that we dont have a loose confederation of countries now. I would assume we are more unified now. Mr. Mcnulty that is a great question. The fundamental issue has not changed that much in the sense states wouldest exercise such significant control over the legislative branch and the production of legislation. They would have significant control in the house which is already in existence and yet given the size of the country, it is limited. You have so many district in california and in texas and in new york. If you had a senate that was and irly composed, suppose it would have to be a much bigger body, because it would, whatever the apportionment would be, would have to assign something to the small states are you other states would get bigger. That iswould lose in something that we are holding onto right now. That is to try to build consensus for legislative proposals by having all of the having all of the states in some ways in all of the states but have at least a majority of the states working together to find common ground. Part of the problem is in your lifetime, you have seen so little of good legislating. There has been so bogged down for so long it is hardly possible to remember it. But when i started on capitol 1983, for the first decade and a half or more of my career, i saw congress work. You have to take my word for it. It can happen. There were efforts to reach across and find consensus. It has been so limited since then. I dont think the solution is to push more power to the largest popular did areas, which is what would happen. To our friend up up there. Please. Presumably the purpose of the constitution is to protect the rights of american citizens, you know, how he goes about that is one thing. But if the constitution allows it and moreover repealing amendments and the first 10 amendments, the bill of rights are some of the rights meant to be protected, why were they not included in the original constitution, if that was his purpose . Its purpose . Mr. Mcnulty there is nothing particularly protected about the seven articles. They have already been amended by the amendments. Even if you had the original thement that contained rights that we see in the amendments, they would still have a vulnerability to them to be changed at some point down the road. So the founders saw that the constitution would be subject to adaptation, circumstances that would unfold in the history of the country going forward. They really wanted that to be the case, but they also wanted it to be hard, to be real work. That is why after the initial founding time, there was nothing done to the constitution until after the civil war, 13th amendment and the abolition of slavery. For that time in between the document state as it was. Is beenendments, they had all made. There were significant things added to the constitution, and youngerth women andle being able to vote abolition slavery, civil rights. Really significant modification. Got it right and that they made it possible to change the document, but they made it really hard, and they could have done anything to protect anything and it anything in it with one minor exception to that statement. It has to do with slavery. We will see this next week. They put a freeze for 20 years when they wrote the original the ability ofn prohibiting states for the in quotation of slaves. Went on for 20 years as a result of a constitutional protection. Other than that, a constitution has always been amendable. Does that get out what you are saying . Do you want to come back really fast . Why not free the First Amendment, which is a big reason why colonists fled with a came from for freedom of speech . Mr. Mcnulty i just think the speech ort Freedom Freedom of the press or i may havedom to back up on that statement. That it would be threatened to the extent of two thirds of the house, two thirds of the senate and two thirds of the state getting in line to strip like that. In 1787 that would have been unthinkable. The current impeach map problem, is obstruction of congress not a criminal charge . You mention no criminal charges were in this impeachment, but the independent office found him guilty of obstruction of congress. Mr. Mcnulty what sort out a couple of things. Of justicestruction which is different from obstruction of congress. No Crime Associated with not cooperating in an investigation. There is a federal crime and obstructing a lawful investigation with documents. Even House Management are not making the argument that the president s lack of cooperation amountedhouse process to the criminal of structure and of justice we have in the u. S. Code. Gaos finding is not a criminal issue. They have no authority to form an opinion about criminal law. What they found was that, with legals to the president s responsibilities, and they were talking about how a law provides spending of money and whether or not the administration could ukraine, they to are focused on noncriminal aspects of whats legally required. It does not get into this does anything constitute as crime . This question of was a crime alleged is being conceded. No crime has been alleged in these articles. There may have been a comment made that we did not include in these particular articles of impeachment. I think i may have to wrap up. Do i have time for one more question . Do i see a hand . This might be a complicated question and i want to get your take. There is a Movement CallNational Popular vote in which if enough states enough states sign on, they will give ther electoral boat to popular vote winner, essentially undermining the electoral college, and the making the presidency a direct democratic election. Is there anything that prohibits this or that we may not be a republic and instead be a direct democracy . Mr. Mcnulty that is a good question and i will completely dodge it. Class, this is an actual when a get to article three i will talk about the election of the president. The electoralt college, i will remember your question and we will address it then. I prefer to do it in context of how the electoral process works. Are right about whether or not that has validity. Thank you for getting us started. That is all for tonight. [applause] you can watch lectures in history every weekend on American History tv. We take you inside College Classrooms to learn about topics ranging from the american 9 11. Tion to that saturday at 8 00 p. M. And midnight eastern on cspan three. Youre watching American History tv. Covering history cspan tile style, with eyewitness account, andival films, lectures College Classrooms and visits to museums and historic places. All weekend, every weekend on cspan3. Houston, we have had we heard a large bank it was the call heard around the world from the illfated Lunar Mission of apollo 13. Sunday, American History tv marks the 50th anniversary with the 1970 documentary houston, we have a problem. Than the commander share his memories of the flight. Never admitted to ourselves that we were not going to make it. The lead flight director recalls nasas efforts to ensure the astronauts flight return. Had a post fight News Conference with the crew. Watch our special on the 50th anniversary of apollo 13, sunday at 1 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv on cspan3. Sunday on reel america, fdr and world war ii, a 2000 a program presented by this franklin hisevelt bribery focuses on involvement with key wartime issues. Here is a preview. We are now in this war. We are all in it. All the way. Woman andle man, child. The most tremendous undertaking of americas history. Share together the bad news on the good news. The defeats and the victories. The changing fortunes of war. To fight a global war, the United States aiming to the population that was known as the home front. They turned to leaders of large corporations to help lead to mobilization efforts. The response was astounding. American wartime production produced more than 299 aircraft. 80 8000sand jeeps, tanks, 1500 naval vessels, 6. 5 million rifles and 40 billion bullets. By 1945, the United States was producing 60 of allied andns and 40 included scarce goods, products ranging from gasoline to sugar were rationed. Civilians ate meat less, and often trait drank less coffee. Rebel foralvaged industry. While parents planted victory gardens, amperage is billions of dollars worth of war bonds. Of americans begin paying federal taxes for the first time. The government put limits on wages, prices and rent. The president and mrs. Roosevelt were at the forefront of this National Mobilization effort. Focusing intention on the goals of total victory. Had purchased or bonds and shades on their windows and committed to rationing. Therefore sons all served in americas military. Program thisfull sunday at 4 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv. Announcer located about 1 hour drive southwest of pittsburgh in rural western pennsylvania, Meadowcroft Rockshelter has been the site of extensive archaeology work since 1973. After university of pittsburgh students painstakingly removed layer after layer of sediment, evidence of human activity as early as 19,000 years ago was revealed. We visited meadowcroft, the National Historic landmark to learn the story from james adovasio, who has been leaving