Madisons role as the agenda maker for the philadelphia convention, and the particular argument i wanted to make is, as madison prepares himself for the convention in the weeks just before it was due to meet in midmay 1787, i think the key item he worked on in his agenda is the idea that a system of federalism based upon the voluntary compliance of the states with the recommendations, the resolutions, the requisitions that came from the Continental Congress, was never going to work. When he reasons about this, he does so in a very interesting way. He combines a set of empirical observations about what had taken place in the mid1770s and lessons americans like him had learned since 1776 by watching how the system functions. He takes a step back, and when he takes a step back, what he really does is to think abstractly, and what we can see at least implicitly again theoretic framework where he comes up with the idea that, because states have different interests and different interests within each state will always have some incentive to run against washington, to run against national directives, national policies. Even where states have a common interest, if you are mistrusful about what other states are going to do, you will have this repetitive net drag on the federal system. So, the federal system is never going to function efficiently. Under such a system, this will never fail to render federal measures abortive. From that position he reaches the conclusion that what needs to be done is you need to have a system that will operate by law, not by recommendations. And if it operates by law, you have to create a National Government that looks like a regular government in the full sense of the term. It has to have an independent legislature. It has to have an independent executive. It has to have an independent judiciary. Once you reach that point, then you are in a position to start drawing lessons from all the experience the americans have been accumulating over the past decade. Madison, among others, had accumulated a lot of those lessons because he had been highly active in both national and state politics. Many of the insights i think he brought to the constitution making project in 1787 come out of lessons he was drawing in medias res, in the process of being a member of two deliberative bodies, the Continental Congress in philadelphia, and then later princeton, and then also the virginia general assembly, which starts to meet in richmond in the middle of the 1780s. There is one other point we didnt get to, which ill just mention in passing. At the very end of that essay on the vices of the political system of the united states, madison launches into a whole new topic. He has three items, which he lists as the multiplicity, the mutability, and the injustice of state legislation. When he gets to the injustice question, he has a wonderful passage in which he says, multiplicity and mutability, bad enough in themselves, are secondary to a deeper question, which is the idea that legislatures ruling in the states are ruling unjustly. He says this calls into question the fundamental premise of republican government, that the majority who rule in such governments are the safest guardians both of public good and of private rights. That the majorities who rule in such governments are the safest guardians both of public good and of private rights. In other words, madison has reached the position in the spring of 1787 where he is really starting to question the fundamental premises of majoritarian rule. He is looking for ways to deal with what he sees as the vices, to use the language of federalist 10, the vices of the factious majority, which is not to going be respectful to the public good, what is the true Public Interest on one hand, or private rights. This is the point where he first works out the analysis many of us know better from federalist 10. He says, well, there are different sources of these vices. Some are the legislatures. He talks a bit, in a fairly compressed way, about what is wrong with state legislatures. The more frequent, if not more fatal source of the action comes from the people themselves. That is the point where he starts talking about, if we are going to build a republic, we cant assume we will have a collection of virtuous citizens who always subordinate private interest to public good. We have to assume the people act on the basis of opinion, passion, and selfinterest. If that is the case, we need to think of a way to improve the quality of our deliberations. So i raise this point because it seems to me that, to start with the outline for today, i think it is critical to figure out what is the significance of madison having worked out this agenda . I could not resist putting this slide up. I have firsthand knowledge of madison. I always like the way in which my Leather Jacket goes with the statue. This is up in the National Constitution center. This photo was taken when i taught at stanford washington in the spring of 2008. A student snapped it for me, and i have been using it ever since. It appears in my own personal site and my 50th High School Reunion from last fall. Ill speak somewhat authoratively for madison. This of course is Independence Hall at the Pennsylvania State house. So what difference does an agenda make . I think it is really important fir ys to understand at the outset that it was not said ab initio, from the beginning, exactly what the convention was going to do. There wasnt much circulation of ideas. There was a little bit, but there was not much circulation of ideas as to what the real agenda for philadelphia was going to be. Madisons hadnt worked out and henry knox, who was the secretary of war, had sent a plan of his own off to George Washington. There was a little circle of Army Officers who had their own notion of what might be done, but there is not extensive public discussion about exactly what it is the convention was going to do. And we can imagine, thinking retrospectively or situating ourselves in the time, that there were any number of possibilities that might have been available. You could do something very much like what the new jersey plan, which was introduced in midjune 1787 by William Paterson i will put up a slide of him in a few minutes. You could do Something LikeWilliam Paterson would have imagined, which lets just add some additional powers to those already possessed by the Continental Congress under the articles of confederation. Maybe we dont have to change the structure of government at all. If we add a few powers, maybe that will take care of everything that really needs to be done. Thats not a bad position. Thats a position that says, actually, we should not expect the American People to be willing to go too far. We should cut them some slack. They have lived through a long and expensive war. They are trying to recover from the war. There was significant commercial depression in the mid1780s. Maybe we should, you know, cut the American People some slack and not expect too much from them. On the other hand, if you are a rabid nationalist, you could say, geez, why dont we just start over . Lets get rid of the states. Why do we need rhode island or delaware . Those states were always mistakes to begin with, kind of little accidental communities who kind of became states really for no good reason as far as i can tell. We also have states of very different sizes. Maybe we should think about the optimal size of a state. Instead of large and small, maybe we should try to equalize the states. So that would be radical. Maybe get rid of states altogether. Hamilton may not have minded doing that. We will get to hamilton momentarily, too. And then in between, there is a strategy that madison works out, which i think was quite broad. A, it does say, we really need a government in the full sense of the term. And so we should think, we should rethink all the essential characteristics of republican government, maybe base it a little bit on reading in the sources. We should know our montesquieu. We should know our locke. We should at least know about hobbs and machiavelli so we wont go wrong in some respects. But i think more important is the americans have a decade of experience behind them as thinkers and doers and actors together, and that is the experience they can draw on in terms of trying to come up with some strategy of reform. So, in regards to madison, what follows also from his analysis of the sources within the states, his whole i will not say skepticism, but his airing doubts about the wisdom of majority rule per se. Madisons idea is maybe the most important thing we can do is to give the National Government some authority to intervene within the states individually. Not just to strengthen the National Government against the states or to make the National Government independent of the states, but actually to give the National Government, to give congress, what he calls the negative we would call it a veto but what he calls the negative on all state laws. If it had that negative, it could use it to protect itself against interference from the states. We will look at this in a couple weeks when we talk about mcculloch versus maryland, the great bank case of 1819. But maybe we could also use that power to intervene within the states to protect minorities within the states against the unjust legislation being passed by majorities. This is a really expansive agenda. It opens up about as many topics as you can imagine anyone could have discussed at the time, short of abolishing the states, which of course would be a political nonstarter, not worth talking about. Even though i think it might not have been a bad idea, you know, short of abolishing the states. It is hard to imagine a more expansive agenda, so that is why i think it really makes a lot of sense for us to think about madison as a key figure, regardless of what his batting average was on particular items. You have to watch out for lilys thing there. You are not going to hold it the whole time . Put it back down. Anyhow. Ok. So finally the last point under the agenda is to the other thing i want to say, and it comes out of that letter to George Washington of april 16 that you also read for today, madison also says the first thing we have to do is to solve the problem of representation. Solving the problem of representation means madison was firmly committed to majoritarian principles in both houses of congress. If you are ever going to have a National Legislature capable of acting on, directly upon the American People and not just through the states, it has to be bicameral. You have to have two houses. Madison insists that some rule of proportionality has to apply to both houses as opposed to allowing each state to have an equal vote. So madison says we have to decide this first before we decide which powers the National Government will exercise. Other delegates dont agree. John dickinson of delaware, who had been the principle drafter of the articles of confederation a decade earlier, said, no, why dont we do it the other way . Why dont we start to by figuring out what powers we want to give the National Government . If they are not that expansive, maybe we do not have to alter the structure, you dont have to alter the rule of voting. Madison has a different position. He says we cannot agree on what powers we are going to give until we determine whether or not principles of justice, in terms of the allocation of representation, will be respected or not. That is what drives really the first six to seven weeks of the convention. That is why when you get into the debates in philadelphia, which we know best of course from madisons notes, what we see is that one issue. How will seats in congress be apportioned among the states in both houses is really the one dominant issue until you get to mid july 1787 and the socalled great compromise. And talking about the socalled great compromise thus gets me to the three myths about the constitution, which are the real subject of todays lecture. So here are three questions that we are going to consider. I think this is fairly familiar stuff. We deal in effect with article one, article two, article three we deal with the articles relating to congress, the articles relating to the executive, the articles relating to the judiciary. If we had more time, we could talk about there are other things we could talk about. The federalism category of article 4, article 5, amendments, and so on. There are three myths, or the three presuppositions, which are kind of most common in how we think about what happened in philadelphia. And so lets just start by kind of outlining them. I will go back and try to talk about each of them individually. If you guys have questions, it is fine. You can tell i am in full form here and ready to go. But if i am going too fast and you want to stop me or even challenge my opposition to giving wyoming two senators i actually had a chance to say to senator barrosso i had dinner with him a few months ago. I said, why does wyoming have two senators . Ive never heard a good explanation. I actually said it to him. The guy is completely very serious guy. He did not pick up on the question. Anyhow. The first one i think is the most familiar one. So i think here is the common supposition. Giving each state an equal vote in the senate was a true compromise compromise in the best sense of the term was the true compromise over representation while the 3 5 clause over slavery was a moral failure. I suppose i could have added it was politically unnecessary. So the position i am going to argue is i am very much against giving each state an equal vote in the senate. I am kind of with madison on this, which is again, go back to my prior slide, maybe not so bad a position to be. Ill try to explain why as we go along. If i say i like the 3 5 clause, i want to make clear from the beginning i am not defending slavery. I am not arguing that africanamericans are. 6 of caucasians or others. In fact, that is not actually what the 3 5 clause does. What i am saying is there are very real there is a very significant basis for understanding a much deeper and longer lasting compromise was meant to be incorporated into the 3 5 clause than was true in the case of the equal state vote. I will explain why as we go along. Again, i am not defending slavery, lest there be any misunderstanding. I think in political terms, the case for the 3 5 clause is in some ways much better than the case for the equal state vote. I want to try to explain why i think that. The second position, thats fairly straightforward. Theres a common supposition that why do we have the Electoral College . Its because the framers feared democracy. They were very skeptical and nervous about allowing the people to vote for the president. I think that that is wrong and i will try to explain how i think we got stuck with the strange device, the Electoral College. As soon as it goes into operation in 1796, it was already obsolete under some suppositions. The first time it makes a difference, you realize it is never going to act in any way resembling what people thought it might do if you think it was designed to get a better class, a select group of electors, to choose the president. The third thing is a point that should be familiar to anybody who is thinking about going to law school. Judicial review of legislation, the idea that courts should apply constitutional standards to legislation in order to determine whether or not acts of legislation are constitutionally permissible or not. There is a common supposition that that really was not part of the framers design or it was only a vague part, if a part at all, of the framers design. It really came into being out of John Marshalls great opinion in the famous case of mcculloch versus not mcculloch marbury versus madison from 1803. I think that is bunk. I think marbury is an interesting case but not a significant one. It figures prominently in legal education, but that is for reasons other than the ones that historians or political scientists ought to respect. Marbury is a case worth studying, but was it consequential . I dont think so. I think the origins of judicial review lie elsewhere, and i will try to give a short account of how that was the case. Those are the three myths we are going to talk about today. Lets bring a few characters online so you know who they are. This is alexander hamilton. You know, along with madison and jefferson, franklin, maybe john adams, though adams i think was a bit of a streak hitter, the five most powerful minds of this remarkable generation. Hamilton, of course, is famous in the convention for giving his speech of june 18, which is a famous speech because it is so partial and favorable of the British Institution and kind of astonishes everyone and has very little impact. Hamilton, in fact, was not all that active a delegate in philadelphia. Much more important in one sense is the original author and madisons coauthor in writing the federalist, because the two other new york delegates left pretty early. Yates and lansing leave the convention pretty early, go back to new york. You guys are all going to become experts on new york over the weekend. Hamilton kind of goes back and forth, mostly back to new york during the convention. He does come back at the end. He goes back to his law practice, goes back to his family. But a major, major thinker, in my view maybe less a constitutionalist, but americas great state builder in the late 18th century. When he is there, he makes an impact. Madison of course went to the college of new jersey, now known as princeton. Here are two other princeton guys. On the left is luther martin. Not martin luther. In case there is an id on the exam, you want to get the names in the right order. And William Paterson. Paterson martin is from maryland. Martin will be the attorney for maryland in the great case of mcculloch 30 years later. He gives a famous two day speech on protecting states rights, which many of us think which madison conveys the impression was probably delivered under the influence of [speaking latin] if you can translate . Alcohol . Prof. Rakove alcohol. You can tell from the way madison describes how martin was speaking, he may have gone on a bender in order to get ready to talk. Paterson is a much different guy. He is the son of scottish immigrants. He had a very small law practice before the revolution, then the revolution gives him lots of opportunities. He serves on the first supreme court. And then i put a couple of new englanders up here. The guy on the left, elders gary, one of the very wealthy merchants who would not sign at the end of the convention. Up from the north shore, boston. And to the right, Roger Sherman who figures prominently in the , case for the equal state vote. Sherman was actually a merchant who married well. You cant quite make it out here, but sherman had an awkwardness to him. You see how he is sitting in this chair . He cant relax for the portrait. He is still kind of sitting there, cant quite unwind to allow his portrait to be painted. Yeah, sherman played a very active role. There are other delegates i could show, but that is enough. Let me get a point up here i could talk about later, but not first. So lets go back. I want to talk about the two compromises. So, representation. The great compromise, essentially the decision to give states an equal vote in the senate. Was that a great compromise to be admired or not . The other side of the compromise, is, of course, the 3 5 clause and the allocation of direct taxes would be allocated among the states on the basis of the population, where slaves counted as. 6 of free persons. Slaves are not just identified as slaves. Everybody knows what is meant by that phrase. Ok . If you go back to that letter from madison to washington, the april 16, 1787 letter, madison discusses his political strategy for dealing with the representation question. It is really it does identify kind of theoretic aspect of his thinking. Madison says here is how he thinks or hopes the politics of this issue will play out. He thinks the northern states will favor the idea of proportional representation in both houses because they have, they have the population advantage now. It is in their current interest. But he also imagine people in the 1780s, turned out to be a big mistake, but madison is not unique in imagining this he also imagines the population in the decades after the revolution will work to the advantage of the south. The south will come more into parity with the north in terms of population. And therefore the south will, if it is calculate incorrectly, calculating correctly delegates , from the south will recognize in the long run this kind of formula will project, will serve their interests. Thats not a bad argument. Other southern delegates shared it. If you try explaining why we have the census every 10 years, it is the southern delegates, led by edmund randolph, who insist we need a census to be taken. Rather than allowing congress to determine under its own discretion how to apportion the house of representatives, the southern delegates led by randolph of course madison addresses randolph as my dear friend, whereas jefferson is only dear sir. Interesting nuance in that. If you think you are the minority region but it will work for you in the long run, you want to make sure a rule of representation and specific provisions to have that rule honored as population shifts over time will be provided for in the constitution rather than leaving it to the discretion of congress to use or potentially abuse existing majorities. You may want to have those rules locked into the constitution to protect your interests over the long run. So madison says here is a basis for why proportionality should appeal on a regional basis. What do you do about the small states . Madison assumes they are just small states. Where are they going to go . What is delaware going to do . What is rhode island, the home of jews and infidels, going to do . The smallest states are going to have to fold. They are just not going to have the staying power to resist this. This is madisons calculation. He thinks he can argue into them giving up on the point. And yeah, i dont think it is a bad argument. What is the basis of the argument . The basis of the argument is what comes out in the little passage i have up here. If we went back to the devices of the political system less time, or if you guys remember the basic argument of federalist madison was famous for arguing, 10, what is the basis of political affiliation, political orientation in our society . We want to identify, what are the real interests, opinions and passions that swirl through the body politic . What is it that makes us act politically, whether we are voters or whether we are officials . The basic argument is, we have to identify our real interests, opinions, and passions. Do we identify ourselves with an ethnocultural identity . It could be occupation. It could be residence. A kind of community, not the state but community in which you lived. It could be a lot of political affiliations follow what we call ethnocultural, religious lines. Jews and africanamericans vote highly democratic. Old white wasps tend to be republican, and so on and so on. Madison does want to argue, and i think he is correct on this, and that is a big basis of his in which youthat the size ofare live is politically irrelevant. Except under one condition. Occasion, on every the sides of the state in which you have live will have no effect at all. You will never ask the question, how should this vote, with one exception. What is the obvious exception . [indiscernible] that will get factored in. You are getting to the conclusion before the problem. When you are actually closed. That has nothing to do with the size of the state. Argumente having an about whether or not small states deserve to be overrepresented just because they are small, madisons argument would be small states do not deserve representation per se because size does not correlate in any way with their interests. You are just going to give them at your benefit because they think theyre going to lose something. The exception is when youre voting on rules of voting and youre not operating on not knowing what your social position would be later. If youre voting on the rules of voting and you know what your interests are, of course you have the incentive. Size does not affect our opinion. Here is an example. Lets say you are a big Second Amendment guy. The many tragic stories through the news these days, this is one of the most absurd. Lets say you are a big Second Amendment person. Matter in what is sometimes called the venison belt from pennsylvania to michigan. Or whether you live in idaho or wyoming. You really believe gun lights are the sacred rights to which you are most attached . Does it really matter the size of the state in which you live . Probably not. And so on, and so on. Size might sometimes be a variable for something else, rhode island is a small state. And so on. And hamilton and others. Let me close the door, here. Sorry. Madisons concern is what you really want to do, you really want to identify what is the real interest that the country has to work on . The question of small states and large states, that is ephemeral. Delegates,all state and you have to listen to their arguments. Martin kind of drives people nuts. In the end, you dont find they are very convincing or because size is not a predictor of political behavior. Size will not be an issue. One issue is slavery. I will just put this down a bit. Madison gives a speech on june 30. It is about the deadlock on the question of representation. Madison is trying to break the deadlock. Madison concedes that when identifiable interests are there, we want to know what they if you thought your essential interests were not being secured. What are the real interests that deserve recognition . He contended, this is madison. By the way, i have a colleague at Boston College who is a historian type, he wrote the book called medicines and. Madisons hand. To ask theorces us question of exactly how and when did madison write his notes and how and when did he revise them . It is interesting about the way in which madisons views may have shifted over time, his notes may have been altered. You can read it when it comes out, should be out sometime this year. Text, we cant simply assume this is sacred scripture. It has to be critically examined. But lets take it as it is because i think it still expresses the genius of madison. Size, butifferent of by other circumstances. Without the polar vortex, we can the idea that climate is a major determinant of certain forces. The effects of having or not having slaves. The eastern provinces form a Great Division of interest in between thetates northern and southern. What madison was doing was a delicate operation. The slavery question is not often introduced. He wants to introduce it in order to come up with a better argument as to why the small fores have no valid claim an equal say vote in either house of congress over the long run. This talking that the civil war and reconstruction, madison is 100 accurate here. Interest downting the civil war reconstruction, arguably. The politics of race, the politics of slavery. Madisons sociology is much when the real conflict of interest between large and small states. Argue, he iso trying to convince the other delegates of why he is right. How does this play out . Deadlocks anvention couple days later. There is a Compromise Committee that meets, madison is very much against having a committee meeting. The Convention Comes back with a proposal on july 5, they take a day off to celebrate the fourth which is just becoming a holiday at that point. At that point, the convention they kind of get their way through the 3 5 law. Even its an interesting debates here. People say the real principle of representation is for the population of Political Rights since states have no Political Rights at all. They should not be factored into the story or into any kind of algorithm. They dont exist politically. They are not subject. They are primarily property. Slaves have no rights. In a sense, it is a sectional deal. I think it is a good deal. Slavery,se they like but if you take the constitution over the years, you have two or more regions with very different interests. This identifies a lasting interest. A is ugly to watch, it is moral failure. The fact that slavery is deeply culture,in american our constitution was framed as an antislavery document, it would never have been ratified. The convention deals with the 3 5 clause. There are some moral statements. That slaveryate was becoming a moral issue. Most historians they slavery becomes a moral issue sometime around the middle of the 19th century. You can see how those concerns are resonating through american thinking. If you need first aid, let us know. Question, what happens with the equal state vote was the margin. There are 10 states present. Ok, sorry about that. Massachusetts, divided. Massachusetts is divided because the guy from up on the north , again, i think was the first genuine maverick in American History. The Electoral College, that position of compromise. One side won, the other side lost. That is why wyoming and idaho two sections. The old ladies are just as good as you. That is number one. In terms of what it says about the politics of the constitution. Secondly, but if the big i am here. Washington, you could postop. Hes probably more mobile. Case, he would tower over 98 of the soldiers. There is a standing story about the president that was created in washingtons image. That is not true at all. The framers went round and round on the president. And they made the critical decision in the last week and a half before the convention was to adjourn. They did so under conditions of profound uncertainty and let me try to explain why that was the case. For starters, i think the first thing to realize is that this is the one area power where they really had to be creative the most. President o adequate for a National Republican executive. The whole idea of executive power in the country is wrapped up either in monaco government which the americans really rejected, or ministerial government, which americans also rejected going into the decision for independence. The british constitution was being corrupted by the ministry that was seeking power with aggressive officeholders. There is no real precedent for what that would look like. You really had to think creatively. Monarchy is not going to work very well. The framers did region two decisions pretty quickly which indicated how they were starting against the republican enthusiasms in 1776. They agreed with the first week of debate, they agree that the executive power shall be vested in a Single Person, not a collective executive. We will talk a bit about this down the road. That is a significant statement. You could have made it more collected the idea that the executives or officials resign ultimately in a Single Person with the decisionmaker, that is free significant. That theys agreed should have a negative the toe v eto veto. It had not been used in britain since 19 or seven. Since 1907. Very problematic group argues their patriot royalists. He had some good arguments. They reach an agreement pretty quickly, but there is no political president for knowing. They can really hung up on the question of election. There are three obvious modes of election. One is popular election. Wilson was a big advocate of popular election. People election by the has two problems. One, if you have a genuinely popular election, which by the way, i would do that, get rid of Electoral College. , the southelection will be a big loser. Why . Because in the south, only citizens can vote. Slaves have no recognition. Depending on which county or state you look at, slaves are obviously a major part of the southern population. It only citizens vote in one big constituency, there is a big regional problem. The second problem, and it goes back to the democracy, it was not that the framers worried wouldmerican voters follow passively the next guy to come along on a white horse or what they were really worried about was the kind of information problem. A democrats are truly national characters. Washington is a nobrainer. After washington, the prevailing assumption, it is a pretty good assumption, that you have a lot of favorites, people would vote on convention, so it would be very hard to get to a majority of the circumstance. Without having some kind of motive in the ongoing election. Not because the framers worried byricans would be swayed , it is hard to get worse, but you can do it if you try. Its that he thought it would be real hard. That turned out to be terrible judgment. The framers do not anticipate i would work as an incentive to create parties. Bad expectation percent canadian. First 1788. Just have a legislative election. Have congress alleged the president. Elect the president. That, you haveh to give them some credit. Who is going to be more knowledgeable in congress . Mostfinition, they are the knowledgeable. But then you have another thing. Which is that what you really is a president who is going to be an independent executive. If the president is going to be elected by congress, he has to be a one term president. You cant give him a second term. If you give him a second term, he is just going to get the dominant majority in congress. Tool, to use the popular term. Some people understand, correctly, that ambition was something you wanted to encourage. That was the decisive consideration. It wasnt the democracy. The argument here is that the , popular modes election which actually can have worked quite well or election by congress, which could have worked well at any time, both of them are subject to what appeared to be killer objections. What you are left with is kind of the default negative. , athe time it is adopted week and a half before the convention adjourns, by that time, the framers of worked , wer way along the idea will just present this as a compromise. The large states get the advantage in round one. ,f we cant produce a majority they all have to vote on the same day. Originally it goes to a vote in the senate. It takes the convention three days to figure this out with the house and the senate voted by states. You replicate the compromise that constitutes congress and resolve separation of powers question. A president will be a different situation. Who were the electors going to be . Nobody had any clue. The third point i want to do quite quickly, we started a minute or two late, so give me that three minutes and we will try to wrap this up really quickly. , the leastquotation dangerous branch, the greatest work of modern american constitutional duties. The vast possibilities of the presidency. The great chief justice john marshall, not single, but first and foremost, was there to do it, and data. The time is 1803, the decision in the case of marbury versus madison. Again, let me try briefly to offer an alternative account. One of madisons key proposals as i said the other day, one of isisons key proposals having a council of revision which of the executive judicial council, which would possess a limited negative. And then they veto over legislation. Madison did not like this idea. Madison was first and foremost a legislator and all of his experiences and activities were in the virginia assembly. Deeply deeply. He was actually looking for ways to enhance it. If he is skeptical about it, he wants to do, you think the key thing to do will be to try to improve the quality of legislation. It is much better to have legislation that is drafted at the beginning then to deal with poorly drafted legislation later on. Madison sees a kind of tradeoff here. When he proposes the reversion, you see that all the other that this isstand not a good idea. The basic argument is that a, judges cannot act political capacity. You just wont be able to draw a line very sharply. Secondly, the proper time for is when you have actual cases and controversy. To let a real controversy involved. On that basis, the idea that marbury versus madison is the source of this review just doesnt make any sense. It is a new idea and the framers were aware of the new idea. The real application of the would not beew against congress, it would be against the states. Is, by the way, what the supremacy clause of the constitution does. It would really be against states. Foremost, first and the alternative medicines idea. Remedy undergal fear of not complying or to somehow not entirelys novel, that is a big misconception. Thanks a lot. Left all the stuff we need for next week up here. Heres the outline for today if you want to have it, really take and she will work out the notes. Here i hope on monday and see how this experiment goes. Thanks. Announcer listen to lectures in history on the go by streaming our podcast anywhere, anytime. Youre watching American History tv, only on cspan 3. You are watching American History tv, covering history eventstyle with coverage, eyewitness accounts, archival films, lectures and visits to museums and historic places. All weekend, every weekend on cspan3. American history tv is on social media. Cspan history. Matthew wasniewski talks about hispanic americans who served in congress. Prior to the mid20th century, many served as territorial delegates and commissioners as opposed to voting representatives. Archives hosted this event and provided the video. Historian at the center for legislative archives. Thank you for attending todays talk on this last day of july. This is the last talk in the series until we resume in september. For those of you in attendance, our guest hardly needs an introduction. Matthew wasniewski is the historian of the u. S. House of representatives and a member of the advisory meeting on the records of congress. Friend andgtime