White folks to and understand in a lot of ways that in slave africanamericans were people. A Bruce Vaughan as property. For her to a humanize and make them people and for her readers to understand that this is wrong, the breaking up of human families is morally wrong and unchristian was the goals she set for herself in showing the wrongs of slavery in uncle toms cabin. For more information on booktvs recent visit to hartford and many other destinations on our citys toward go to cspan. Org citiestour. Now we bring you the Second Annual bill of rights book festival. For the next four hours panels from the National Constitution center in philadelphia. Mary sarah builder and Sanford Levinson all discuss their book but first a. E. Dick howard on his book the road from runnymede on the magna cartas influence on the constitution. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, happy bill of rights day. This is no ordinary bill of rights day. On december 15th, 1791, the bill of rights was ratified and made part of the constitution this day and this moment is in fact the 225th anniversary of the ratification of the bill of rights. A round of applause for the bill of rights. I am jeffrey rosen, president of the National Constitution center which is the only institution in america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the u. S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis. We have a furrowing bill of rights, a blockbuster show of four marvelous books about the bill of rights. You will hear about the origins of magna carta, the efforts to change his own role in the drafting of the constitution. You will hear the value of dissent throughout Supreme Court history and a great book trying to channel writers of the federalist papers and imagine what they would think about this. It will be a wonderful substance today. I am excited to introduce bill of rights day by introducing you to a magnificent new interactive tool the National Constitution center launched on Constitution Day and is now thrilled to distribute to every student in america and i want all of you and our cspan viewers to follow along with me as i show you this remarkable nonpartisan pool and tell you what it can do ended is the perfect introduction to our first panel about the relationship between the magna carta and the bill of rights. The interactive constitution which you confined on constitutioncenter. Org is an exciting project is a collaboration between three great organizations, the federalist society, the American Constitution Society and the College Board which decided to make this a centerpiece of the new 80 history government exam. What we have done with the help of our great partners is to ask the leading scholars in america from every perspective, liberal and conservative and everywhere in between to write about every clause of the constitution describing both what they agree about and what they disagree about so when you go to the site you can be confident that when you read the common statement about what scholars agree about this is a bulletproof bipartisan statement in which scholars with greatest divergent perspectives agree like unanimous Supreme Court majority opinion. And then you can read their separate statements which are like separate occurrences. Bill of rights day, here we have only the first week in amendments to the bill of rights but now all 15 amendments building up the rest of it over the next few years. Lets begin with the fifth amendment which says a whole lot of things but it includes what is called the due process clause which says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. What is the core meaning or historic source of that . You can click on the common statement and you will see roger fairfax, the leading scholars of the new process called divergent perspectives telling you, i am reading now the principles of government should be limited, very old in angloamerican law. The magna carta statement of subjects rights issued by king john of england became well known over the centuries, chapter 39 provides no free man shall be arrested or imprisoned except by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. This language gave rise to the constitution. And read the rest of this and you will hear about the development of the due process clause, current controversies in you can read professor fairfax and professor harrison with their disagreement about how the fifth amendment apply. This is an magnificent introduction to do process but that is not all. With this great fool you cannot only by a knife but you can explore the actual revolutionary era as well as sources in English Common law that gave rise to the due process a you can click on rights, we want to begin with the fifth amendment, the one we are talking about and hear you will see the authority of sources James Madison relied upon when he wrote the bill of rights, he didnt make these rights out of thin air. He cut and pasted from revolutionary or state constitutions and the English Commonlaw sources including most significantly the magna carta, and the language, now manage to be taken or imprisoned or deprived of liberty is or exiles or any otherwise destroyed nor will we pass upon him nor condemn him but by lawful judgment of his peers and you can trace the evolution of that language through madisons first proposal which doesnt look exactly like the fifth amendment as it ended up. It doesnt even here it is. The due process clause should not be a witness nor deprived of life, liberty or property without due process and we can compare madisons first proposal which does contain that language and you can watch it as it moves through the senate and through congress and ends up in its final form. This is a magnificent tool not only for studying history of government but language, the head of the College Board, and i hope students from 8 to 80 can engage and carefully followed the evolution of this great principle. There is one final exciting thing this magnificent tool can do. We already started with a contemporary agreement and disagreement about due process was, move back in time to see its roots in the magna carta and revolutionary era state constitutions like virginia bill of rights that has a phrase that says no one can be justly deprived of the laws a land. The virginia declaration 1776 has language which sounds even more like article 39 of the magna carta, a final draft of the fifth amendment itself but not only can you start with the present, go back in time, but now you can trace the spread of these liberties across the globe and this astonishing final platform, rights around the world, you can click on the due process guarantee which is right here and you can see due process clause and you can see every other country in yellow that has a version of due process clause so if you click on the United Kingdom of course you find the magna carta, article 39 itself as well as the human rights act of 1998 which says no one will be deprived of liberty in all cases and it gives examples of how interesting to compare the historic sources of the contemporary exploration and you can click on other countries that protect due process including germany which says every person shot be entitled to hearing and importance of law, how wonderful it is for International Visitors to the Constitution Center to see this platform you can access and the beautiful bill of rights gallery, 12 original copies of the bill of rights, pick a right interests than that the american constitution can compare it with the way the constitutions are. And an exciting new constitution drafting, google helped support at the Constitution Center bringing together drafters of constitution abroad and school kids to compare american constitutionalism so it is an incredible tool that we hope will transform constitutional education in america, bring it to every student in america so i want you and our cspan viewers to check it out, constitutioncenter. Org, dig deep into it, prepare the historic contemporary and international sources, tell us what you think, and lets Work Together to transform constitutional education. With that enthusiastic introduction as we show this platform, i get very fired up, it is my distinct honor to introduce the leading scholar on magna carta, professor a. E. Dick howard to kickoff bill of rights day, eager to get him to the Constitution Center for a long time. Theres no more efficient moment and no more distinguished scholar to begin our proceedings, he is the miller professor of law in Virginia School of law, he was a Rhodes Scholar and law clerk to justice hugo black on the Supreme Court, one of my favorite justices, you go in honor of hugo black, hugo black, there was hugo black on the force of we should have picked you go and he is a hero. He really believed in enforcing the constitution and believed in the First Amendment more passionately than anything else. Professor howard has consulted with state and federal bodies. Often constitutional draftsman in other states and helped draft constitutions in the philippines, hungary, czechoslovakia, Real International statesman, he has argued cases before the Supreme Court and his many books and articles include the road from runnymede, not magna carta and constitutionalism in america, please join me in welcoming a. E. Dick howard. That was an enthusiastic introduction i kick off my glasses at the university of virginia, jeff is certainly alerted you to why we are setting, bill of rights day with magna carta and other wireless using credit choice, but the english documents years ago, what to do with the bill of rights, there is a road to the bill of rights really begins with the magna carta. As many of you know this is the hundredth year since magna carta is first agreed to buy on june 15th, the exact anniversary date so i come back with a sense why the english were celebrating, makes great sense that they would be making a lot of this anniversary but the question i put to you and talk about this morning is why should we care . Why should we care about this bargain between reluctant king john and aggressive barons in the year 1215 . The story takes us back to and begins with king john himself. I didnt really meet king john, but that would be a little bit of a stretch. My student thing, that the philadelphia convention, but was first introduced to the idea of king john when i was a kid and my parents would reef, one of the books, you know the creator of winnie the pooh, many of you are winnie the pooh fans. You created a wonderful book called now we are six. If you dont know that book for your children and grandchildren is a wonderful read. One of the poems is called simply king Johns Christmas and the point begin Something Like king and john was not a good man, he had his many ways and sometimes days and days and days. Being shunned like that, this is pretty bad. I grew up, nobody could be as bad, grew up and started reading about king john and he was that bad. May be worse. He certainly was morally corrupt. No accident the king of dean lind has never been named john since that king john and never will be one. Not only morally bankrupt but also the most inert king in english history, he was a terrible military leader in 1214, lost most of the Land Holdings in france, he quarreled with the pope over the appointment of archbishop of canterbury giving in to the popes wishes. The townspeople were against him. The town of blunden but above all he made enemies of the terrorists themselves, makers and shakers and and answer military adventures and he would pledge to money from the midway is that cannot persist with practice. And presented their demands to reluctantly acquiesced . But i wont walk you through the provisions of magna carta, things that need not concern us but the centerpiece of magna carta is one that jeff pointed to, chapter 39 and that is the one that provides no one shall be proceeded except by the law of the land, and it came within a century or so after magna carta could be interchangeable with what we today call due process of law. When you read the fifth, and fourteenth amendments, you will see a concept which traces directly to the magna carta. That is where all started. Magna carta, king john, within a couple months it was but dead letter. If that was all there was to the story i would not be up here this morning, we would not be talking about magna carta but king john died in 1216. One of the chroniclers said he died of peaches and new cider. If someone offered you that at a christmas party, youre going to, i would push the plate away and say no thank you. He died the next year. His successor, henry iii was 9 years old. This is the middle ages. How long is a 9yearold kid, will he live maybe so, maybe not. You have all seen game of thrones, you know what it was like. Is region, william marshall, a remarkable man, hit upon what we today would call a Public Relations gesture, and lets get this young prince, now king, to reissue magna carta. He did that and that set in motion a tradition of successive english monarchs beginning their rain by reissuing the magna carta as a statement of good faith respecting rights and liberties of the english ople. So that is where it begins. One mention of the middle ages, a century or two after magna carta, a statute was passed, instruction to judges the set if magna carta and another stage where in conflict that you would prefer magna carta. It was thought to be better than other statutes and that begins to set in train the notion the we would call constitutional and judicial supremacy, the notion of the constitution as a superstatutes, already beginning to emerge as early as the middle ages in england. I am going to pass over the tutor period, henry viii who is thought of as a great time of Constitutional Governments, certainly the wives of henry viii wouldnt have thought that. Let me jump over to the century in which the First Permanent english colonies were being planted on this continent. It was also in england a turbulent period of civil war, conflict of every kind. It must have been a dreadful time, i take it the civil war in england was as bad as the civil war in this country. In constitutional terms, Queen Elizabeth died and the crowd went to james vi of scotland, james i of england, the house of stuart came to the throne of england. James brought with him a concept of the divine right of kings. Imagine that was not accepted as a traditional english precept, the rights of parliament, one of the leaders of the parliamentary opposition to james i was sir edward coke. The english language, they do what they like. As sir edward coke was leader of the opposition and during debate in parliament, kings prerogative, coke said magna carta is such a fellow, he will have no sovereign. Even the king was limited by the preceptsf the magna carta. It was a turbulent century, civil war in the 1640s, 1649 the execution of charles i which brought into being the cromwellian commonwealth will you and i live in commonwealths, commonwealth of pennsylvania, commonwealth of virginia in the seventeenth century. After the cromwellian regime, the stewarts came back, struggles continue to in parliament, and historians call the glorious revolution which brought william and mary to the throne and put an end to the jamess and stewart and charless and as part of the constitutional settlement agreed to the english bill of rights. 1680, the bill of rights of englands prefigures, anticipates our bill of rights, and laid the two document side by side, you can see provisions of the english bill of rights, word for word over the american bill of rights of our own constitution. That is basically what was going on in england in the seventeenth century and let me at that point take the story over to the american side. As i mentioned, all the constitutional prefiguring was going on in england in the seventeenth century, the american colonies were getting their start. A charge of virginia, the first of the permanent colonies, 1607 operated under the Virginia Company charter of 1606, most of that charter is about commercial matters which everyone thought gold and silver, in virginia and lately. Gold and silver, aside from congressional provisions, in the va charter, guarantees those who emigrated to virginia, the privileges, a franchises cit these colonies would enjoy it, the idea was if you pull the stakes and moved here you didnt leave your right behind, you brought them with you. One might fairly debate the content of those rights but clearly understood the guarantees of the magna carta. So i could tell you stories about ways in which colonists during the seventeenth century in places like massachusetts, pennsylvania and elsewhere in system on the rights of magna carta, in struggles with their own governors, their own courts and colonial institutions so magna carta and the english, wealth were fairly in fused into america. Not surprising. They were english colonies of magna carta was becoming part of the common language of american law and constitution was in the seventeenth century the foundation was laid. Let me even suggest how you get from early period of the revolution, starting in the 1760s with the pot boiling, the most famous case argued in boston, 1761, the assistance case, he was representing boston merchants who were objecting to systems that were by general search warrants, not limited, they wouldnt satisfy the Fourth Amendment requirements, basically allowed officials to go in and search for a place of business or anything they wanted to do, this is not constitutional. There was no written constitution. This was still the colonies but he was making a case they would recognize as being a constitutional case, remember it polk is in the seventeenth century, coke had decided in 1610 to call the case, in it this language where coke says acts of parliament is now led boyd. That doctrine never took hold of england, otis proclaimed the british constitutionalism, in london, the government could not make sense of an argument like this, by this point you had blackstones commentaries when laws of england or written in 1760s. Parliament is supreme, parliament calls the shots and he didnt recognize judicial or constitutional limitations, crazy laws and moral laws, heres the address on the other side saying there are constitutional limits so you have on the two sides of the atlantic, quite opposing points of view. Small wonder the revolution finally came about because english and americans were talking past each other. The story after that is a very familiar with especially for philadelphia audience. The stamp asked published in the 1760s, firsttime parliament sought to impose an internal tax when america did external livys and you know how the american colonists reacted to that, no taxation without consent, they also complained trials of these cases under the stamp act, admiral secords had no injuries, elected trial by jury was one of the rights americans trace back to the magna carta. The sons of liberty through the tee into the harbor in boston touching off a firestorm, british closed the courts the ports of boston, ordered troops, dissolve the Colonial Assembly and these actions the colonists called coercive or intolerable acts sparked cooperation on the part of vault the colonists. The other colonies came to support massachusetts in the continental congress. In that process, they be framed opposition by resolution. How is it we americans have right to proclaim against the british . There was an interesting debate that went on in the continental congress. Some people said we ought to point to the charter. Others said we ought to put it on magna carta and others said it is natural rights, natural laws. These are different ways of thinking about rights, but americans are such eclectic people they decided rather than choose one or the other they would sweeten together in one basket so they base these claims of rights on all of these, any of you who studied law, american constitutional law can be messy, we have done that for a long time. We are not like the fringe, organized instead of a bundle. So that was the continental congress. The resolutions that finally became a fact in july of that year began in williamsburg, and on the same day they set to work on a constitution for virginia. Actually they set to work on two documents. First a declaration of rights, the famous declaration of rights which owes to much to the english, and having passed that, then a frame of government or the body of the constitution. I think the importance of the twostep process, social compact, the notion that people enjoy inherent natural rights before they frame a government so that those rights depend independently of a perceived government. So social compact theory has concrete form in this virginia twostep process. What virginia did, other states were doing, pennsylvania, the others were passing bills of rights and constitutions, and if you think about those early documents, really strikingly different from the federal model, which is so familiar to us. Checks and balances, separation of powers and the like. In these state documents, you typically had legislative sprem see. Pennsylvania, 1776, there was no governor. Hey had an executive, courts hardly had any powers to speak of in 76 the legislatures were thought to be the branch of government closest to the popular will. Well, in this process one of the people who complained about the first virginia constitution was Thomas Jefferson. The founder of my university, i have to admit its written into my teaching contract im not permitted to give any Public Lecture without at least one reference to Thomas Jefferson so you will record i just made my obligatory reference to Thomas Jefferson. He hated that first virginia constitution. My theory is he didnt like it because he wasnt there. Jefferson couldnt imagine anybody could do anything like that without his being part of the process. His objection was that the same body of men were making the constitution. They said if they can do that, they can unmake it. Its another law. You want a separate body to make a constitution which is superior to ordinary law. So, what we did, did not do in virginia, in 1776, i have to give credit to my friends in massachusetts. In 1780, they called a constitutional convention, elected with delegates elected by the people, expressly to write a constitution which went to the people in referendum for ratification. So the americans invented something which the europeans adopt and is an american peninsula donees practice, transformed the way we make constitutions. So, a vote of confidence, of gratitude to my friends in massachusetts. I was up there last year giving something called the i was imprudent enough to suggest to my friends in massachusetts a very good at words. We know john adams and all that but not so good at numbers, because they dont quite understand that 1607 comes before 1620. And i dont think i made any friends in boston by making that observation. So, you get to the stage, state constitutions of something which really is now fundamental law. The federal conventioner 1787. Theres no complete transcript. We have madisons notes. Youll be hearing about those today. I may be wrong but im not aware that during the debates in philadelphia anybody ever mentioned magna carta. Well, if i think its such a big deal, if its so important for the story im telling today, how come it wouldnt be part of the debate in philadelphia . Well, assuming it wasnt and i were able to queriry my federalist friends, why did you not talk about magna carter, their answer would be was magna carter was an adjustment of power between the variants and the king. Were setting out to create a new government thats a totally different enterprise. They would have argued the magna carta limited royal or executive power. Were writing a constitution which limits all branches of government, including the legislative and the judicial powers. And they probably also would have said, magna carta was in effect a grant by the king to the other people in england, were writing a constitution founded on popular sovereignty, we, the people. I think they would have distinguished it. Well, whatever their intellectual reasoning, as im sure you know, the nearly of course that created a center of opposition of what came to be known as the antifederalist camp, who said, look at this new constitution. No bill of rights. Theyre not recognizing our rights. Well, James Madison was a good enough politician to basically say, look, okay, i get the point. Just ratify the constitution and we will undertake in the First Congress to add a bill of rights. He was as good as his word. He winnowed out a number of suggestions and proposals from states and those proposals, enacted by the congress, approved by the states, became what we call the bill of rights today. So we have a constitution, bill of rights, and what we have at this point if you step back and thank about the respective place , a part played by british tradition from the magna carta and the english bill of rights and the american ideas on the other hand. I think you have an interesting blend of american innovations, american federalism, had no direct european counterpart. Judicial review is really, i think if you look at global constitutionalism today, perhaps americas most remarkable contribution to constitutionalism around the world. Innovations on the one hand, but then traditional on the other. Ideas like due process of law, cruel and unusual punishment, a number of precepts in our constitution which owe theyre ancestry to england. So how die put together the magna carta legacy and what does it have to say to us about the way americans thing about governance. The magna carta is an example of what we call the rule of law. A phrase that american lawyers love to talk about. Very proud of. It is less selfrevealing than one might think. I was at a meeting in what was then lenin grad, now st. Petersburg, working with the drafters of the first post soviet russian constitution. I think a long time ago, only 20odd years ago, but those were the days when we thought russia was, well, join the family of liberal, constitutional democratic countries. Well, in the age of putin thats not happening as far as i can see. But at any operate in my discussions at any rate in my discussions be i dont speak russian so we were working through a very good translator, but i discovered she was rendering the english language fuze rule of law as socialist legality. Well, that not exactly what we in the west mean by rule of law. Second legacy of magna cart tacoma the articulation of fundamental rights and that really takes hold in this country. In all my travels, i know of no country where talk about rights, where the language of rights, is so conspicuous as it is in america. We complain about lawyers and judges and courts but when we have a problem, we show up in court. Were very good at turning garden variety disputes into lawsuits and ordinary lawsuits into constitutional claims. I sometimes thing our National Motto ought to be Something Like, ill see you in court. On the national flag. So, fundamental rights, a legacy of magna carta. Thirdly, putting it in writing. Anglo american tradition of the fundamental documents we have been talking about this morning, beginning with magna cart tacoma magna carta, through the constitution, bill of rightsdune to the European Convention of human rights, any number of documents. But here in america we really take written documents seriously, partly perhaps because of the religious influence, biblical teachings and the like. Thats perhaps another subject. Fourthly this one i think really matters in terms of the influence of magna carta, and that is it put us on the road ultimately to the notion of constitutional supremacy. I told you about james otis assistants argue. Where he quoted lord cook and said Even Parliament or legislative bodies by extension are limited by the constitution. Its a idea that takes you finally to John Marshalls opinion in 1893 in marberry versus madison, you may remember when you first read marberry and may have been struck by the fact that he starts out the opinion with general principles of juris prudence. The idea of a constitution. The notion is if youre going to write a constitution you must mean for it to be superior to ordinary law. As if thats a selfevident proposition. Then later in the opinion he finally gets almost by way of afterthought, by the way, theres article 6 of the constitution. This constitution and all laws enacted in pursuant thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. So we start writing with the text but in marshalls times the general principles were so selfevident to him, thats where he started. Finally, in talking about magna cartas legacy, i think theres the tradition of an organic evolving, unfolding constitution. Looking around the room and i dont see Justice Scalia here. If he is i might be a little more careful in what i have to say. He can come up and beat up the lecturer. It brings us down to appearing lo american history, what today might be call the living constitution. The words Justice Scalia might not want to hear. One may object it to but its there. So much part of the way we do constitutional law. For example, cruel and unusual punishment has never been limited to what it meant in 1791. I can think, for example, of cases decided by the Supreme Court as late as 1989 where the court rejected the argument that Capital Punishment for youthful offenders or another case for the somewhat mentally retard, violated the eighth amendment. Thats 1989. Then in 2003 and 2005, less than just a little over a decade later, the court overruled most of those precedents and held that under those circumstances, there was a violation of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Through you clearly have an evolve can constitution. The and in thinking about the due process clause, if you know something about the uses to which fifth and 14th 14th amendments due process had been put, is there any example in constitutional history of a more malleable concept put to service in more Different Things over the years. Let me on that point read you just a couple of lines from what Justice Kennedy had to say in a case in 2003, lawrence vs. Texas. It was a case where the Supreme Court struck down the texas law criminalizing sodomy. At the end of the opinion, Justice Kennedy said, those who drew and ratified the due process clause did not presume to know the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, but times can blind us to certain truths, and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper, serve only to oppress. As the constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. So thats just kennedy, lawrence vs. Texas, 2003. Its there for all the more intriguing you look at the same justices opinion in the overcase, the samesex major you. Find the identical language in that opinion. Normally when you find that language lifted from one case and propped into another. It will have a quotation mark. He doesnt quote himself. He doesnt tell you where it came from but its clear that he is using the same language, and the way i think about that is, its become for Justice Kennedy such an obvious proposition of constitutional law he doesnt have to cite source for it. Like John Marshall talking about judicial review in marberry vs. Madison, so there you have notions of justice expend due process of law. Finally before i wrap this up, word or two about the documents called magna carta. Where are they . There are 17 copies of magna carta from the year 1215 through the year 1297 when it went on the statute books of england. Four copies of the original charter, two are in the british library, one at lincoln cathedral and one at salisbury cathedral. Of those 17 magna cartas, theyre all in england except two. One in australia and one at the National Archives in washington. One of the 1297 charter. I was on a plane flying to london and my seat mate was a lawyer from texas who was ross perots personal lawyer, and we chatted, and he told me the story of how ross perot heard that a family in england owned a copy of the magna carta. Ross perot, manage of means a man of means, had most anything else he wanted but didnt have a copy of magna carta so he decides hell send this lawyer over to bargain for it. The is back in the 1980s. They finally struck a deal for 1. 5 million. 1980s was fair amount of change. So, i said thats very interesting. Youve buy this copy of magna carta. How did you bring it over to this country . Surely england has laws about exporting. He said i took the copy and rolled it up and put it in a mailing tube. And he put this priceless document in a mailing tube. He said, yes, i did, and then went to the airport. You go to heathrow ability, what did the custom agents said. They asked me what i had in the mailing tube and he said i have a copy of the magna carta, and the agent said, oh, right, mate, go on through. So, presumably a copy of the facsimile of magna carta. So i said, okay you got it through customs and youre on the airplane. Said, yes, i put net the overhead bin. I said thats where people put ski boots and back pacs. Somehow this document survived. Maybe this is the with a they do things in texas, just rough and ready. But it survived the trip and came to america. Well, years passed, and i guess ross perot decided he really didnt need this copy of the magna carta, so he put it up for auction in new york and another man of some means, david reuben stein, heard about and it bid over the phone, and after the bidding finished the price was then 21. 5 million. Now you know why ross perot has a lot of money, right . Even with inflation from 1. 5 to 21. 5, a nice profit. So the National Archives gave me a paul and said, professor howard, would you come up and give a talk, a lecture on the occasion of the installation of this copy of magna carta on permanent loan at the National Archives. I said, id be happy to do that. So i opened up the washington post, the week before i think its on thursday, the post will have a little box with three or four things you might look to know about that are happening in washington the next week. So this particular thursday it said, on tuesday march 10th, 7 30 p. M. At the National Archives, professor a. Her dick howard from the university of virginia will talk about magna carta, talk about his book the road to runnymede and his purchase of a copy of the magna carta. For 21. 5 million. So, i read this thing and i came home that night and i told my wife, i said, mary, were going to start getting some really interesting telephone calls. Were get to to going invitations to some very fancy dinners. I said, dont ask any questions, just say yes. So that copy of magna carta is on display up there, and if you havent noticed is next time you below up go into the archives. Its like youre going into a cathedral. An awesome atmosphere, and over in the corner is a copy of the magna cart attempt it is very much a part of at the very core of american constitutionalism. You dont live in the middle ages. Not worried about the pretensions of kings but those ideas that were given birth to in runnymede in june are with us. So i invite you to think about that as you start your celebration of the bill of rights today in philadelphia. Thank you so much. I understand we have a few minutes for questions if anybody care to challenge me on english discussional history. With the bill of rights originally 10, what were the other do and why were they not adopted. Im sorry. What were the other two . Beats me. Okay. A nonanswer to the first question. Some other expert on the bill of rights today will have to answer that one. Sorry about that. Well pass on to maybe one i can answer. This lady on the aisle over here. On the amendment that talks about the right to bear arms, was that intended for individuals or did the founders mean the militia . That one im bound to have some people Say Something about it. How can we not talk about the Second Amendment. The conventional wisdom for years, including a Supreme Court case in 1939, United States vs. Miller, was that the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment was collective right. That was not a holding. But even so it was long assumed until a challenge to in washington, dc to a local ordinance restricting having arms, and in District Of Columbia versus d. C. Verse vs. Hiller, the court took the position its an individual right. Now, if you want to know my reaction to that opinion, i think its bad history. From my purpose i think the language itself invites you to think of the right in collective terms because it begins with a preferrer glynning phrase about state mill lilt ya and then talks about the right to bear arms shall not a be infringed. The english language notion of bearing arms also suggests we dont bear arms individually. We bear arms collectively in a militia. But mind you, im a lawyer professor, not a justice. I didnt get to vote on it but i can respectfully disagree with the majority. A phan fascinating same. Both sides in that d. C. Versus heller case, the majority and the dissenters, started with history in a sense the originalists, those who think we should go to the original meaning, seem to have carried the day because the centers but it reminds you how malleable history is in the hands of lawyers and judges. Right . I mean, its called law office history. So, to me one of the weaknesses of originalism as a methodology is that it doesnt make it objective. It steel still means, how do you read history . For my purposes, i think the court may i say respectfully government it wrong in d. C. Vs. Hiller but the opinion, Justice Scalia wrote, i think was written with a view to a anyway more opinion to keep the other four justices on then majority because all it says ills you have a personal right in your home to have traditional weapons. It leaves open any number of questions about registration, gun shows, about guns in schools and on and on and on, lots of questions like that. So, the this is like so many Supreme Court constitutional cases, they tend to open as many questions as they answer. Its wonderful annuity bill for american lawyers. Keeps us going. Another question. Considering the influence and the power of magna carta and the english bill of rights, how do you explain the english dont have a written constitution . Why they dont have a written constitution. I was in england in june giving lecture, and in the public occasions there the most common question, the question most frequently asked was, should the United Kingdom have a written constitution . And i said, look, im an american visitor, i didnt come here to give advice, but i said, on the other hand, if you would like to write one im happy to lend a hand,. The traditional enlisch response english response to that question is we have tradition, custom, convention. We just know how to do things right. Just certain ways we english people do and you americans might need a written constitution but we really dont. I think that answer is more tentative and more undermined by circumstances today. They are much more diverse population than they used to be, socially, religiously and the like, diversity leads to minorities, leads to discrimination, and the questions like that. They are also now part of the european union. They have a European Convention on human rights which sets another norms which invite think in constitutional terms. What the british have done is a way station between no constitution at all, fullfledged document like the one we have, they have the human rights act of 1998, which instructs english judges they may find an act of parliament to be incompatable with the European Convention, but they cant do what John Marshall did. They cant strike down the statute. All they can do is tell the government this act is not constitutional in european terms. Its a political directive to the parliament to clean up the statute. Yes, sir, right here. The point youre just speaking, if cooks premise that magna carta is supreme, its true, and divine right of kings is dead, why does the sovereign upon accepting the crown have to reissue the magna carta. That tradition to reissue the magna carta persisted for decades, even centuries, after runnymede, but once you got past the 17th century, what the english bill of rights and the socalled revolution accomplished in 1689 was a complete restructuring. Its basically the foundation for the modern british constitutional system in which sovereignty lies in the crown and parliament. Parliament really is the center of the enter prize enterprise so up to 1689 it was possible for sovereigns to claim certain prerogatives of dispensing. If you were a favorite of the crown, they could say, okay you get a jet out of jail free card or suspend the law, and all that ended with the english bill of rights. At that point magna carta becomes a treasured ancestor but not really part of the working fabric of british constitutionalism. I. The reissuance represents ree tension between the thats right. These were reissued as long as the crown could seem to have power. They had prerogative powers and were misusing them. John wasnt the only one. He was actually inheriting the system the kings had been using for a long time. Just that he had more of a political tin ear than his ancestors. Its a constant struggle between crown, and the parliament. Thank you for that question. We have a gentleman here. The people in guantanamo bay, i dont believe, have been given their due process. Right. I dont believe that amendment says anything about citizens. Thats right. So, what well, this could be in subject of another whole lecture, guantanamo and the bill of rights the Supreme Court is always a bit cautious treading into areas of Foreign Relations and military affairs, and when the first detention post 9 11 cases came up, the court did say in effect we play a role, the political branches are not free to do anything they like, that people are entitled to some kind of due process, but you get the sense the cases havent fully flesch this out but you get the sense. That the due process you get is, lets say a prisoner at guantanamo, would not necessarily be the same due process fully fleshed out as you might get as an american citizen in an american court. So, its one more i like the question because its one more example of how elastic the whole concept of due process of law is. The notion of fundamental fairness, but it does shift between circumstances. There are many countries throughout the world that have constitutions. Dont you need more than just the written constitution . Dont you need the culture of the country to support the constitution . Thats a great these are all wonderful questions. I plant these questions. Theyre wonderful questions. This one is especially interesting because the question was i think every country in the world has a written constitution. Israel does not because of israeli politics. New zealand has an incomplete constitution. The u. K. We have a growed does not have one. I think saturdayy land, says e the king says im the law. Just ask the king and he gives you an answer. Every a country has a written constitution and you right on the mark when you say thats only the beginning of it. Theres so much more to the idea of Constitutional Government than that constitution. Soviet union had a beautiful constitution but it was potemkin village, a joke. Everybody knew your rights and duties didnt kennedy on the constitution, depended on what the party said basically. So any number of countries, hugo chavezs venezuela is an example. Zimbabwe is an obvious example, of you mentioned the word culture, and that if i could plant any thought for you to carryaway today, not only about magna carta but about constitutional jim generally it would be the notion of constitutional culture and that is for a constitutional system to survive and thrive and be reality, it has to somehow be planted in the minds and hearts of people. You take south africa after apartheid, the first three election, millions of people were voting who never were given enough education at all. No fault of theirs but they were denied how would you so get them into the mode of thinking about what constitutions are or what Constitutional Government is. So, one reason i appreciate what this National Constitution center is doing, because it is doing the hard work in america of reminding each generation that it takes constitutional culture, civic education, generally shared notion of Constitutional Values to make constitutions more than simple play scrap of paper. So i think thats very valid. I think thats one reason magna carta has survived as part of our sense of constitutionalism, is that in the angloamerican world, these ideas have, i think, taken root. As you move to other cultural systems and you kn