Constitution. I want to just recap that quickly tonight as we start. As i tried to communicate last week, the drafting of our constitution, the history of its formation, is extraordinary to say the least. It is a remarkable moment in all of world history. We are here at 233 years later and our constitution is in the news daily, being referred to as we almost speak here tonight, again and again. In reference to one particular aspect of the constitution, but again, it is alive and well. To think about the fact this came together from a period of midmay until midseptember of 1787 is remarkable. We recall from last week that we said the revolutionary war, and a lot of folks are not clear on the sequencing. It is important to know that 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 so forth, 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. By july 1776, they make a declaration of independence together. We see a nation starting to be born, at least for purposes of declaring independence and working together for a common military purpose. A year and a half after that, 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 noted it referred to, the colonies referred to themselves as a firm league of friendship, anterestingly 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. And we see of 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 all of the states by march of 1781, the british surrendered at yorktown in october of 81, so the military conflict was over by 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 especially concerned about. Time, the 11f years between the articles of confederation and finally 1787 and the Constitutional Convention, is a fascinating period. As i was preparing, i pulled from my shelf a book called the confederation and the constitution. This is a book that i had to buy for my Early American History course in 1977, i think. Very long time ago. But i keep all of my books. I was a history major. So i kept all of my books. For those of you who like books, you may notice in your 60s, you will have some College Books around. I have a lot of mine. It was useful. It is 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 states in annapolis in 1786. At that meeting, hamilton was pushing for the congress to call a special convention to presumably modify the articles of confederation. He was 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 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 outut the articles of confederation, formed the new constitution, something beyond their mandate, and were able to get that ratified. So that itself was a major milestone in american history. Hamilton was the instigator who was able to get this convention called and to encourage it to be bold and take action. George washington was thought to was brought 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 prepared to really brought a constitution basically with him and was prepared to lead everyone through it. Didnt miss anything in the proceedings and took extensive notes. It is 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 legislature, and that was going to 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 two senators and will have representatives, populationbased representative. Does representative 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. By september 17, they were able to sign that constitution. Nearly everyone, three famous participants ended up not signing. But they came together to sign the constitution. And then the ratification process began. At this poyo 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 conventions, there were really 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 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 the moment of its birth. The document that now covers the United States that now governs the United States 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. Nonetheless, five years would pass before the 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 of confederation altogether and wrote out their own document of fundamental principles. When they were done, they had substituted a much stronger ideal of union than the suspicious compromisers of the original confederation had contemplated or would have allowed. You see what was in front of 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 constitution, after september 17, 1787, the first one of these oped pieces as we think of them today, they were essays,. In a new york publication in late october, drafted by Alexander Hamilton. He wrote the first paper in defense of the new constitution. Hamilton, madison and john jay, 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 all the way 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. Jay only wrote five of them. He became ill at a certain point and cannot contribute more. Hamilton and madison split the job. Hamilton did more than madison. They used a pen name for them. The pen name was publius. Named after a founder of the roman empire. That was not that unusual for the time, to see a pen name. 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 papers, he said, they are the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written. Let me read a few lines of the first federalist paper. It is by Alexander Hamilton. This is how the federalist papers begin. After 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 reserved to the people of this country to decide by their conduct and example the important question whether societies of men are capable or not of establishing Good Government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to defend for to depend 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. I want to make sure we are on the same page. Lets look at the structure. It is brilliantly simple, isnt it . You have the preamble. Eloquenceence its 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. 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 constitution 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. The bill of rights in particular is referred to the first 10 amendments because that is the bill that was introduced by madison. So to be perfectly 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 done immediately after that, and then the civil war and the 13th amendment. So that is the structure. In the structure of the constitution, and you can look at the one you have in your hand. You have basically articles, sections and clauses. When we talk about the constitution, we will say it is in article one, section two, clause three. There are terms if you go to law school, you learn about keywords that are referred to as clauses as well. For example, when we get to article four, we will talk about the supremacy clause. Within article four, section such and such. A useful term to refer to portions within each article. So that is kind of the outline 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. That is on page 43 of the booklet. And we see how the constitution is to be 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 vote by two thirds, two thirds vote in order for the proposed amendment to go forward. From there it goes forward to the states, and then you see it says two thirds of the several states shall be required to approve of the proposed amendment. That is the one way to do it. There is another way to amend the constitution that has never been done. That is to have another Constitutional Convention. If you read the language in article five, it describes what would be required to have another Constitutional Convention. No 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 of a Constitutional Convention is once you get those folks together remember 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 a lot of people together, 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 friends who from time to time will tell me about getting mail and so forth, calling for a Constitutional Convention. It would be quite an amazing thing if that were to occur. It hasnt happened. In the process of the states considering whether to ratify the constitution, there was a great deal of attention on this idea of guaranteed rights. It was raised again and again. Said we areically only on board if you have a bill of rights added. That was not a new point, but it was specifically their suggestion and really a demand for going along. Madison and others basically promised once the congress was formed, 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 if 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. So madison promised to introduce the bill of rights and did as soon as the new congress was formed in june 1789. The bill of rights was introduced by madison. Madison became a member of the house of representatives when it was initiated. And then the rights were passed , and by september sent to the states for approval. And then you have the interesting thing that happens. That proposal, those amendments 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 27th amendment, which is on page 56, you see this. The 27th amendment was proposed on september 25, 1789. That is the date the congress completed passing the admin meant and sent them to the states to consider. 7 t was ratified on may what . 1792 . No, 1992. It took a little while for that amendment to get the two thirds support. Michigan finally passed this amendment in 1992. Says no law varying compensation for services and representatives shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have been convened. It says congress cannot vote itself a pay raise. It can vote for a pay raise but it will not get the money. The next congress will get the pay raise. That is what this says. It finally dawned on people 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. Lets passe. Pass it. 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 bites the dust while still in congress, 11 go to the states. One doesnt make it. 10 do. That is why we have the original 10 amendments to the bill of rights. 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 now a 28th amendment out there that is going to be the subject of greater attention increasingly. What happened is in the 1970s, the equal rights amendment, guaranteeing equal rights for women, prohibition against discrimination on the basis of by the house and senate and sent to the states for ratification. Here is an interesting thing. Amendments proposed to the states have typically had timelines for which they can be considered. Not the 27th amendment. That one obviously had no timeline. The original group did not have a timeline so that one hung out for 200 years. But most of them have a timeline. The e. R. A. Had a timeline of seven years. It needed to be either ratified by the early 1980s or not. 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 attorneys general, virginia, nevada and illinois, have filed a lawsuit against the archivists claiming this needs to be recorded as the new 28th amendment. The department of justice has taken the position that time is up and it cannot be done. The question will be, are even timelines constitutional . There is nothing in here about timelines and the language is not in the actual text. So the question is, 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. How this simple document was created and then provision for amending it, and it has been amended. But what are the Core Principles that really shape the document . The key question in thinking about the principles of our constitution is the 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 associated with power was the first issue. There were basically three principles that shaped that question or answered 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 saw when i was at the Constitution Museum in philadelphia. I mentioned this last week. I am a museum nerd. I go to museums all the time. Museumto the post office during the winter break. [laughter] i did not see any of you there. But i thought it was really cool. The Constitution Museum in philadelphia is really great. As i was going through it slowly, i came to this little spot. I looked at this display and what this was, all of these sort of great ideas that have been known by the founders, the framers at the time of the creation of our country, these were learned people. And madison was in his 30s and so was Alexander Hamilton. Medicine in particular, madison in particular, 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. [laughter] if you are not a senior, be prepared. We may tinker with our humanities courses. You can get a preview. No, we will not do that. [laughter] but it would be great. You would 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 paper 39, because the defense or the explanation by James Madison really gets us clearly grounded in the idea. Federalist paper 39, this is 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 genius of the people of america, with the fundamental principles of the revolution. Or with the honorable determination which animates every 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 as no longer defensible. A strong statement by madison as 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. And in article one, sections nine and 10, it refers to titles of nobility and you cant have titles of nobility and there be no federal titles of nobility. 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. A 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 state legislature would select the senators, the principle of republicanism pushed against that until they amended the constitution to have direct election of senators. We see this today. I will talk about this when we get to article two and the executive, we will talk about the electoral college. There is definitely a lot of discussion today about whether or not that is consistent with the principles of the republican government. It is, but that is a part of the debate. So this is the first of the key principles. The second principle is that of separation of powers, or as we , includes the it ideas of checks and balances. Here was where federalist 51 comes into the mix. I had you read federalist 10 before tonight. Let me take a moment to say a few words before i jump into federalist 51. Federalist 10 is the one i asked you to take a look at. Federalist 10 is a remarkable essay 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 factions within government, factions who could do great harm to those in the minority. Those who dont have the same amount of power. Concernedas deeply about the way these factions, especially in the states, were operating, and riding roughshod over those who did not have sufficient power. He goes through in federalist 10 the problems with these factions. He defines factions in ideralist 10 i saying , understand a number of citizens whether amounted to a majority or minority of the whole 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 popular the problem in particular 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 fundamental 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 most frivolous and fanciful 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. Those who hold and those without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. He gives examples and talks about the fact that the causes of this cannot be removed, and therefore we have to control the effects. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such affection, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government is the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add, it is the great desire of him by which this form of government can be rescued. He sets it up for why republican form of government can be more effective in a growing country, which was counter to what people thought. People thought the government 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. And so we have in federalist 51 the really basic political 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 papers, 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 let you read that between now and next week. The key interest is how we see the reference to double security. By 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. That is the main point. They are 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 knew from a perspective of where it is in the constitution, your way around the power of impeachment. Article one, section two, clause five. You can look it up. The house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. The house has the power to charge, to bring indictments against the president. The power of impeachment. Article one section three, clauses six and seven. The senate shall have the power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be in oath or affirmation. Startake especial oath to an impeachment trial. The senators all stood there a few weeks ago and did that. In 1999, i was on the senate floor as a part of the clinton impeachment for the house managers. I was a lawyer. I wrote the chairmans opening speech and used that, wrote the language to play off of the oath , because the president had been accused of lying under oath. I thought it would be interesting to have connection to the oath, but it didnt work so well. Anyway. [laughter] so you will have, take a special oath and then you see it goes on to say that when 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. Judgment in 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 convicted shall be liable and subject to indictment trial, judgment and punishment according to the law. This language about the president not being subject to prosecution until removed from office, and then also the idea that next is article two. 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. There 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. Two thirds required for a vote. And then you have article two, section two, clause one, the President Shall have the power to grant pardons but not in the case of impeachment. Finally, the president and Vice President and civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and 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 on the senate floor earlier this week, referred to the provisions 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 constitution. Many scholars say it does, but dershowitz has taken the position it does not. That has been fascinating. Those are the provisions in the constitution. I said that quickly. Finally, just this tidbit about impeachments. There have been 20 impeached officials in our history. 20. Three president s johnson, clinton, trump. One secretary of war, one senator, and 15 judges. Secretary of war, senator, 15 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 beginning, the one, one Supreme Court justice. I set there were 15 judges and one of them was a Supreme Court justice. Judge John Pickering from new hampshire. He was impeached in the early years of our country for intoxication on the bench. [laughter] 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. He said, with reference to the intoxication, he said i shall be sober tomorrow. I am now damn drunk. [laughter] not really effective defense in my view but he was honest. [laughter] i can understand why somebody might want to drink before appearing before the house judiciary committee. [laughter] 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, we will pick up on federalism to 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 constitution in glowing terms, but there is one major flaw to the original constitution. A major flaw. 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 provisions and then jump into interpretation principles. Let me see if anybody has any questions. Take one right down there at the front. Student hello. I am wondering, i know the new jersey plan contributed to having the senate and the constitution in general but i am wondering if there are arguments about having state representation now. I am sure many people would agree that we dont have a loose confederation of countries now. I would assume we are more unified now than before. Mr. Mcnulty that is a great question. The fundamental issue has not changed that much in the sense that the largest states would 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 then had a senate that was similarly composed, and i suppose it would also have to be much bigger body, because it would, whatever the apportionment would be, would have to assign something to the or other states would just get bigger. What we would lose in that is something that we are holding onto right now. That is to try to build consensus for legislative proposals by having all of the states in some ways not 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. It has been so bogged down for so long it is hardly possible to remember it. But when i started on capitol hill in 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 the aisle and find consensus. It has been so limited since then. I dont think the solution is to push more power to the largest populated areas, which is what would happen. Let me go back up to our friend up there. Please. Student presumably the purpose of the constitution is to protect the rights of american citizens. That is oneabout thing. But if the constitution allows for amending 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 its purpose . Lets be clear there is nothing particularly , protected about the seven articles. They have already been amended by the amendments. Even if you had the original document that contained the 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. So that they would be a stability. That is why after the initial founding period, there was nothing done to the constitution until after the civil war, 13th amendment and the abolition of slavery. For that period of time in between, the document stayed as it was. It is hard to change it. 27 amendments in all of that time is not many, but they have been made. Really significant things have been added, including women and essentially younger people being able to vote, and abolition of slavery, civil rights, really significant modifications. I guess what im saying is i think they got it right in that they made it possible to change the document but made it really hard and they could not have done anything to protect anything in it
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.