Without the president s signature. Signature. Can you explain what this is to our viewers . Spee02 i understand the president s position and i certainly had no problems with what hes doing. The iran sanctions act was passed by congress which gave the president. Youre watching on our youtube or joining us our friends from cspan two, welcome and and happy bill of rights day. Since president Franklin Roosevelt claimed it on december fifteenth, 1941, the day has served as a reminder that we should not take for granted the rights protected in this document. Our partner for tonights program on the bill of rights and the 21st century is a constitutional sources project and we thank them for their support. Before we begin tonights discussion like to tell you about two programs coming up next month. On tuesday, january 17 at noon journalist and author brett will talk about his new book, three days in january and white eisenhowers final mission which is about eisenhowers prophetic farewell address. At new done january 18 and 19th we will show a selection of films from russian pitcher holdings. The programs called from the vaults president ial inaugurations and will focus on historical and our girl events. To learn more about these in our Public Programs and submissions consult a monthly calendar of events in print or online at archives. Gov. Their copies in the lobby as well as signup sheets where you can receive it via regular mail or email. Also have other National Archives programs and activities information. Another way to become a more involved is to become a member of the National Archives foundation. The Foundation Supports her education and outreach activities and theres application for membership in the lobby. The United States constitutions oldest written National Constitution still enforced. One of the reasons it has endured, one of the first actions of the First Federal congress from 1789 was to pass a set of amendments that we call the bill of rights. It was necessary stated James Madison to expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution. During the 225th anniversary year the National Archives put together a nationwide programs of events and exhibits to celebrate and examine the bill of rights. We have posted several discussions like tonight relating to constitutional right. We put on a series of National Conversations on rights and justice around the country and weve created several exhibits and educational resources. I hope youve had the opportunity to receive the information upstairs. Outside washington d. C. Area you may have the opportunity to see the companion traveling exhibit, is currently in dallas texas and will soon be in houston. The centerpiece of this activity is a 225yearold parchment document itself, the original bill of rights in the rotunda. In fact, it was on the bill of rights day 1952 that all three charters, the declaration of independence, the constitution of the bill of rights were first displayed together in a rotunda. At the ceremony to unveil the document president harry truman declared that in my opinion, the bill of rights is most important the bill of rights is most important part of the constitution of the United States. The only document of the world that protects the citizen against his government. He also warned against letting the documents become no better than mummies in their glass cases. Judging from what ive seen, the, the crowds of people who visit the rotunda every year do not consider the charters to be mere curiosities. They in our distinguished panel of judges here tonight know that the bill of rights has meaning for us everyday. To introduce her panelist alternative over to julie, the executive director of our partner this evening in the constitutional sources project. Julie. [applause] thank you. Good evening my name is julie and i have the privilege of serving as the executive director of the constitutional forces project we are an organization devoted to educating citizens of all ages about the history of the United States constitution. For you to explore our Digital Library tracing the creation, ratification and amendment of the constitution. Let me begin by thanking the archivist of the United States for his introductory remarks and think in National Archives are partnering with us to host the special bill of rights day event. Were celebrating the 220,225th anniversary of the ratification of the bill of rights on december 15 1791. The bill of rights articulates our National Values and ideals. Including the guarantee was freedom of speech, religion, and the press. The right to the press. The right to assemble, the promise of a speedy trial by jury, the protection against double jeopardy and unreasonable searches and seizures in the recognition of the rights to bare arm. It strikes a a personal court the way the declaration of independence does the structural provisions do not yet too few americans know the history of the bill of rights. A survey survey done last year, one in ten americans thinks the bill of rights includes the right to own a pet. For the record, it doesnt. Before i invite our moderator and panelists to the stage to discuss the bill of rights the 21st century without it be useful to provide our guests with a very brief history of the bill of rights and the 18th century when the document was drafted and ratified. Pair with me i will give you the legislative history of the bill of rights in two minutes. Or am going to try. You might be surprised that when the constitution was signed in september 1787 it did not include a bill of rights. When george mason of virginia proposed a bill of rights be added to the constitution five days prior to the end of the Constitutional Convention his per puzzle was near unanimously rejected. The state declaration of rights were sufficient at a federal bill of rights was unnecessary and may be dangerous. And so the constitution was submitted to the states for ratification with no bill of rights. While the bill of rights became a rallying call for anti federalist for those who pose ratification of the constitution theyre interested in proposing amendments that would alter the structure and power of the federal government. Federalist like James Madison who we call the father of the constitution and bill of rights that was unacceptable. His decision to draft and pass the bill of rights should be understood. Once the constitution was adopted newly elected representative, James Madison urge the First Congress to reject amendments that would change the structure of the constitution the proposed amendments came out of ratifying convention and adopt the bill of rights as suggested. By 1788 James Madison had come to see the broader value of the bill of rights. He wrote to he wrote to Thomas Jefferson within the political truth declared in that manner required by degrees the character of fundamental maximum of free government. As they become incorporated counteract the impulses of interest and passion. Madison attended to insert his amendments into the body of the constitution. This was ultimately rejected by congress. The the house votes on supplements to the constitution and that goes over to the senate for consideration where they reduce that number to 12. Those 12 amendments are sent to the state for ratification and the anniversary were celebrating tonight is when virginia becomes the tenth of 14 states to approve ten of the 12 amendments that we now call the bill of rights. If you are interested in learning more about the history of the bill of rights you can explore what a state of history in the Concourse Library and pick up the Washington Times special report which is available outside of the auditorium. Both provide articles for that special report which is Available Online on the Washington Times website. I know invite the moderator to the stage along with our panelist, judge thomas griffith, patricia, and and andre. Thank you and happy bill of rights day. [applause] thank you for coming out on one of the coldest bill of rights as in recent memory for a discussion on the 225th anniversary of the ratification. Thank you for the introduction. As someone who covers the Supreme Court and the Appellate Courts as i interpret the bill of rights and other constitutional provisions, its a great privilege to have three circuit judges talk about our first ten amendments of the constitution and what they mean. They are on the frontlines of figuring figuring out what those words mean. They are not always selfexplanatory. As judges they confront hard problems about what those rights mean in the 21st century and will be confronting those in the years ahead. So thank you for coming out. Im. Im sure audience here and on cspan will appreciate how to think about the bill of rights and to think about these questions and how to imagine what issues will arise in the future and what the different ways we might have of applying these old words in the digital era. So thank you for coming. Well. Well have questions later on but we will try to have a conversational discussion about the bill of rights. I thought its a start the white house issues a lot of proclamations and announcements and so forth. One one of those that was emailed out yesterday was the president s bill of rights day, proclamation. I dont know how different it is from those issued every year because i have not read them every year. But i thought in light of tonights presentation we should look at what president obama had to say about it. In his message to citizens he said that as originally created, the bill of rights safeguarded personal liberties and assured equal justice under the law for many but not for all. In in the centuries that followed ratification courageous americans agitated and sacrificed to extend these rights to more people. He goes on to say that he talks about the way the rights were expanded workers organize, these experience remind us that it that freedom is intertwined with the freedom of others. He has and you can read the whole thing on the white house website. That the the nation saw was never inevitable and as long as people remained to fight for justice we can open more doors for opportunity and Carry Forward a vision of liberty for generations to come. That leads us to think about the bill of rights, is it something that is static . And frozen in the year 1791 . Or is it something that is applied differently or evolves . Or is there some way of reconciling both the original language of the bill of rights and circumstances that we see today that are perhaps a bit different than wise people like James Madison they have foreseen back in the 18th century. So what are we talking about. Are these these words that only have relevance from the original conception . Or do they take on different meetings today . I thought we could throw it open. Do you have seniority of this group judge . And if so, then with that great distinction calls comes responsibility. First of all im honored to be here and i think the National Archives for this event and im grateful to be here with my colleagues and with you. It turns out out that question that you ask lies at the heart of a rather vigorous debate over the role of judges that has taken place since the framing of the constitution. And the views that i have developed over time, you used afraid that might be majority. You said the the bill of rights are they frozen in time, i am up the view that there were certain values that were expressed at the time of the founding of the bill of rights and that they did express a definite view of the relationship between the individual and the state with respect to certain activities and that it is our responsibility as judges to enforce those but not to change those. The job that we are about is not about determining the merits of the case by our own lights of what is right, just, and a credible but by the law, in this case as was ratified by the people of the United States. I am of the school that if theres going to be changes made to the laws of bill of rights theres a method to do that and we have to see an amendment process. Its not appropriate for unelected judges who are for the most part politically unaccountable to make those changes. Now to be sure i will get get the application of those principles to new circumstances is necessary, but in my view our job and responsibility as a judge is to identify what is the value that is expressed in the law, in this case and the amendments, the bill of rights to identify that and then apply that neutrally to the dispute at hand. Does anybody disagree with that . I heard of a lot of what i agree with from the judge and i want to join in thank you in the archives and you and my colleagues for this opportunity. I want to salute those of you who are seated out there for coming out on such a brutal night. The bill of rights did not actually spring from madisons head. There were lots of state constitutions at the time of ratification and many of the rights we see in the bill of rights had a very healthy and robust history even as of 1791. And its very interesting insofar as they contain both prescriptions and proscriptions aimed at government and governments relation to the individual. But i agree with whats been said, the text hasnt changed and i suppose without being too semantical, the rights havent changed but the facts have changed. The technology has brought about many changes. And subsequent amendments have brought about many changes lets face it, Supreme Court decisionmaking has changed. All of that informs modernday interpretation of how one applies the bill of rights and the pragmatic reality of judge, decisionmaking in the 21st century. That shouldnt be remarkable it seems to me. It and i would add, first well thank you i dont want to be repetitive but i dont want to be on thankful and i am thankful for this opportunity. One of the things we need to keep in mind is that in a day and age in which we are used to laws being weighed by the pound and their length and size, the bill of rights is a really sustained in spartan document. You can fit these ten foundational principles on one side of one page. That is a document in the words are assisting to and intelligent. People are guaranteed due process of law, Congress Shall not make laws respecting an establishment of religion. Thats what we have to work with, those words are used they frozen in time, they are written into our Constitutional Order and to our constitutional document and those are the words, we dont change those words except through a process of constitutional amendment. But i think with your fax situation, applying those words to the very factual circumstances and disputes over a conch course of 20000 years is what is challenging and instead of thinking of it is something that is frozen in a mobile in a negative way i think of it as the phrase what we associate with robert frost is a good fences make Good Neighbors but i think it a political structure in a governmental structure, a divisional a power that we have is apt. What the bill of rights is, as part of the whole constitution its hugely important. The designation of fences, the division of power. What government has and doesnt have. What remains for the people. So the people. So those fences are they are. But policing the and figuring out where that fence falls in new circumstances changing is a challenging task we face. By the way, as a parent of a fiveyearold girl i would say that the word frozen has a very positive context for some of the younger. And not just girls. Has the late justice glia pointed out, the basic constitution, most of what concerns is the structure of government. The bill of rights is about individual rights and what rights they have to protect himself or herself from the government. But, as he said, the Supreme Court and the laura courts have applied those words over the centuries and tried to give them specific application as a guide to police of individuals had what mean in these individual circumstances. How far are we . Is there an annotated bill of rights that you can say based on judicial interpretations and statutory elaborations that answers most of the questions that might arise under it . Or is there a great unknown that is related to what those very eloquent words mean. We just started the seniority thing but its actually amazing how often as a practicing lawyer and judge i cant believe this hasnt been answered by now. And thats because the fences are written in the constitution, the country itself keeps growing and changing the nature of government changes. A new questions arise in technologies come along and whats a reasonable search of a stagecoach versus a reasonable search of a car using gps technology. How do you answer those questions . So the issues do keep changing and coming up in new forms. On the d. C. Circuit we have jurisdiction over guantanamo. And how the constitution applies to enemy combatants detained in land rented by the United States in a foreign country. As it turns out, have been answered when it first came out. It had to be answered. So theres new applications that arise all the time. I think the first answer we gave was not acceptable to the Supreme Court. I was before i came along. So i think its important, as he said we are not here to rewrite the constitution. I dont think any of us want to do that and i dont want to live in a country where judges get to rewrite the constitution at liberty. I think. I think we can see countries like that around the world and thats not