From Yale Law School and clerking for then judge, now Supreme CourtJustice Stephen breyer, amar joined the yale faculty in 1985 at the tender age of 26. He is now 37 years later. Yales only current professor to have won the university. His unofficial triple crown, the sterling chair for scholarship, the devane medal for teaching and the lamar award for alumni service. His work has won awards from both the American Bar Association and the federalist society, and hes been cited by Supreme Court justices in more than 40 cases, as he says in his punchy way, tops in his generation. As an academic, he is patently that rare thing. A true scholar teacher. And not only that, a public intellectual of the best sort, one who can convey weighty ideas in a compelling and clear way. Not incidentally, a trait ordinarily known that lawyers are ordinarily known for. Here is one pithy example from a recent book chapter titled founding myths, commenting on the legacy of charles beards economic interpretation of the constitution. Quote beard is bunk. Closed quote and you can follow his similarly pithy twitter remarks at akeel read oman. Listen to his weekly podcast, americas constitution, or even gain access to his public lectures and free courses at akhil amar, econ. But his latest and most ambitious book is the words that made us americas constitution. Conversations 1762 1840, the most recent in a long series of volumes whose topic topical fulcrum is american constitution wisdom. Listen to some of their titles and some of you i know have read these books because it came up during lunch conversation. The constitution and today, the law of the land, a grand tour of our constitutional republic. Americas unwritten constitution. Americas constitution. A biography. The bill of rights, creation and reconstruction and the constitution and criminal procedure. First principles throughout the stream of books and articles and lectures and interviews and podcasts. And yes, even tweets. Hes been laboring to give american is what he insists we need. And might i add what our students above all, need in his words, quote, facts and analysis. Not reflexive right wing boosterism or knee jerk leftist hooting. So were all in for a provocative lecture on the patrimony of the us constitution. And please join me and extending a warm madison foundation. Welcome to professor akhil reed amar. To turn this on. There we go. Its such an honor to be with a group of fellow teachers, and i thank you for your service. Thats something that we conventionally and i hope sincerely say when we meet those who have put their bodies in harms way for the rest of us in our military. But American Service also involves centrally teaching. The story of america to the next generation. And you are all servants in that way. And im very grateful to you and our country should be very grateful to you because candidly, its not the most immune narrative of professor, and its absolutely necessary. And and if we dont, do we, fellow teachers, the work that we do, i think in the end, america is lost because the only thing that we have in common, really, as americans, is our national narrative, our story, our history. And so we have to get it right because heres what we dont have in common. We dont have race in common. Americans come from many different races and ethnicities. Our great grandparents come from all parts of the world, and they came at different times to modern day america. Some came in chains. Some came with bullwhip. Some came yesterday. So we dont have race or ethnicity. Steve, we disagree politically and we have religious diversity of an extraordinary sort. So what is it that we have in common . We we have our constitution, our history, our narratives. And im going to tell you a little bit about that today. And and youll decide for yourself whether you agree or disagree with my revised narrative of that. But i just want to begin by thanking you for your service, because you, in turn, are teaching the next generation. And if they dont learn this stuff, then they have nothing in common. And then america flies apart. Maybe the project dies. Not to be to dramatic, but that i think thats actually a real possibility unless we do what we do. So thank you. This is the James Madison lecture officially, but its a little bit awkward because some of you by the time you hear what i have to say, might think that this is the anti James Madison lecture. And the question is, was James Madison truly the father of the constitution . Im wearing a tie. It has a kind of a genius, eric. It has a founding father on it. And and its not quite clear if you look at is that madison . Is that hamilton in is that jefferson . Is that washington is not quite ben franklin . Not quite john adams. But but who is it . And im not sure. But most of you have been taught what i was taught was that, well, of course its the James Madisons the father of the constitution. And im going to call that into question today. Another way of putting the point is to remind you that kind of by tradition, by acclimation, there are six parties actually extraordinary Founding Fathers. The first four president s, washington, adams, jefferson, madison, plus hamilton and franklin. And the book that ive just recently finished and i see some of you have it and thank you so much for that. The words that made us americas constitution conversation 1762 1840 does feature those Founding Fathers and the larger cast of americans who produce just those Founding Fathers. And that them in key ways, and that influence them and that were influenced by them. So its a top down story in certain ways, but also a bottom up story in other ways. But we americans do we like rankings. You know, whos up and whos down. And, you know whos number one, whether its in hockey or basketball or football or even academic programs are ranked so. So we rank found. So who really is the father of the constitution and conventionally we are told thats James Madison. And as i said in this anti guy, James Madison. James madison lecture, i want to basically offer a different point of view. So im going to read you some passages from not from the book, but from an essay that that i composed for a slightly different purpose. But i think will be just perfect for our conversation today. And its an essay on founding myths, and its from a forthcoming book called myth america. Its kind of a pun on miss america that is in which i have one chapter and there are many other chapters written by eminent historians of other periods. Those who myths understand the founding are apt to misread the constitution. Alas, americans from all educational strata and all points on the political campus routinely misinterpret this critical era and in the process, muddy the letter and spirit of our supreme law of the land. Here are five, especially widespread and interrelated misunderstandings. Each followed by a brief statement of the myth busting truth of the matter. Myth one James Madison was the father of the constitution. And i say so heres the thesis. No, that would be George Washington and paternity matters. So hes not just the father of the country, its the father constitution. And the two are connected, you see. Myth two the key federal list essay is madisons federalist number ten. Okay. Yeah, thats what you were taught. No, almost no one read that madison essay in the 1780s or indeed in the ensuing century. The key federalist essays in the ratification era were john jays and Alexander Hamiltons numbers 2 to 8. Explain the washington, etonian and geostrategic essence of the federalist plan. Myth three the framers believed in republics, but disdained democracy. No, despite certain language that appeared in madisons fabulous number ten, in these two words were more synonymous and oppositional in general. 1780s discourse, regardless of the label we now choose to use. The framers believed in and practiced popular selfgovernment. Myth four the constitution was indeterminate on and perhaps even supportive of secession. Ridiculous. Washingtons geostrategic constitution categorically repu stated. Unilateral states secession. So this is very much a Lincoln Point as well as a washington Hamilton Point and a Madison Point as well. Myth five the constitution was designed by the rich. For the rich, not really. The document was just what it it was a text ordained by the people, not the property, or, as youve already heard, said, beard is bunk. Lets begin by popping a trio of interrelated bubbles about James Madison, the federalist ten and the linguistic innovation that madison introduced in that. Now famous ratification essay, which sharply contra distinguished repub licks from democracys many today view madison as the father of the constitution. But when the grand Philadelphia Convention met in the summer 1787 to propose a solution to the myriad and interlocked failures of americas first continental legal system, the sagging articles of confederation, few americans had even heard of the diminutive confederation, congressman so memorably short guy. And they think about stuff like that and we short people, we get no respect, okay . By contrast, every one knew of George Washington, the legendary commander in chief who had won the revolutionary war and then disbanded his army. Rather than trying to make himself king, as had william the conqueror or lord protector, i said Oliver Cromwell or emperor has had augustus caesar, and as would napoleon. And by the way, in case you missed the point, washington is tall. Washingtons thrilling act of republican renunciation and selfrestraint has inspired contemporaries high and low the world over. In fact, theres this famous story in which actually, george the third says, well, whats washington going to do with his army . And someone says hes going to disband it. And george, the third says, if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world. And he did do that. And he was the greatest man in the world. The Philadelphia Convention had broad, popular credibility in america, mainly because washington bowing to Public Opinion reluctantly agreed to suspend his retirement to attend the grand gathering. So the convention is significant because washingtons theyre not because madisons there. The convention that ensued was washingtons convention, not madisons. Likewise, the proposed constitution and that emerged was emphatically washingtons. At the conclave outset, the delegates unanimously made washington their presiding officer. His title at philadelphia. Mr. President , would poetic because hes the presiding officer. You see his title in philadelphia. Mr. Present would poetically become his title under the constitution itself. Most of the delegates had borne arms in the war. A third were veterans of washingtons continental army, and five of the 55 delegate as one from each of five distinct states out of the 12 that met in philadelphia. Rhode island boycotted the event, had personally served as washingtons aides to camp. These former aides were obviously washingtons men, not madisons. New yorks alexander hamilton. Pennsylvanias thomas mifflin. Marylands james mchenry, virginias edmund randolph. And South Carolinas charles coatsworth. Pinckney. So theyd be just to put it in modern terminology, since we meet on the day after Stephen Breyer steps down from the Supreme Court to be replaced by one of his former law clerks, captain g. Brown jackson. And you heard that way back when i clerked for then judge breyer. And that in boston, washington is surrounded by his law clerks, basically, you know, his military clerks. And theyre there only 12 states there. And hes got a man in each of five separate states delegations. Okay. So hes going to get what he wants and he does compared to the document that emerged from this conclave was also obviously washingtons. The philadelphia constitutions primary goal was geo strategic. The fledgling american regime needed to create a strong and Indivisible Union, able to defend itself against europes great powers. England, france, spain. I might even add. Russia, which is on the western edge of the of the continent. And since were thinking these days about about putin. Okay. The goal was to take create an Indivisible Union, able to defend itself against these great european powers, each of which still coveted new world land, and thus posed a potentially existential threat. We forget that because we are so strong today. But back then it was much more vulnerable. Long before he even knew madison, washington had emphasized the need for such an Indivisible Union. Most dramatically, in its initial farewell address, a world famous circular letter to americas governors in 1783, where he disbands the army and becomes the most famous man in the world because he just goes back to his his farm and and surrenders his his sword when he could have made himself kings. Our emperor, what have you, lord protector, compared to revolution era, state constitu tions, which provided the basic templar art for the philadelphia plans by commercial and tripartite federal system. The most distinctive element of the proposed new federal constitution was its astonishing, powerful chief executive. So heres what i just told you. Its not actually the great man at philadelphia. Its what theyre actually doing is distilling the template that has already emerged up and down the continent in the state constitutions. Theyre basically just coming up with best practices on issue after issue. And thats going to be the federal constitution, borrowing from the existing state constitutions that are already out there. So but that the most different element, the thing that makes the federal constitution really different than the state constitutions, which are written constitutions, bicameral, except in a couple of places pennsylvania, georgia, tripartite legislature, executive, judiciary. Thats in the state constitutions. Thats the federal. So the big difference, the only really big difference is this astonishingly powerful chief executive, infinitely more powerful than any state governor. Okay, america, his newly minted president could win election independence if congress. Whereas in the states, eight of the 13 pick their chief executive received by the legislature. Parliament style. Boris johnson style. Okay. He could win in the election independent of congress and thereafter win infinite and independent reelection. So no term limit. States have term limits would enjoy a long. By 1787 gubernatorial standards term of office four years no one has four years among the governors would wield a remarkably powerful pair of veto and pardon pens. Only in massachusetts does the government have a pardon pen, and he serves for one year at a time. You see, so this is, you know, veto. And they dont have powerful pardon pens and were just seeing how pardons can be important or not right now. Veto pen. Pardon . Pen. And no governor has this powerful combination. Would command a continental army, a navy, and also stand atop all other executive departments that would eventually emerge. He gets to pick his underlings. Unlike council who are sometimes foisted on governors in the various states, they dont get to pick their their their cabinets, their councils, the philadelphia delegates undeniably designed this office for the trusted washington, who would ultimately win unanimous election and reelection as americas first president. So just think about that. Every single leftover votes for George Washington and then votes again for George Washington. Its like, how could you ever have thought, how could i ever have thought it was James Madison . I mean, and im not done yet, but just, you know, add those facts up to madison, by contrast, would fail to win the Us Senate Seat he coveted and would struggle even to secure a house seat. Okay. Prior to philadelphia, madison had given no real thought to how federal executive power should be structured, as he candidly admitted in, amid. April 1787. Letter to washington. And heres a protip to all of you teachers out there. You can see these letters for yourself. Theyre free and online in the net. And to our cspan audience in the net, your tax our tax dollars at work in the National Archives founders online project, its word searchable. You can find every letter ever written to or from the six major Founding Fathers. And theres other stuff too. But anything ever written to or from or between . Washington, adams, jefferson and madison. Franklin. Hamilton. Its all there for free and to you to find if you assigned to your students. Its a word searchable. Amazing. And youll find amid. So if i just tell you, even without giving the footnote a amid april 1787 letter from madison to washington you can find it there. Maybe only to that that madison and madison confesses like i dont know, a clue about executive power. I havent really thought about it very much. And washingtons think himself. Hmm. Ive thought about it a ton at a time or two, and thats the news in the constitution. The really powerful presidency, which you see could end the republic. Thats why we have to be really careful when we pick presents. Thats what makes the u. S. Constitution different than it state constitutional counterparts. And thats all washington and no madison. True. In the run up to philadelphia, madison had pondered certain other features of his hoped for constitution. He favored a bicameral federal legislature, flanked by an independent executive and an independent judiciary. But this was old hat in 1787, most revolutionary state constitutions followed some version of this basic template a template endorsed