Click on a word or part of a phrase to learn more.
Scroll through the captions and click 
to skip to a caption.
Play video to start
Professor
Professor
>> Mr. Stewart,
>>
Mr
Stewart
[Applause]
Applause
>> what are you trying to do to me?
>>
what
are
you
trying
to
do
to
me
This is Yeah, I'm going to show you
This
is
Yeah
I'm
going
to
show
you
something. There was 600 pages. Look at
something
There
was
600
pages
Look
at
the font. What do you got? I'm an old
the
font
What
do
you
got
I'm
an
old
man. I had to pour over this with a
man
I
had
to
pour
over
this
with
a
magnifying glass and a microscope just
magnifying
glass
and
a
microscope
just
to be able to see. And I only got up to
to
be
able
to
see
And
I
only
got
up
to
reconstruction.
reconstruction
You know what? Can I tell you why?
You
know
what
Can
I
tell
you
why
Normally, I get the books from the
Normally
I
get
the
books
from
the
authors that are coming on the show and
authors
that
are
coming
on
the
show
and
they're dry and I can skim them.
they're
dry
and
I
can
skim
them
>> Your writing is so vivid and so
>>
Your
writing
is
so
vivid
and
so
interesting that I actually had to pay
interesting
that
I
actually
had
to
pay
attention
attention
and it slowed me down.
and
it
slowed
me
down
>> I'm really sorry. I'm really sorry
>>
I'm
really
sorry
I'm
really
sorry
there. I I could do an alternate account
there
I
I
could
do
an
alternate
account
that's just the dry version. do not okay
that's
just
the
dry
version
do
not
okay
>> because what what I learned
>>
because
what
what
I
learned
it's fascinating to me the process of
it's
fascinating
to
me
the
process
of
just writing the constitution
just
writing
the
constitution
was far it was this 20 year
was
far
it
was
this
20
year
meeting after meeting after meeting
meeting
after
meeting
after
meeting
after meeting which I we think of it as
after
meeting
which
I
we
think
of
it
as
something that is almost
something
that
is
almost
divine inspired on mount whatever and
divine
inspired
on
mount
whatever
and
handed down to people it's not it was a
handed
down
to
people
it's
not
it
was
a
series of like zoning board meetings.
series
of
like
zoning
board
meetings
>> Yeah, it really was. It took a long time
>>
Yeah
it
really
was
It
took
a
long
time
to figure out the whole premise of
to
figure
out
the
whole
premise
of
constitutionalism. I mean, we we think,
constitutionalism
I
mean
we
we
think
you know, next year we're celebrating
you
know
next
year
we're
celebrating
the nation's 250th anniversary because
the
nation's
250th
anniversary
because
we're marking the anniversary of the
we're
marking
the
anniversary
of
the
Declaration of Independence, 1776, but
Declaration
of
Independence
1776
but
that's also the year the first
that's
also
the
year
the
first
constitutions were written in in what
constitutions
were
written
in
in
what
was the United States. And it's not till
was
the
United
States
And
it's
not
till
1787 that we get the Constitution that
1787
that
we
get
the
Constitution
that
we haven't inherited as the federal
we
haven't
inherited
as
the
federal
constitution. But all those years in
constitution
But
all
those
years
in
between are just people like what if we
between
are
just
people
like
what
if
we
didn't have a governor or you know what
didn't
have
a
governor
or
you
know
what
if we elected our state supreme court or
if
we
elected
our
state
supreme
court
or
what if we granted the right to vote to
what
if
we
granted
the
right
to
vote
to
everybody. Like people are just debating
everybody
Like
people
are
just
debating
and trying out different things or what
and
trying
out
different
things
or
what
if we let the people write the
if
we
let
the
people
write
the
constitutions? What if we wrote them
constitutions
What
if
we
wrote
them
ourselves but told them they had to
ourselves
but
told
them
they
had
to
agree to them. No, that's not going to
agree
to
them
No
that's
not
going
to
work. Like it's just a series of
work
Like
it's
just
a
series
of
experiments,
experiments
>> right? And by the way, not on Zoom. like
>>
right
And
by
the
way
not
on
Zoom
like
these guys
these
guys
like everything is like what if we uh
like
everything
is
like
what
if
we
uh
did this and then they put in 50
did
this
and
then
they
put
in
50
amendments and did it and then like
amendments
and
did
it
and
then
like
they'd send a guy in a wagon and it
they'd
send
a
guy
in
a
wagon
and
it
would take him like eight weeks to go
would
take
him
like
eight
weeks
to
go
like yeah they said no
like
yeah
they
said
no
>> there was there was one time there was a
>>
there
was
there
was
one
time
there
was
a
constitution maybe it was Pennsylvania
constitution
maybe
it
was
Pennsylvania
where there was a draft
where
there
was
a
draft
>> have you not read this
>>
have
you
not
read
this
>> no I forgot about how far did you get
>>
no
I
forgot
about
how
far
did
you
get
>> I forgot all there was a a state
>>
I
forgot
all
there
was
a
a
state
constitution that was written and then
constitution
that
was
written
and
then
it went into the towns for ratification
it
went
into
the
towns
for
ratification
but by the time they called for the vote
but
by
the
time
they
called
for
the
vote
there hadn't the the printed copies of
there
hadn't
the
the
printed
copies
of
the Constitution hadn't reached the
the
Constitution
hadn't
reached
the
towns yet. Like it's actually just
towns
yet
Like
it's
actually
just
really hard to travel. Like think of
really
hard
to
travel
Like
think
of
Western Pennsylvania, Western
Western
Pennsylvania
Western
Massachusetts. Sure.
Massachusetts
Sure
>> It just takes a long time to get around.
>>
It
just
takes
a
long
time
to
get
around
and and and also there was a discussion
and
and
and
also
there
was
a
discussion
as as you lay out of who was even
as
as
you
lay
out
of
who
was
even
allowed to weigh in and should it be uh
allowed
to
weigh
in
and
should
it
be
uh
property owners or just white gentry or
property
owners
or
just
white
gentry
or
people who paid enough uh in certain
people
who
paid
enough
uh
in
certain
taxes uh and and all these different
taxes
uh
and
and
all
these
different
things. But it
things
But
it
what it does is it I don't want to say
what
it
does
is
it
I
don't
want
to
say
humanizes but it's a product of
humanizes
but
it's
a
product
of
administration
administration
and and it was almost a bureaucratic
and
and
it
was
almost
a
bureaucratic
process. it whereas I viewed it more as
process
it
whereas
I
viewed
it
more
as
a moral process previously
a
moral
process
previously
>> and I think it was infused with morality
>>
and
I
think
it
was
infused
with
morality
but even then boy they're very aware
but
even
then
boy
they're
very
aware
of slavery's uh shadow
of
slavery's
uh
shadow
and and and
and
and
and
they make no bones about it.
they
make
no
bones
about
it
>> Yeah. I think it's it's far more sort of
>>
Yeah
I
think
it's
it's
far
more
sort
of
contingent and accidental than we
contingent
and
accidental
than
we
probably carry around in our head the
probably
carry
around
in
our
head
the
idea of you know there was this bunch of
idea
of
you
know
there
was
this
bunch
of
guys in knee breaches in Philadelphia
guys
in
knee
breaches
in
Philadelphia
and the sun came through a window and
and
the
sun
came
through
a
window
and
George Washington said tada and there
George
Washington
said
tada
and
there
was the constitution and it's like there
was
the
constitution
and
it's
like
there
is that moment right there famous
is
that
moment
right
there
famous
speeches at the end where you know
speeches
at
the
end
where
you
know
Franklin says like I consent to this
Franklin
says
like
I
consent
to
this
constitution sir because although I
constitution
sir
because
although
I
don't think it's the best it's the best
don't
think
it's
the
best
it's
the
best
that we have and you know there is that
that
we
have
and
you
know
there
is
that
there are a lot of like iconic moments
there
are
a
lot
of
like
iconic
moments
in the history of the Constitution, but
in
the
history
of
the
Constitution
but
there's just a mess all before it that
there's
just
a
mess
all
before
it
that
involves a lot of things like
involves
a
lot
of
things
like
>> like people who are enslaved sending
>>
like
people
who
are
enslaved
sending
petitions to their state legislature
petitions
to
their
state
legislature
saying, "Oh, when you're writing the
saying
Oh
when
you're
writing
the
Constitution, by the way, please end
Constitution
by
the
way
please
end
slavery. It is completely inconsistent
slavery
It
is
completely
inconsistent
with the philosophy on which this
with
the
philosophy
on
which
this
country is being founded." So, like just
country
is
being
founded
So
like
just
I wrote the book because I just wanted
I
wrote
the
book
because
I
just
wanted
to recover this like much messier, more
to
recover
this
like
much
messier
more
contingent,
contingent
like a lot of agitation. like there's a
like
a
lot
of
agitation
like
there's
a
bureaucratic part of it but then you
bureaucratic
part
of
it
but
then
you
know these guys are meeting in
know
these
guys
are
meeting
in
conventions and like at the time they
conventions
and
like
at
the
time
they
called everybody who was agitating who's
called
everybody
who
was
agitating
who's
not in the constitutional conventions in
not
in
the
constitutional
conventions
in
the states and in Philadelphia the
the
states
and
in
Philadelphia
the
people out ofdoors and it's like we are
people
out
ofdoors
and
it's
like
we
are
we are the people out of doors
we
are
the
people
out
of
doors
>> we are all out of doors out the other
>>
we
are
all
out
of
doors
out
the
other
thing is there are a lot of women's
thing
is
there
are
a
lot
of
women's
conventions
conventions
>> who get together and they draw up
>>
who
get
together
and
they
draw
up
>> their own things and and they talk about
>>
their
own
things
and
and
they
talk
about
how this constitution I I thought
how
this
constitution
I
I
thought
there's a really interesting
there's
a
really
interesting
uh uh Aryan here where you talk about
uh
uh
Aryan
here
where
you
talk
about
the protection of women and sort of they
the
protection
of
women
and
sort
of
they
discuss it as literal rape as though
discuss
it
as
literal
rape
as
though
because British soldiers who had been in
because
British
soldiers
who
had
been
in
there and had been quartered in uh uh
there
and
had
been
quartered
in
uh
uh
Americans houses would and so they they
Americans
houses
would
and
so
they
they
viewed this as a way of protecting women
viewed
this
as
a
way
of
protecting
women
and viewing the country in that same
and
viewing
the
country
in
that
same
way.
way
>> Yeah. Yeah. There's this whole I mean
>>
Yeah
Yeah
There's
this
whole
I
mean
the reason we have like Lady Liberty or
the
reason
we
have
like
Lady
Liberty
or
you know there's also Britannia, right?
you
know
there's
also
Britannia
right
that we have these allegorical women
that
we
have
these
allegorical
women
that represent the nation. There is a a
that
represent
the
nation
There
is
a
a
way in which in the in the revolutionary
way
in
which
in
the
in
the
revolutionary
era women were always figured as the
era
women
were
always
figured
as
the
victims of British oppress oppression
victims
of
British
oppress
oppression
allegorically like the rape of America
allegorically
like
the
rape
of
America
by
by
>> right
>>
right
>> by parliament is this like the most
>>
by
parliament
is
this
like
the
most
popular woodcut of the time or engraving
popular
woodcut
of
the
time
or
engraving
of the time. But there also was a lot of
of
the
time
But
there
also
was
a
lot
of
rape that women dealt with during the
rape
that
women
dealt
with
during
the
revolutionary war as is the case in all
revolutionary
war
as
is
the
case
in
all
wars, right? And so
wars
right
And
so
>> as a weapon of war weapon war, right?
>>
as
a
weapon
of
war
weapon
war
right
And so when you read, okay, so there
And
so
when
you
read
okay
so
there
were no women at the constitutional
were
no
women
at
the
constitutional
convention, but all those guys had wives
convention
but
all
those
guys
had
wives
and sisters and mothers and daughters
and
sisters
and
mothers
and
daughters
who were writing to them and expressing
who
were
writing
to
them
and
expressing
their views. Like one of my favorites is
their
views
Like
one
of
my
favorites
is
>> Benjamin Franklin's sister who writes
>>
Benjamin
Franklin's
sister
who
writes
who writes to his writes to Franklin and
who
writes
to
his
writes
to
Franklin
and
says like,
says
like
>> "I hope while you're down there in
>>
I
hope
while
you're
down
there
in
Philadelphia with those wise men." She's
Philadelphia
with
those
wise
men
She's
being a little bit ironic,
being
a
little
bit
ironic
>> right?
>>
right
>> Uh I I hope you remember to turn the
>>
Uh
I
I
hope
you
remember
to
turn
the
swords into pl turn the swords into
swords
into
pl
turn
the
swords
into
plowshares. I'm not down with like uh
plowshares
I'm
not
down
with
like
uh
celebrating war in your new code of
celebrating
war
in
your
new
code
of
laws. I
laws
I
>> I thought uh uh Adams uh writes to his
>>
I
thought
uh
uh
Adams
uh
writes
to
his
wife.
wife
>> Yeah.
>>
Yeah
>> He gets a little
>>
He
gets
a
little
>> Yeah.
>>
Yeah
>> cheeky.
>>
cheeky
>> Yeah. He's a bit of a git.
>>
Yeah
He's
a
bit
of
a
git
>> He's a bit of a git, but he does he he
>>
He's
a
bit
of
a
git
but
he
does
he
he
almost in some ways make because she's
almost
in
some
ways
make
because
she's
very clearly pushing for uh I guess what
very
clearly
pushing
for
uh
I
guess
what
you would imagine to be maybe not the
you
would
imagine
to
be
maybe
not
the
rights. I I don't know.
rights
I
I
don't
know
>> Yeah. Well, she says look like all men
>>
Yeah
Well
she
says
look
like
all
men
would be tyrants if they could. That's
would
be
tyrants
if
they
could
That's
the principle on which the country is
the
principle
on
which
the
country
is
founded, right? Like that's right. Like
founded
right
Like
that's
right
Like
like power power corrupts. So we have to
like
power
power
corrupts
So
we
have
to
have checks and balances. We have to
have
checks
and
balances
We
have
to
write down our laws that limit the role
write
down
our
laws
that
limit
the
role
of government and document the rights of
of
government
and
document
the
rights
of
the people because left to left to
the
people
because
left
to
left
to
nature all men would be tyrants if they
nature
all
men
would
be
tyrants
if
they
could. So she's like also husbands are
could
So
she's
like
also
husbands
are
also going to be tyrants. So we need to
also
going
to
be
tyrants
So
we
need
to
have rights. Please don't forget to to
have
rights
Please
don't
forget
to
to
grant rights to women. And he writes
grant
rights
to
women
And
he
writes
back you know as to your new code of
back
you
know
as
to
your
new
code
of
laws. Madam I cannot but laugh.
laws
Madam
I
cannot
but
laugh
>> Yeah. Yeah,
>>
Yeah
Yeah
>> I bet she wanted to hit him in the face
>>
I
bet
she
wanted
to
hit
him
in
the
face
with a frying pan.
with
a
frying
pan
>> She writes to her friend Mercy Otis
>>
She
writes
to
her
friend
Mercy
Otis
Warren who's like, "Let's What about if
Warren
who's
like
Let's
What
about
if
we wrote a petition to Congress, like
we
wrote
a
petition
to
Congress
like
let's do this together,
let's
do
this
together
>> right?"
>>
right
>> And I I found that really tantalizing.
>>
And
I
I
found
that
really
tantalizing
I'd never come across that letter. I
I'd
never
come
across
that
letter
I
always Everybody knows the kind of
always
Everybody
knows
the
kind
of
Abigail Adams letter to John that
Abigail
Adams
letter
to
John
that
exchanges.
exchanges
>> Everybody No, Harvard professors know
>>
Everybody
No
Harvard
professors
know
that. No, here's here's what everybody
that
No
here's
here's
what
everybody
knows. The founders created three
knows
The
founders
created
three
co-equal branches of government and then
co-equal
branches
of
government
and
then
there was Vietnam. like nobody has any
there
was
Vietnam
like
nobody
has
any
idea about any of this. That's I think
idea
about
any
of
this
That's
I
think
that's the point and the point is there
that's
the
point
and
the
point
is
there
is a danger in not knowing this
is
a
danger
in
not
knowing
this
>> because it allows us to make
>>
because
it
allows
us
to
make
presumptions and assumptions that that
presumptions
and
assumptions
that
that
lessen the work that we have to do to
lessen
the
work
that
we
have
to
do
to
make change. You know, you talk a lot
make
change
You
know
you
talk
a
lot
about this in terms of amendments that
about
this
in
terms
of
amendments
that
the founders put into place through uh
the
founders
put
into
place
through
uh
article 5 the idea that this was not the
article
5
the
idea
that
this
was
not
the
end all beall document that it was going
end
all
beall
document
that
it
was
going
to have to be changed
to
have
to
be
changed
and and by not understanding though what
and
and
by
not
understanding
though
what
their thought process was leading up to
their
thought
process
was
leading
up
to
it I think we've lost sight of what that
it
I
think
we've
lost
sight
of
what
that
amending process should be.
amending
process
should
be
>> Yeah. and just the commitment to it. I
>>
Yeah
and
just
the
commitment
to
it
I
mean, I was really struck. I hadn't
mean
I
was
really
struck
I
hadn't
thought that much honestly about him.
thought
that
much
honestly
about
him
And I I like most people to the degree
And
I
I
like
most
people
to
the
degree
that I had a kind of history of the
that
I
had
a
kind
of
history
of
the
Constitution in my mind. It's really a
Constitution
in
my
mind
It's
really
a
succession of Supreme Court cases. Oh,
succession
of
Supreme
Court
cases
Oh
well, there was DreadScott. I know about
well
there
was
DreadScott
I
know
about
that one.
that
one
>> You know, Liz Lochner, Brown Board of
>>
You
know
Liz
Lochner
Brown
Board
of
Education, row,
Education
row
>> oh my god, I could teach at Harvard,
>>
oh
my
god
I
could
teach
at
Harvard
>> right? Like those are you're like, okay,
>>
right
Like
those
are
you're
like
okay
I
I
>> I know those too.
>>
I
know
those
too
>> That's right. That's what you kind of
>>
That's
right
That's
what
you
kind
of
think like, okay, the Supreme Court just
think
like
okay
the
Supreme
Court
just
decides and that's what the Constitution
decides
and
that's
what
the
Constitution
is. And that's kind of how it's taught
is
And
that's
kind
of
how
it's
taught
too, right? Law school, that's how it's
too
right
Law
school
that's
how
it's
taught. like it's just a section list of
taught
like
it's
just
a
section
list
of
cases and but when I went back and did
cases
and
but
when
I
went
back
and
did
this research it's like wow like know
this
research
it's
like
wow
like
know
the the philosophy of amendment the idea
the
the
philosophy
of
amendment
the
idea
that we can make our lives and our
that
we
can
make
our
lives
and
our
government better and more responsive to
government
better
and
more
responsive
to
the needs of the people is actually the
the
needs
of
the
people
is
actually
the
foundational principle of written
foundational
principle
of
written
constitutionalism if you're going to
constitutionalism
if
you're
going
to
write it down there's that's great then
write
it
down
there's
that's
great
then
everybody can read it like that's really
everybody
can
read
it
like
that's
really
important but
important
but
you have to have a way to change it
you
have
to
have
a
way
to
change
it
right and there really was no provision
right
and
there
really
was
no
provision
that the Supreme Court would be changing
that
the
Supreme
Court
would
be
changing
I mean that's a practice that evolved
I
mean
that's
a
practice
that
evolved
and is now can you know consider
and
is
now
can
you
know
consider
considered uh standard and and part of
considered
uh
standard
and
and
part
of
our constitutional tradition. But the
our
constitutional
tradition
But
the
philosophy amendment is the thing that
philosophy
amendment
is
the
thing
that
we abandoned. And it's, you know, it's
we
abandoned
And
it's
you
know
it's
hard. But even if you didn't have like a
hard
But
even
if
you
didn't
have
like
a
list of amendments you wanted, the idea
list
of
amendments
you
wanted
the
idea
of it is actually so beautiful. That is
of
it
is
actually
so
beautiful
That
is
the moral idea, right? That is the it's
the
moral
idea
right
That
is
the
it's
like this commitment to mending. like
like
this
commitment
to
mending
like
that the word itself kind of the 18th
that
the
word
itself
kind
of
the
18th
century meaning of it is like
century
meaning
of
it
is
like
inseparable from mending like repairing
inseparable
from
mending
like
repairing
a textile like
a
textile
like
>> and convening
>>
and
convening
>> like like making amends mending of ways
>>
like
like
making
amends
mending
of
ways
like these these kind of deep ways of
like
these
these
kind
of
deep
ways
of
thinking about shouldn't we be able to
thinking
about
shouldn't
we
be
able
to
make things better just because we've
make
things
better
just
because
we've
written them down does that mean we
written
them
down
does
that
mean
we
can't still aspire to make things better
can't
still
aspire
to
make
things
better
>> do you think that we
>>
do
you
think
that
we
have grown to use the Supreme Court as a
have
grown
to
use
the
Supreme
Court
as
a
moral crutch
moral
crutch
because the process of amending
because
the
process
of
amending
is so
is
so
arduous. You know, it took the Civil War
arduous
You
know
it
took
the
Civil
War
for them to decide that uh black people
for
them
to
decide
that
uh
black
people
should be able to vote and then
should
be
able
to
vote
and
then
certainly, you know, Jim Crow South pul
certainly
you
know
Jim
Crow
South
pul
pulled that all back. Uh you know, and
pulled
that
all
back
Uh
you
know
and
women at the time were like, "Wait a
women
at
the
time
were
like
Wait
a
minute. So, black men get to vote, but
minute
So
black
men
get
to
vote
but
women don't get to vote." And then it
women
don't
get
to
vote
And
then
it
took till the the 20s till that happens
took
till
the
the
20s
till
that
happens
with the suffragette movements. Have we
with
the
suffragette
movements
Have
we
lost sight of
lost
sight
of
what it takes to organize in a meeting
what
it
takes
to
organize
in
a
meeting
meeting to meeting grassroots relentless
meeting
to
meeting
grassroots
relentless
effort to create a lasting because an
effort
to
create
a
lasting
because
an
amendment you can pass a law but a law
amendment
you
can
pass
a
law
but
a
law
can be repeal.
can
be
repeal
>> Is that what we've lost?
>>
Is
that
what
we've
lost
>> An amendment is different and many of
>>
An
amendment
is
different
and
many
of
our amendments overrule supreme court
our
amendments
overrule
supreme
court
decisions. That's why that's what they
decisions
That's
why
that's
what
they
were for in the first place. It's like
were
for
in
the
first
place
It's
like
the Supreme Court strikes down a
the
Supreme
Court
strikes
down
a
congressional law to establish the
congressional
law
to
establish
the
federal income tax says that's not in
federal
income
tax
says
that's
not
in
the constitution. Congress doesn't have
the
constitution
Congress
doesn't
have
that power. Ultimately we got the 16th
that
power
Ultimately
we
got
the
16th
amendment in 1913 that says okay
amendment
in
1913
that
says
okay
congress can have this power and without
congress
can
have
this
power
and
without
an amendment many gains are just
an
amendment
many
gains
are
just
reversible. They can be overruled by the
reversible
They
can
be
overruled
by
the
supreme court. They can like if you
supreme
court
They
can
like
if
you
think about like environmental
think
about
like
environmental
protection right 1970 Nixon says it's
protection
right
1970
Nixon
says
it's
the environmental decade. I'm going to
the
environmental
decade
I'm
going
to
be the environmental president and we
be
the
environmental
president
and
we
get the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act,
get
the
Clean
Air
Act
Clean
Water
Act
Endangered Species Act, and Species Act,
Endangered
Species
Act
and
Species
Act
National Environmental Protection Act.
National
Environmental
Protection
Act
All those things are being rolled back.
All
those
things
are
being
rolled
back
Like you, those were not
Like
you
those
were
not
constitutionalized. They're really
constitutionalized
They're
really
important laws and they had really
important
laws
and
they
had
really
important consequences, but there was a
important
consequences
but
there
was
a
proposal for a constitutional amendment
proposal
for
a
constitutional
amendment
guaranteeing environmental protection as
guaranteeing
environmental
protection
as
a constitutional right. And it doesn't
a
constitutional
right
And
it
doesn't
get anywhere. There's a time that's sort
get
anywhere
There's
a
time
that's
sort
of the last moment when we really were
of
the
last
moment
when
we
really
were
able to still amend the constitution. So
able
to
still
amend
the
constitution
So
you think about that like would be a
you
think
about
that
like
would
be
a
different world if that had been
different
world
if
that
had
been
constitutionalized but
constitutionalized
but
>> and probably goes both ways. I mean I
>>
and
probably
goes
both
ways
I
mean
I
would imagine both ways that you know
would
imagine
both
ways
that
you
know
look we could argue Ro v. did a similar
look
we
could
argue
Ro
v
did
a
similar
thing over which is why I think people
thing
over
which
is
why
I
think
people
now view those
now
view
those
>> what they might have considered to be
>>
what
they
might
have
considered
to
be
rights as being vulnerable because I
rights
as
being
vulnerable
because
I
think they're realizing oh the Supreme
think
they're
realizing
oh
the
Supreme
Court I mean look at the shadow docket
Court
I
mean
look
at
the
shadow
docket
that they're literally like on one page
that
they're
literally
like
on
one
page
thing going like yeah the president can
thing
going
like
yeah
the
president
can
uh just take billions of dollars and uh
uh
just
take
billions
of
dollars
and
uh
as long as it's for like foreign money
as
long
as
it's
for
like
foreign
money
he can just take
he
can
just
take
>> I mean it's a little bit like you're
>>
I
mean
it's
a
little
bit
like
you're
you're you know the the reductionism of
you're
you
know
the
the
reductionism
of
the mass shooting analysis where you're
the
mass
shooting
analysis
where
you're
going to just say was it a red shooter
going
to
just
say
was
it
a
red
shooter
or a blue shooter
or
a
blue
shooter
>> I'm sorry I don't watch this show I
>>
I'm
sorry
I
don't
watch
this
show
I
don't care for.
don't
care
for
>> So I don't know what you're referring
>>
So
I
don't
know
what
you're
referring
to.
to
>> Well, I think you know.
>>
Well
I
think
you
know
>> No, it's reductive.
>>
No
it's
reductive
>> It's reductive. It's like, okay, so it's
>>
It's
reductive
It's
like
okay
so
it's
just generally the case. Sadly, people
just
generally
the
case
Sadly
people
aren't as principled as you as you'd
aren't
as
principled
as
you
as
you'd
wish. Like if if conservatives are not
wish
Like
if
if
conservatives
are
not
in power in the court, then they they
in
power
in
the
court
then
they
they
seek constitutional amendment and they
seek
constitutional
amendment
and
they
think the court shouldn't be making
think
the
court
shouldn't
be
making
decisions. Liberals are not in power in
decisions
Liberals
are
not
in
power
in
the court, they suddenly want to talk
the
court
they
suddenly
want
to
talk
about constitutional amendments and they
about
constitutional
amendments
and
they
don't think the court should be making
don't
think
the
court
should
be
making
decisions.
decisions
>> Are we all originalists when we're not
>>
Are
we
all
originalists
when
we're
not
holding the power? Is that is that how
holding
the
power
Is
that
is
that
how
originalism works?
originalism
works
>> No.
>>
No
>> Oh, okay. All right. All right. I wasn't
>>
Oh
okay
All
right
All
right
I
wasn't
sure.
sure
>> No. All right.
>>
No
All
right
>> No, we can be intellectually
>>
No
we
can
be
intellectually
inconsistent without being originalist.
inconsistent
without
being
originalist
>> Oh, okay. All right.
>>
Oh
okay
All
right
>> Those are two different forms.
>>
Those
are
two
different
forms
>> They are because that's uh uh what the
>>
They
are
because
that's
uh
uh
what
the
originalist would would say, is it not?
originalist
would
would
say
is
it
not
Is that the amendment because they
Is
that
the
amendment
because
they
placed it in there, if you don't use the
placed
it
in
there
if
you
don't
use
the
amendment, you can't do anything.
amendment
you
can't
do
anything
>> Yeah. So, the original so originalism is
>>
Yeah
So
the
original
so
originalism
is
not original. It's not the original
not
original
It's
not
the
original
method of con of of interpreting the
method
of
con
of
of
interpreting
the
constitution. It's a political product
constitution
It's
a
political
product
of of the 1970s and 1980s when
of
of
the
1970s
and
1980s
when
>> the term maybe
>>
the
term
maybe
>> the term no but also the idea
>>
the
term
no
but
also
the
idea
>> even the thought process
>>
even
the
thought
process
>> yeah even the thought process earlier
>>
yeah
even
the
thought
process
earlier
courts didn't really say let's go back
courts
didn't
really
say
let's
go
back
and consider what you know Madison's
and
consider
what
you
know
Madison's
notes on the constitutional convention
notes
on
the
constitutional
convention
said in order to understand whether
said
in
order
to
understand
whether
there could be a
there
could
be
a
>> so they understood themselves as living
>>
so
they
understood
themselves
as
living
in a time and and being politically part
in
a
time
and
and
being
politically
part
of the moment
of
the
moment
>> yeah yeah they were working I mean
>>
yeah
yeah
they
were
working
I
mean
they're a lot again like it's it's brand
they're
a
lot
again
like
it's
it's
brand
new like they're working out well how
new
like
they're
working
out
well
how
are we going to interpret this thing
are
we
going
to
interpret
this
thing
like they're working it out that is
like
they're
working
it
out
that
is
different kind of competing theories and
different
kind
of
competing
theories
and
they
they
>> they change over time but the
>>
they
change
over
time
but
the
originalism that dominates the Supreme
originalism
that
dominates
the
Supreme
Court today
Court
today
>> uh really begins around 1971 and it is
>>
uh
really
begins
around
1971
and
it
is
it is fiscal and social conservatives
it
is
fiscal
and
social
conservatives
who opposed to the decisions of the
who
opposed
to
the
decisions
of
the
Warren Court like starting with Brown v
Warren
Court
like
starting
with
Brown
v
Board of Education in 1954
Board
of
Education
in
1954
>> and they've said oh that's judicial this
>>
and
they've
said
oh
that's
judicial
this
is like
is
like
>> judicial activism
>>
judicial
activism
>> judicial activism they're legislating
>>
judicial
activism
they're
legislating
from the bench you should never do that
from
the
bench
you
should
never
do
that
you should never do that if you want to
you
should
never
do
that
if
you
want
to
change the constitution you should try
change
the
constitution
you
should
try
to amend and they try to amend the
to
amend
and
they
try
to
amend
the
constitution, but they don't have the
constitution
but
they
don't
have
the
votes. They want a right to life
votes
They
want
a
right
to
life
amendment. They want a balanced budget
amendment
They
want
a
balanced
budget
amendment. They don't have the votes. So
amendment
They
don't
have
the
votes
So
then they were like, "Oh, you know what?
then
they
were
like
Oh
you
know
what
We we do want to change the
We
we
do
want
to
change
the
constitution. We're going to take over
constitution
We're
going
to
take
over
the federal judiciary, but we've been
the
federal
judiciary
but
we've
been
saying for decades that you can't
saying
for
decades
that
you
can't
legislate from the bench. So we have to
legislate
from
the
bench
So
we
have
to
have a way to have our new judiciary
have
a
way
to
have
our
new
judiciary
appointment, our new judiciary
appointment
our
new
judiciary
appointees be able to change the
appointees
be
able
to
change
the
constitution without seeming to be
constitution
without
seeming
to
be
changed in the constitution. And so they
changed
in
the
constitution
And
so
they
what we're doing is
what
we're
doing
is
>> right
>>
right
>> we've devised this new judicial
>>
we've
devised
this
new
judicial
interpretation that it's we're not
interpretation
that
it's
we're
not
changing the constitution we're
changing
the
constitution
we're
restoring it to its original meaning.
restoring
it
to
its
original
meaning
>> So it's a way to change a constitution
>>
So
it's
a
way
to
change
a
constitution
while pretending that you're not
while
pretending
that
you're
not
disguising it as
disguising
it
as
>> restoration. What's so interesting about
>>
restoration
What's
so
interesting
about
that too it seems is so if you say well
that
too
it
seems
is
so
if
you
say
well
there is a a an amending process right
there
is
a
a
an
amending
process
right
that allows us to change the
that
allows
us
to
change
the
constitution. So you have to use that
constitution
So
you
have
to
use
that
because that's what the founders put in
because
that's
what
the
founders
put
in
there. But as you show in the book, the
there
But
as
you
show
in
the
book
the
amendment process wasn't something that
amendment
process
wasn't
something
that
they held sacrianked. Again, the
they
held
sacrianked
Again
the
amendment process was born of a very
amendment
process
was
born
of
a
very
messy, sometimes conflicting
messy
sometimes
conflicting
administrative and bureaucratic process.
administrative
and
bureaucratic
process
Even that was compromised for a variety
Even
that
was
compromised
for
a
variety
of different reasons. So, I don't even
of
different
reasons
So
I
don't
even
know that you can point to the amendment
know
that
you
can
point
to
the
amendment
process. It it seems like the Supreme
process
It
it
seems
like
the
Supreme
Court Marberry versus Madison was the
Court
Marberry
versus
Madison
was
the
moment they went there is no originalism
moment
they
went
there
is
no
originalism
because in the Constitution there is no
because
in
the
Constitution
there
is
no
only the Supreme Court gets to interpret
only
the
Supreme
Court
gets
to
interpret
constitutionality and there certainly is
constitutionality
and
there
certainly
is
no amendment in the Constitution that
no
amendment
in
the
Constitution
that
suggests that
suggests
that
>> so how didn't we leave uh that ship in
>>
so
how
didn't
we
leave
uh
that
ship
in
1803 or is that the wrong way of
1803
or
is
that
the
wrong
way
of
thinking of this?
thinking
of
this
>> Uh yeah I mean I don't think there's no
>>
Uh
yeah
I
mean
I
don't
think
there's
no
pulling back judicial review. I don't I
pulling
back
judicial
review
I
don't
I
like there's maybe
like
there's
maybe
>> I just mean by doing judicial review
>>
I
just
mean
by
doing
judicial
review
>> you've removed yourself from originalism
>>
you've
removed
yourself
from
originalism
because that's not in there.
because
that's
not
in
there
>> Yes.
>>
Yes
>> Fair enough.
>>
Fair
enough
>> Good night.
>>
Good
night
>> For real.
>>
For
real
>> Yeah, for real.
>>
Yeah
for
real
>> Did I just get Did I just get a B?
>>
Did
I
just
get
Did
I
just
get
a
B
>> No.
>>
No
>> You know, no one gets B's anymore, John.
>>
You
know
no
one
gets
B's
anymore
John
I don't know. Oh, that's right. I
I
don't
know
Oh
that's
right
I
forgot. Paying attention.
forgot
Paying
attention
>> I forgot about that. That's when the
>>
I
forgot
about
that
That's
when
the
parents come in. How dare you?
parents
come
in
How
dare
you
>> I spend $300,000 a year at this stupid
>>
I
spend
300000
a
year
at
this
stupid
company. I don't know the letter B
company
I
don't
know
the
letter
B
anymore. My my outs with A.
anymore
My
my
outs
with
A
>> It's It's really You know what? It's
>>
It's
It's
really
You
know
what
It's
awful, isn't it?
awful
isn't
it
>> It's awful. Yeah, it's embarrassing and
>>
It's
awful
Yeah
it's
embarrassing
and
inexcusable.
inexcusable
>> Do you Can you even write see me on the
>>
Do
you
Can
you
even
write
see
me
on
the
thing or No, that even that's over.
thing
or
No
that
even
that's
over
>> No, that's so suggestive, I think, is
>>
No
that's
so
suggestive
I
think
is
the problem.
the
problem
>> It is, right? You can't do anything
>>
It
is
right
You
can't
do
anything
anymore. Oh, poor Democrats.
anymore
Oh
poor
Democrats
Uh uh is the idea of of putting this out
Uh
uh
is
the
idea
of
of
putting
this
out
there then to give us a sense of the
there
then
to
give
us
a
sense
of
the
road map and the inconsistencies
road
map
and
the
inconsistencies
so that we no longer
so
that
we
no
longer
view things through a more orthodox or
view
things
through
a
more
orthodox
or
fundamentalist lens like it is this as
fundamentalist
lens
like
it
is
this
as
opposed to no it became that because of
opposed
to
no
it
became
that
because
of
all these other tributaries and and is
all
these
other
tributaries
and
and
is
that um constructive people as we move
that
um
constructive
people
as
we
move
forward.
forward
>> Yeah, I think it's first of all, it's
>>
Yeah
I
think
it's
first
of
all
it's
important to have a more democratic past
important
to
have
a
more
democratic
past
if you want to have a more democratic
if
you
want
to
have
a
more
democratic
future, right? You have to see like
future
right
You
have
to
see
like
there's a world of people who are
there's
a
world
of
people
who
are
agitating for different kinds of change.
agitating
for
different
kinds
of
change
Like not like all change is great. Like
Like
not
like
all
change
is
great
Like
a lot of the people that I write as
a
lot
of
the
people
that
I
write
as
character sketches in this book have
character
sketches
in
this
book
have
constitutional ideas that I think are
constitutional
ideas
that
I
think
are
horrible, right? Um but they really
horrible
right
Um
but
they
really
worked hard on them and they really
worked
hard
on
them
and
they
really
influenced the court in doing so. Even
influenced
the
court
in
doing
so
Even
if, you know, they didn't get their
if
you
know
they
didn't
get
their
amendments through or maybe they did,
amendments
through
or
maybe
they
did
some of them they did. Um, we just
some
of
them
they
did
Um
we
just
actually need a more complex and richer
actually
need
a
more
complex
and
richer
account of how Americans have viewed the
account
of
how
Americans
have
viewed
the
Constitution so that it doesn't seem
Constitution
so
that
it
doesn't
seem
immutable. Not to say to it we shouldn't
immutable
Not
to
say
to
it
we
shouldn't
care about it. We shouldn't value. We
care
about
it
We
shouldn't
value
We
shouldn't want to uphold it. We
shouldn't
want
to
uphold
it
We
shouldn't want to hold our leaders
shouldn't
want
to
hold
our
leaders
accountable to it, but that it at the
accountable
to
it
but
that
it
at
the
end of the day it is actually our
end
of
the
day
it
is
actually
our
constitution. And I think we have really
constitution
And
I
think
we
have
really
for I would say most Americans don't
for
I
would
say
most
Americans
don't
even know the US Constitution can be
even
know
the
US
Constitution
can
be
amended at this like it hasn't really
amended
at
this
like
it
hasn't
really
happened lately. And even state
happened
lately
And
even
state
constitutions like we don't hold
constitutions
like
we
don't
hold
conventions anymore. I think that the
conventions
anymore
I
think
that
the
the things that people fought and died
the
things
that
people
fought
and
died
over a revolution for and you know the
over
a
revolution
for
and
you
know
the
750,000 Americans who died in the Civil
750000
Americans
who
died
in
the
Civil
War were fighting a constitutional
War
were
fighting
a
constitutional
argument too. Like I think we just need
argument
too
Like
I
think
we
just
need
a better a better account of that to get
a
better
a
better
account
of
that
to
get
our bearings in the same way like you
our
bearings
in
the
same
way
like
you
know in your in a marriage you kind of
know
in
your
in
a
marriage
you
kind
of
need to know like your family history
need
to
know
like
your
family
history
like you just you have like an account
like
you
just
you
have
like
an
account
of the past.
of
the
past
>> Wow that took a weird turn.
>>
Wow
that
took
a
weird
turn
>> Okay. It took a super Is there anything
>>
Okay
It
took
a
super
Is
there
anything
else you want to talk about
else
you
want
to
talk
about
>> just in your daily life? Like you think
>>
just
in
your
daily
life
Like
you
think
historically all the time about how did
historically
all
the
time
about
how
did
like how did I get there with this
like
how
did
I
get
there
with
this
friendship? Like oh my god this person,
friendship
Like
oh
my
god
this
person
you know, 20 years ago we had this fight
you
know
20
years
ago
we
had
this
fight
and we're still fighting over that.
and
we're
still
fighting
over
that
>> Sure. No. Yep. We all think that way.
>>
Sure
No
Yep
We
all
think
that
way
>> Okay. Maybe that failed.
>>
Okay
Maybe
that
failed
I love it because it reminds people that
I
love
it
because
it
reminds
people
that
uh democracy is a participatory sport
uh
democracy
is
a
participatory
sport
and that when you go through that you
and
that
when
you
go
through
that
you
see this is about and the more people
see
this
is
about
and
the
more
people
that participate we won't always uh be
that
participate
we
won't
always
uh
be
pleased with the outcome but you have to
pleased
with
the
outcome
but
you
have
to
be uh invested in the process and boy
be
uh
invested
in
the
process
and
boy
what a valuable thing although still my
what
a
valuable
thing
although
still
my
favorite piece of information in this
favorite
piece
of
information
in
this
entire book is that the federalist
entire
book
is
that
the
federalist
society which are the general Generally,
society
which
are
the
general
Generally
the legal theory of originalism uh
the
legal
theory
of
originalism
uh
altered the logo of James Madison that
altered
the
logo
of
James
Madison
that
is their logo
is
their
logo
>> because they thought the nose looked too
>>
because
they
thought
the
nose
looked
too
big.
big
>> It's kind of awesome. Also, it was
>>
It's
kind
of
awesome
Also
it
was
Robert Bourke's son, I think, who was
Robert
Bourke's
son
I
think
who
was
like this silhouette, he's a fairly
like
this
silhouette
he's
a
fairly
unattractive man.
unattractive
man
>> I love it. Uh the book is called We the
>>
I
love
it
Uh
the
book
is
called
We
the
People. It's available now. And again, I
People
It's
available
now
And
again
I
can't tell you just the writing is so
can't
tell
you
just
the
writing
is
so
vivid and engaging and wonderful. It
vivid
and
engaging
and
wonderful
It
would have been so much easier to skim
would
have
been
so
much
easier
to
skim
this bad boy uh if you were a lesser
this
bad
boy
uh
if
you
were
a
lesser
writer, but you are not and it is
writer
but
you
are
not
and
it
is
fantastic. And I thank you for even
fantastic
And
I
thank
you
for
even
Jill Leor. Heat. Heat.
Jill
Leor
Heat
Heat
[Music]
Music
- Pause
0.5x - Slower
0.75x - Slow
1.0x - Normal
Your daily language practice
Click ?
for definitions and explanations
Click
to restart from the beginning
Click
to skip back to the previous caption
Click
to change the talking speed
Today's Learning Tip
You're building neural pathways that will last a lifetime.
Keep going - you're doing great!
These features are available only to paying subscribers
Slow the playback rate.
Sometimes native speakers talk very quickly. Catch every word by reducing the speed of the video.
Your own teacher.
If you are unsure of any word or phrase then the AI assistant can help you understand.
You might also like these videos
If you enjoy using our custom video player, why not join thousands of subscribers who have signed up to our free weekly lessons?