[inaudible conversations] b17 ladies and gentlemen i have the president of this wonderful institution we have been important responsibility here at the Constitution Center to inspire people around the world. So look at this great book we be discussing not only the first part but the entire congressional charter. Here we go. The national Constitution Center the only institution in america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the u. S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis and this is perfect in order to increase understanding of the constitutions among the american people. That is what we will do today. The first ten amendments that have become iconic but as we will learn today it was not always known as the bill of rights. And then as the bill of rights in the panel will learn how they came to be known. The neck i have to tell you something else. One of the 12 survivors George Washington sent out 13 copies went to the federal government 12 survived this has been at the Constitution Center the past three years here for just another few months then go back to the u. S. Public library sharing it with the commonwealth of pennsylvania and then will come back in three years but today is a unique and rare opportunity and i want you to do that. This is the end of our winter season we will reconvene in january including visit was Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg who was here in february and also the launch of the much anticipated biography of yours true in the William Howard taft. [laughter] to say the most underappreciated figure who refused to ratify the constitution until it contained a bill of rights. So we will hear about him and his role. Now my displeasure my pressure to introduce our guest Gerard Magliocca a professor at Indiana University the author of a series of great books including john bingham who was part of reconstruction that guaranteed equal protection and today he is here to discuss the heart of the constitution how the bill of rights became the bill of rights. [applause] i am so excited you are here. And then to culminate a National Radio address celebrating bill of rights today celebrated with parades in chicago, new york and mayor laguardia is overseeing the first ten amendments. Radio broadcast by hollywood celebrities heard by 63 million americans like orson welles, Jimmy Stewart all celebrating the bill of rights. And a man sits in jail for criticizing his town. But that little thing you are celebrating is that for them. President roosevelt giving his speech. No debate means more for liberty than all liberty loving countries from 1791 on that day 150 years ago a new nation with the declaration of human rights for all mankind. [applause] now i will resist the orson welles imitation. [laughter] they were celebrating the bill of rights. One of the first times James Buchanan was one of the first so why is it 19411 week after pearl harbor and americans are celebrating . First, thanks for coming and having me here. The interesting thing about this commemoration is the First National celebration of the bill of rights. It has been 150 years since the ratification so why did it take until 1941 . They were much more important in the 30s and 40s and it wasnt important up until that point. The fact it came about and 41 that it was the 150th anniversary nobody knew pearl harbor would happen one week before so that happened right before the 150th anniversary so this day was supercharged with sentiment and combined with Roosevelt Speech was an explanation why we were fighting hitler. Pearl harbor help december 7 and the president asked for a declaration of war against japan then hitler gives a speech to declare war on the united states. This bill of rights day that bill that was read to you was the first president ial statement about why are we fighting hitler . Roosevelts answer was for ourselves. That turns the bill of rights into this emblem of american patriotism that it has held a person. So that context is central. And yet the bill of rights is not referred to the bill of rights and the declaration of independence is more likely to be called that. So the training of the Convention Understanding why that original constitution y James Madison changed his mind to do that you help us understand the revolutionary era and the gray audience knows the interactive constitution and i want you to download them after the show. And you can see that written by george mason. To see the amendments because that sums up the point to understand the bill of rights that were broad statements of philosophical principles and to say all power originally vested derived from the people for the enjoyment of life and liberty the people have the inalienable right whenever found inadequate. That sounds just like the second one sentence from the declaration of independence so thumbs up on the bill of rights. At the time of the founding and then set out by george mason. What does it look like . First coming at the beginning of the state constitution and they all began with a series of statements with a grand rhetorical statement popular sovereignty and so on that was supposed to be the preface proposing something similar there were a lot of complaints from the anti federalist that it did not have such a preface some medicine tried to introduce a preface with a series of changes. But congress rejected this for a variety of reasons they did not want to change that preface so as a result not to have any grand introduction so consequently almost nobody thought was a bill of rights. The only person once called it a bill of rights was jefferson but that was in a letter and never mentioned it again. Of course now they say he wrote the bill of rights from the time it was ratified until the time he died 45 years later. He never said i wrote to the bill of rights and those declarations of virginia and pennsylvania to play off the british model and why that was phrased what they ought to do. So the term bill of rights comes from the english bill of rights comes from the glorious evolution of 1688 and is a parliamentary statute with many fundamental rights that became important. With the british Constitution Parliament can do anything that it wants so to the extent there is a statute that things can or cannot be done but more or less you should not do this while recognizing that you can because parliament is supreme. They would copy that model like you ought not to do things. So try not to but you can if you want. What makes the first set distinctive to use the mandatory words shall repeatedly to describe what is prohibited. And to some extent so that it would provide the judiciary with the opportunity to strike down certain laws these provisions so having that mandatory language was necessary and appropriate to work its way into future state bill of rights in the 19th century. So judicial enforcement helps to support. But when initially he said it was unnecessary or dangerous because the constitution itself was a bill of rights. And dangerous because they can assume it wasnt protected why did he change his mind . And why he decided to oppose the bill of rights . As you will hear part of madisons rule was a politician and what he saw in the debate is there was considerable disquiet it lacked a bill of rights. So to be practical much of the time he changed his mind because he felt the introduction of a bill of rights would help to prevent the calling of another Constitutional Convention. They were concerned if another Constitutional Convention was called it would be a disaster because it was so difficult to put together the compromises from the first. There were two states that refused to ratify and when the First Congress convened they were there so it is the thought if you had a bill of rights so with a union have been a problem over foreign influence so to meet these problems that jefferson was keen to write a series of letters why there should be a bill of rights so he gave this answer that said i have always been for a bill of rights. And then proceeded to follow up including judicial review why we should have Something Like that in the federal constitution. Once it went through the legislative process. So he changes his mind not just ten amendments but 19. Download the constitution to say with the equal rights of conscience with a trial by jury what it took that 14th amendment from violating the bill of rights. To be more of a National List that presented for particular rights through the legislatures to engage things that he considered to be abuses. And with greater restrictions there is a wonderful book that came out last year talking how madison edited his notes and tried to tone down the things that he said that once he was elected member of congress from virginia he still retained a nationalist view and did propose more limitations be brought into the constitution so if he thought that would actually pass or thought that would be satisfactory im not sure but that was his concern that wasnt shared by most people and went nowhere. Congress instead proposed the original First Amendment but of a certain period of time to have more representatives added of those inhabitants there would be 6000 Congress People today. And those representatives not to get to always. And then raising the salary without the intervening election why does first to not pass . It is a little hard to know because we dont have records on these debates when sent out for ratification. But first of all the small states didnt like the idea of a large house of representatives. That would maximize their influence so delaware did not ratify with his large house of representatives so that fell short because the small states objected but people who werent interested until basically until the 1970s. Ultimately it was ratified but nobody thinks that is part of the bill of rights. So just the fact he proposed that is not enough to get you into the bill of rights circle. One thing i was not able to learn why were they numbered in the way that they were . Or the unique order . There is no particular reason but it matters by happenstance if it wasnt ratified in speech and religion became the First Amendment to some extent people think its first so it must be most important but that wasnt the idea it was just because the first two didnt get ratified but that matters sometimes for people. Not to insert the amendment . For the most part he wanted to have constitution 2. 0 to put those edits directly into the constitution with a brandnew constitution with the edits and those with the bill of rights go into that section 21 federal government so that would make it what the Supreme Court found those amendments with limits on the states having been removed. Had madison gotten his way would be be harder to think about as a Distinct Group so the fact that they put them all together as a group would be easier to say it is added together at once at the end with the bill of rights. What makes it a bill of rights to us is not the plan madison had. So to restrict the powers of congress in baltimore chief Justice John Marshall said it does not bind the states that only congress but wanted to would have said so but otherwise the states shall make no law and in the opinion to describe that itself in the nature of the bill of rights and he says to that. Most people get that honor. So John Marshall never referred to the first set of amendment and in the opinion not applying to the action of State Governments they called in the nature of the bill of rights with a list of restrictions what was considered to be important at the time. So the fact they wouldnt limit the actions of State Government isnt particularly controversial at the time that there were people that rejected that in those who did did so i calling those first ten amendments the bill of rights because that was the way to explain to be the exception to states rights. But not for the bill of rights that cannot be something that they say that because they want to extend that protection not because they were intrinsically known as the bill of rights. That is what the Supreme Court had done. So with john bingham you have written that definitive biography but why did they referred to the first ten amendments as the bill of rights said Justice John Marshall said of congress intended to apply the bill of rights they would have said so so i decided to do what he said with the citizenship to make clear his intention to apply those first ten amendments. So tell us about that vision. So those first eight amendments not the first ten so why do you use one term over another . Because it is more convincing so to have important rights to say i want to happen in the mold bill of rights or environmental. Why . It is more persuasive so didnt refer to those first set of amendments until they were considering the 14th amendment and then he needed to refer to them to the actions of State Governments because of the abuses that had occurred in the south prior to the civil war against anyone who spoke out against slavery were acted in a way contrary to slavery such as teaching a religious precept or people put on trial for various violations for criticizing slavery so he chose that term deliberately to try to convince the doubters the first set should be extended. So by contrast those in general did not call them the bill of rights. They just said they are amendments. No different than any other. They denied they were special that continues into the 20th century and those who are against it refusing to use that term. Then everybody started to use that term which coincided with the fact these provisions started to get more extended. So the epigraph of your book is striking that says our constitution. [laughter] unlike most modern was just not contain a formal declaration of bill of rights. Despite the fact writing the 14h amendment it is a complicated material how it was of the serrated and with the turn of the century you say we have no bill of rights. And politics is not great to be ahead of your time it is a way to say that you failed. So this new terminology just didnt catch on. So really it wasnt a change in the way the people thought about it until the spanishamerican war as the first turning point because people who are critical as a result of the spanishamerican war said it was legitimate to have these colonies because they would not get the benefit of the bill of rights. It was used as a tool that this time to criticize a federal policy and in response to say we can give the philippines and long a bill of rights that they were given something much less as a slimmeddown version but that seemed to satisfy the acquisition of these colonies the same way the addition of the amendments satisfies enough people and then with those first set of amendments but it shows that practical or political way that they were looking to just because they were rights. This is an opportunity on howard taft as he was governor of the philippines at the time there were three positions in the country saying that the god given rights applies to all people that that progressive imperialist we have the right and taft they should be ready to exercise based on their level of education. So the debate to help shave americas conception. One part is how things going on abroad made the bill of rights more important here at home so that is what is going on. What do you do or how do you govern that into what people thought at home . It is also fair to say what gives us the insight what people thought was important at the time and the answer is some things you might expect like freedom of speech or why they werent interested like the right to bear arms in the colonized duration but also they were not extended to these colonies. There was a different explanation that people maybe not so keen to promote the authority the colonial governments but they had a different perception of the jury trial as the way it was perceived earlier they thought it was less important. So you can see in the states and when congress had to consider the overseas colonies whatever they put together or if they check things out tells you what people were thinking at the time. The election of 1912 so how much does that apply abroad . With the bill of rights that doesnt talk about strong enforcement and says he doesnt even refer to the bill of rights over his two terms of office. And then to discuss virginia declaration. And by 1941 during world war ii the knowledgeable reality of the gestapo and concentration camps have changed the way roosevelt will talk about the bill of rights