Transcripts For CSPAN3 Lectures In History Principles Of The U.S. Constitution 20240713

I want to talk about that. As i tried to communicate last week, the drafting of our institution, the history of its formation is extraordinary to say the least. It is remarkable moment in all of world history. We are here at 233 years later and our constitution is in the news daily, being referred to as we almost speak here tonight, again and again. One particular aspect, but it is alive and well. To think about the fact this came together from a period of midmay until midseptember of 1787 is remarkable. We recall that we said the revolutionary war, and a lot of folks are not clear on the sequencing. It is important to note conflict began with lexington and concord and massachusetts in 1774. These very independent colonies, all british colonies that operated with their own governments and their own leadership, and so forth, suddenly had to come together and form a military alliance. It was not easy for them to do that. They had a lot of hesitation and concern about what it meant to be together. But the enemy was the justification for their alliance. They formed that alliance of the First Continental Congress and in 1775 they come together. By july 1776, they make a declaration. We see a nation starting to be born, at least for purposes of declaring their independence and working together for a common military purpose. A year and a half after that, they formed the articles of confederation. The articles of confederation become the next step in an effort to have some type of connection between these colonies. We looked last week at the articles of confederation and we note it referred to, the colonies referred to themselves as a firm league of friendship, interesting way to describe this new United States, almost like nato or some type of International Treaty of countries, individual countries coming together. It took 3. 5 years for those articles to be ratified and to become effective. Think about that. Here the necessity to form a nation was clear. They put together articles that are very loose, dont require much, very minimal in terms of government structure and yet it took 3. 5 years for everybody to get on board and agree. And we see of course severe limitations, significant weaknesses to the articles of confederation. As those articles of confederation were being considered, shortly after they were considered, they were approved by a sufficient or by other states, march of 1781, the british surrendered at yorktown, so it was very conflict was over by the end of night of 1781. Now there is sort of peace although the british army is still present in new york and it took a while for them to actually leave the new union. During this time the articles are in operation and the limitations are very clear. During that time we see that the articles of confederation, they did not provide for an executive branch. There was no independent judiciary. There was a one body, one house congress. Everyone had to be in agreement to do anything. It gave the states tremendous power, virtually all power. As a result lots of things were going on in the states that were really unsettling with regard to recognition of Property Rights and doing justice. This was something madison was concerned about. That time, the 11 years between the articles of confederation and finally 1787 and the Constitutional Convention is a fascinating time. As i was preparing, i pulled from myself a book called the confederation and the constitution. This is a book that i had to buy for my Early American History course in 1977i think. Very long time ago. But i keep all of my books. I was a history major. For those of you who like books, you notice, maybe when youre in your 60s, you will have some College Books around. I had a lot of mine. It was useful. Its a fascinating time in which the country is trying to come together and be a nation. It was not working and as i talked about last week, Alexander Hamilton was especially concerned. So there was a meeting of five states in annapolis in 1786. At that meeting, hamilton was pushing for the congress to call a special convention to presumably modify the articles of confederation. He was successful. In february of 1787, the congress did call for a Constitutional Convention. And this convention was instructed to do what was necessary to fix the problems are the of the articles of confederation. As we said last week, something much different occurred. In the book i recommend it to you, the paulson book, they referred to it, father and son, referred to it as basically a coup detat, that the framers came together and formed the document that was completely new. They threw out the articles of confederation, formed this new constitution, something beyond their mandate, and were able to get that ratified. So that itself was a major milestone in American History. Hamilton was the instigator who was able to get this convention called and to encourage it to be pulled and take action. George washington was thought to chair the proceedings. He did not say much as chair, but he encouraged them to be bold and do what was necessary. Madison was the architect, the one who did the most work, came prepared to really brought a constitution basically with him and was prepared to lead everyone through it. Didnt miss anything in the proceedings and took extensive notes. Its his notes we can rely on the most to know what happened during that convention. Wilson from pennsylvania was the draftsman who helped, worked with madison to get the provisions right and then Gouverneur Morris was the wordsmith who wrote some of the words that have become famous and the preamble in particular. When madison came prepared, he came with the virginia plan. The virginia plan called for what we think of today in the structure of the constitution, the separation of powers and federalism. That is tonights focus. The one weakness was that it called for representation based on population for the house and senate. There was a Bicameral Legislature and i was going to be an improvement over the articles of confederation. That was not unprecedented. That was existing in parliament but the senate would be elected based on a population. That was objected to by the smaller states of course, and the great compromise came forward which was something from Roger Sherman of connecticut, sometimes called the connecticut compromise. It was we like what you have done, mr. Madison. It is a great framework, but this will not work. We will go with something different. Every state will get to senators and will have representatives, populationbased representative. Elections for the house. That is how they worked that out. There were many other debates over lots of other important things. We will talk about those tonight but by september 17, they were able to sign that constitution. Nearly everyone, three famous participants, ended up not signing. But they came together to sign the constitution. And then the ratification process began. At this point you have to appreciate how controversial the document was. It had strayed from the mandate as to amending the articles of confederation. The states, so independentminded, were very concerned about what had been created. There were objections throughout the colonies. As the various states held the ratification conventions, and by the way, thats the way it was set up, they would have special conventions for purposes of ratification, not just a vote in state legislatures, but in those conventions, there were really fierce debates about whether or not this was the right direction. The concerns were over the fact that there was a National Government being created that would have too much power and the other was there was not enough protection for rights, that there were not enough safeguards in place. Between the two things, centralization of power and the lack of guaranteed rights, there was a lot of difficulty getting the states on board. One great description that is part of a wonderful introduction to my copy of the federalist papers talking about them in just a moment, but the columbia historian, who wrote the introduction to the publication of the federalist, he describes it this way. We forget how controversial the constitution was in a moment of its birth. It was drafted in secrecy by men who knew that they had acted beyond the mandate given to them. Sent as state delegates to philadelphia to discuss problems in the new union, they had been told to make any adjustments within the articles of confederation as the official compact of union. The articles had been drafted in the antiauthoritarian moment and spirit of 1776. It was a companion document to the declaration of independence and it left autonomy in the hands of the states. Five years would pass before the apprehensive states approved even those, this loose coalition, did so in 1781 after many revisions by leaders who feared centralized authority. The framers of the constitution basically ignored these fears. Instead of tinkering with the arrangement, they dumped the articles altogether and wrote out their own document of principles. When they were done, they had substituted a much stronger ideal of union than the suspicious compromisers of the original confederation had contemplated or would have allowed. You see what was in front of those who supported the new constitution in order to be able to get support throughout the new country. And so that brings us to the federalist papers. About a month after signing the constitution, after september 17, 1787, the first one of these pieces as we think of them today, they were essays, appeared in a new york application late october, drafted by Alexander Hamilton. He wrote the first paper in defense of the new constitution. Hamilton, madison and john jay, who was not even at the convention, did not sign the constitution, the three of them teamed up to write these federalist papers. There were 85 in total. They were published from october all the way through to august of 1788. At one point before they were even all done, they were collected in a publication. That is when they were called the federalist. Today we are to them as the federalist papers. Jay only wrote five of them. He fell ill. Hamilton and madison split the job. Hamilton did more than madison. They used a pen name for them. The pen name was publius. Publius valerius. That was not unusual. It was a statesmanlike educated persons way of communicating. It was known who were the advocates for the new document. And jefferson, who was not at the convention, didnt sign the constitution, when he got a chance to read the federalist papers, he said, they are the best commentary on the principles of government, which never was written. Ever was written. Let me read a few lines of the first federalist paper. This is how the federalist papers begin. After full experience of the insufficiency of the existing federal government, you are invited to deliberate upon a new constitution for the United States of america. The subject speaks of its own importance, comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the union, the safety of the welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been preserved to the people of this country to decide by their conduct and example the important question whether the societies of men are really capable or not of establishing Good Government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to defend for their political constitutions on accident and force. That is just a taste of the brilliance of the federalist papers. So those papers came along side the ratification process and helped to address every argument argument, every issue being thrown up against the new constitution. Lets jump into the new constitution and see some things that for many of you are very familiar and for those of you who took the class so you could understand it, i will not make assumptions. Lets look at the structure. It is brilliantly simple, isnt it . You have the preamble. Eloquence reflecting the language of the declaration of independence with regard to the will of the people. To express their own form of government. So we have the legislative branch, article one. The executive branch, article ii. The judiciary, article three iii. You often hear of article three judges, meaning judge appointed according to this article of the constitution. States to state relations and federal to state relations in article iv. Article v, how the institution is amended. Article vi, dealing with National Debts and article vii, how to ratify the constitution and then the bill of rights. There are 27 amendments to the constitution in the bill of rights. The bill of rights in particular referred to the first 10 amendments because that is the bill that was introduced by madison. So to be perfectly precise, you have the bill of rights in the first 10 amendments that were ratified and then youve had additional amendments since then. There was quite a stretch of time between the initial bill of rights and a couple of things done immediately after that and then the civil war and the 13th amendment. So that is the structure. You can look at the one you have in your hand. You have basically articles, sections, and clauses. When we talk about the constitution, we will say article i, section 2, clause 3. There are terms if you go to law school you learn about keywords that are referred to as clauses as well. For example with article iv, we will talk about the supremacy clause. It is located within article iv, section such and such. Its a useful term to refer to portions within each article. So that is kind of the outline of our class. When we get to the bill of rights, we will spend half of the class in future lectures going through those amendments. But next week, we will talk about judicial interpretation philosophy, how do we understand what this document says . Then we will jump into the legislative branch the week after that. So that is our structure. The bill of rights is an important part for us to sort of touch on right now. If you look at your constitution, turn to article v. That is on page 43 of the booklet. And here we see how the constitution is to be amended. Basically what this says in article v is there are two ways to amend this constitution. The first is that an amendment to the constitution passes the congress. Both houses have to vote by two thirds, two thirds vote in order for the proposed amendment to go forward. From there, it goes forward to the states, and then, you see it says, two thirds of the several states shall be required to approve of the proposed amendment. That is the one way to do it. There is another way that has never been done. That is to have another Constitutional Convention. If you read the language, it describes what would be required to have another Constitutional Convention. Now of course the one advantage of a Constitutional Convention is you get a lot of work done and you could do it more effectively in terms of changing the constitution. The great danger is once again those folks together rumor what happened in the summer of 1787 when they were supposed to amend the articles, they came up with a different document. If you brought people, the states together, delegates to have a Constitutional Convention, it would be wide open. There was a movement in the 1990s to try to form a Constitutional Convention. That is still going on today. I have friends who, from time to time, will tell me about getting mail and so forth, calling for a Constitutional Convention. That would be quite an amazing thing if that were to occur. In the process of the states considering whether to ratify the constitution, there was a great deal of attention on this idea of needing to have guaranteed rights. It was raised again and again. New york said, were only on board if you have a bill of rights added. That was not their only point, but it was a suggestion and really a demand for going along. So madison and others basically promised that once the congress was formed with a new constitution, it would be the first order of business. There was some resistance on the part of the federalists to have a bill of rights. They thought it wasnt necessary since the constitution enumerated what the powers of the new government would be and therefore, if they were not enumerated, no one should worry that those powers would exceed their boundaries and the rights would be threatened. But of course that was not sufficient response. And to be fair, the enumerated powers are very broad and it was not clear as to where they might go with that. For that reason, madison promised to introduce the bill of rights and did as soon as the new congress was formed in june 1789. The bill of rights is introduced. Madison became a member of the house of representatives when it was initiated. And then the rights were passed on by the house to the senate, and by september sent to the states for approval. And then you have the interesting thing that happens. That proposal, those amendments actually were 12, not 10. 12 amendments went to the states for ratification, but two of them did not make it. To be clear, madisons proposal had 12. One of those did not even make it, the two thirds cut. One of them did but it didnt get confirmed by the states. If you turn in your book to the 27th amendment, which is on page 56, you see this. The 27th amendment was proposed on such over 25, 17 september 25, 1789. That is the date the congress completed passing them on. And it was ratified on may 7 what . 1792 . 1992. It took a little while for that amendment to get the two thirds support. Michigan finally passed this amendment in 1992. It says no law varying the compensation for senators and representatives shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have been convened. Congress cannot vote itself a pay raise. It will not get the money. The next congress will is that is what this says. It dawned on people that in the 1980s or so that, there was this amendment at the beginning with James Madison and the bill of rights that never got finished. It was a nice amendment to stick it to the members of congress who want pay raises. A bunch of states got busy and by 1992, michigan was the last state they needed and it became the 27th amendment. You have 12, one bites the dust, 11 go to the states. One doesnt make it. 10 do. That is why we have the original 10 ammendments to the bill of rights. In fact, the First Amendment we always think of, freedom of press and religion, that was actually the third amendment of the original proposal. That is the story. This is a timely conversation because if you have been paying attention to some of the lesser headlines in the news, there is now a 28th amendment out there that is going to be the subject of greater attention increasingly. What happened here is that in the 1970s, the equal rights amendment, guaranteeing equal rights for women, prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex, was passed and sent for ratification. Here is an interesting thing. Amendments proposed to the states have had timelines in which they can be considered. Not the 27th amendment. That one obviously had no timeline. That original group did not have a timeline so that one hung out or 200 years. But most of them have a timeline. The e. R. A. Had a timeline. It needed to be either ratified by the early 1980s or not. It didnt get ratified but virginia just voted in the last few weeks to ratify the 28th amendment that was proposed by congress in the 1970s. That put the number over the threshold. Now the question is does it become the 28th amendment . The position being taken by the national archives, which is interesting too, like who decides . The keeper of the constitution it is not being recorded the 28th ammendment because it passed the timeline. In the last day or so, three attorneys general, state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit against the archivists claiming that needs to be recorded. The department of justice has taken the position that time is up and it cannot be done. The question will be, are even timelines constitutional . There is nothing in here about timelines and the language is isnt in the actual text. So the question is, can you still have those limitations . Very interesting. It is happening now. We will see where that goes. Lets move on to the major principles in the constitution. Youve got the structure in your mind. You understand how we got there. How this simple document was created and then provision for amending it, and it has been amended. But what are the Core Principles that really shape the document . The key question in thinking about the principles of our constitution is question of where does the power reside . Its all about political power, who holds it . Is it shared . How is it shared . That is the issue. These framers understood well because they were basically coming from a system of government that had the king who had abused that power over the centuries and had elected parliament that was trying to establish its own power. The question of vulnerability and risks associated with power was the first issue. There were basically three principles that shaped that question or answered that question of what to do about power. The first is republicanism. I want to show you, before i jump into that, something that i saw when i was at the Constitution Museum in philadelphia. I mentioned this last week. I am a museum nerd. I go to museums all the i went to the Post Office Museum during the winter break. I did not see any of you there. [laughter] but i thought it was really cool. Really great. As i was going through it slowly, i came to this little spot. I looked at this display and what this was, all of these sort of great ideas that have been known by the founders, the framers at the time of the creation of our country, these were learned people. And madison was in his 30s and so was Alexander Hamilton. Madison in particular, his awareness of political philosophy at that point was profound. This little display is cool because you push the button and it gives you a little excerpt. I thought, now thats the reading list we ought to have for huma. If you are not a senior, be prepared. We may tinker with our humanities courses. You can get a preview. It would be great. You will have montesquieu in the group. He is mentioned in the paulsons book as one of the real influences for madison. There is your reading list if you want to get into political philosophy. As you understand more and more about the political philosophy that they knew well, you start to understand where these principles came from. Lets start with republicanism. Let me read from federalist paper 39 because the defense or the explanation of this by James Madison really gets us clearly grounded in the idea. Federalist paper 39, this is what madison says. The first question that offers itself is whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident no other form would be reconciled with the genius of the people of america, with the fundamental principles of the revolution. Or with the honorable determination which animates animates every votary of freedom. To rest all of our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for selfgovernment. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as the longer defensible. Strong statement by madison as to how committed the constitution is to the idea that when we say republicanism, what we mean is the government is formed by the people. That the people have direct or indirect control over all of those who serve in the National Government. That there would not be hereditary or other ways in which power would be obtained. It would only be through the rights of the people to elect to choose representatives. It would be a representative government, not direct democracy, but it would be fully controlled by the choice of the people. Article four guarantees a republican form of government. And in article one, sections 9 and 10, it refers to titles of nobility and you cant have titles of nobility and there be no federal titles. Trying to get away from what they were so familiar with in Great Britain with having hereditary and other forms of titles that came in one way or another from the monarchy. A basic concept that we would take for granted today, but it does have real impact in a lot of different ways. Even the way the senate was set up originally, where the state legislature would select the senators, the principal pushed against that until they amended the constitution to have direct election of senators. We see this today. I will talk about this when we get to article ii and the executive, we will talk about the Electoral College. There is definitely a lot of discussion today about whether or not that is consistent with the principles of a public and government. It is, but that is a part of the debate. So this is the first of the principles. The second is that of separation of powers, or as we often think of it i shouldnt say or which includes the ideas of checks and balances. Here it was federalist 51 comes into the mix. I had you read federalist 10 before tonight. Let me take a moment to say a few words before i jump into federalist 51. Federalist 10 is the one i asked you to take a look at. Federalist 10 is a remarkable essay that demonstrates what i was talking about before regarding the incredible knowledge, the philosophy, capability of madison as he works his way through the question of how to control factions within government, factions that can do great harm to those in the minority. Madison was concerned in the way these factions especially in the states were operating and running roughshod against those who did not have sufficient power. He goes through an federalist 10 the problems with these factions. He defines problems by saying a faction, i understand i understand a number of citizens whether amounted to a majority or minority of the whole or united and actuated by some common impulse, adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. He defines the problems that way, and then asks the question, what are we going to do about that, given the difficulties we see in the troubles with controlling human behavior. He looks at the fundamentals of vulnerabilities of people to govern themselves. He comes to the conclusion that that, in one sense, human nature is what it is, but at the end of the day we can try to control the effects of human nature. So he has got fantastic language to summarize these arguments. So strong is the propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities that were no substantial occasion presents itself, the most principal and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle unfriendly passions and excite conflicts. The most common and durable source of factions has been the various and Unequal Division of property are those who hold and those who are without have ever never formed distinct interests in society. He gives examples and talks about the causes cannot be removed and therefore we have to control the effects. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction and to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government is the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desire of him by which this form of government can be rescued. He sets it up for why republican form of government can be more effective in a growing country, which was counter to what people thought. People thought the government controlled by the people is fine and good in a small limited way, but when you spread it out for a growing country, it would not be effective. He turns the argument around and said this is the best way to secure peoples rights, by this kind of republican form of government. And so we have in federalist 51, the really basic political philosophy of madison that informs the constitution. It is often said federalist 10 i should have said federalist 10 and federalist 51, which is to come next, those two documents really summarize, of all of the federalist papers, they capture the principles of the new government. Now to separation of powers. That is when we get to federalist 51. In the interest of time, i will let you read that between now and next week. The key interest is how we see the reference to double security. We are talking about the security of the peoples rights, liberty of the people, it is made secure by separating powers among the divisions of government and also between the federal and state level. That is the double security. These are cocoordinate branches of government which is laid out in federalist 49. Thats the main point, cocordinate, meaning they are equal, separate and equal. They have overlapping powers. We saw the clip of the war powers debate last week. That is a great example of the overlapping powers, that congress has the sole power to declare war and yet president is the commanderinchief. He will decide how the war is executed, whether we will fight or not fight, where we are going to fight, how we will fight. But congress has the power to declare war. Even legislation, Congress Passes it but the president signs the bill into law. If he vetoes the bill, congress can override his veto. You can see the founders were really thoughtful about how to try to create these balancing powers. Which brings me to the final point tonight. That is the impeachment power because it is one of the checks and balances we have in the constitution. And it is the one that is getting a little attention these days. I thought i would make sure your knew from a perspective of where it is in the constitution, your way around the power of impeachment. Article i, section 2, clause 5. The house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. The house has the power to charge, to bring indictments against the president. Article i, section 3, clauses 6 and 7. The senate shall have the power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that, they should be in oath or affirmation. They take a special oath. The senators all stood and did that. In 1991, i was on the senate floor as a part of the clinton impeachment for the house miniatures. I was a lawyer. I wrote the chairmans opening speech and used that, wrote the language to play off of the oath the president had been accused of lying under oath. I thought it would be interesting to have connection but didnt work so well. Anyway. [laughter] so you will have, take a special oath and then you see it goes on to say than the president is tried, the chief justice shall preside. Chief Justice Roberts has been sitting in the last couple weeks, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States, but the party shall be liable and subject to indictment trial, judgment and punishment. This language about the president not being subject to prosecution until removed them office, and then also the idea that next is article ii, section 2, clause 1, says the President Shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States except in cases of impeachment. There are four provisions, article i, section 2 about the house having the power. Article i, section 3, clauses 6 and 7 talk about the senate and how it shall have the power to impeach and that procedure, the oath of office, the chief justice presides. And then you have article ii, section the President Shall have this power and great pardons. Pardons, but not impeachments. On the case of impeachment and finally the president and Vice President and civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for an conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. It is interesting to note alan dershowitz, harvard law professor, when he was defending the president of the senate floor earlier this week, referred to the provisions involving pardon for crimes and when the president could be indicted to strengthen his argument that only crimes could be included in the definition of high crimes or misdemeanors, which is a key issue for the current impeachment process because the articles of impeachment against President Trump dont allege any particular criminal violation. One of the Big Questions is whether or not that meets the standard in the constitution. Many scholars say it does, but dershowitz has taken the position it does not. That has been fascinating. Those are the provisions in the constitution. I said that quickly. Finally this tidbit about impeachments. There have been 20 impeached officials in our history. Three president s, johnson, clinton, trump. One secretary of war, one senator, 15 judges. Secretary of war, senator, 15 judges. Eight have been found guilty and removed. Seven acquitted, others resigned before the trial. Only seven in the last 80 years. My favorite one is the very beginning, the one Supreme Court justice. Judge John Pickering from new hampshire. He was impeached in the early years of our country for intoxication on the bench. And he decided to appear before the house, when they were having a consideration of the articles of impeachment. He testified in his own defense. He said, with reference to the intoxication, he said i shall be sober tomorrow. I am now damn drunk. Not really effective defense in my view, but at least he was honest. I can understand why somebody might want to drink before they had to appear before the house judiciary committee. That was 1802. That is the track record of impeachment. Im afraid our time has run up. I will turn to your questions next week. Next week, we will pick up on federalism to look at the coming attractions. Thatll be very quick. Then we are going to jump into one controversy. That is the proslavery provisions that are in the constitution. Of course, i talk about the constitution in glowing terms, but there is one major flaw to the original constitution. That was the way the original constitution dealt with slavery and the constitution made slavery a bigger problem. We will start next week with the three proslavery and then jump into interpretation principles. Let me see if anybody has any questions. Take one right down there at the front. Hello. I am wondering, i know the new jersey plan contributed to having the senate and the constitution in general, but i am wondering if there are standing arguments about having state representation now. Many people would agree that we dont have a loose confederation of countries now. I would assume we are more unified now. Mr. Mcnulty that is a great question. The fundamental issue has not changed that much in the sense that the largest states would exercise such significant control over the legislative branch and the production of legislation. They would have significant control in the house which is already in existence and yet given the size of the country, it is limited. You have so many district in california and in texas and in new york. If you had a senate that was similarly composed, and i suppose it would have to be a much bigger body, because it would, whatever the apportionment would be, would have to assign something to the small states are you other states would get bigger. What we would lose in that is something that we are desperately holding onto right now. That is to try to build consensus for legislative proposals by having all the states in some way not all the states, but have at least a majority of the states working together to find common ground. Part of the problem is in your lifetime, you have seen so little of good legislating. It has been so bogged down for so long, it is hardly possible to remember it. But when i started on capitol hill as a young lawyer in 1983, for the first decade and a half or more of my career, i saw congress work. You have to take my word for it. It actually can happen. There were efforts to reach across the aisle and find consensus. It has been so limited since then. I dont think the solution is to push more power to the largest populated areas, which is what would happen. Let me go back up to our friend up there. Yes, please. Presumably the purpose of the constitution is primarily to protect the rights of american citizens. You know, how it goes about that is one thing, but if the constitution allows for amending it and moreover repealing amendments and the first 10 amendments, the bill of rights, are some of the rights meant to be protected, why were they made amendments and not included in the original constitution, if that was its purpose . Mr. Mcnulty there is nothing particularly protected about the seven articles. They have already been amended by the amendments. Even if you had the original document had contained the rights that we see in the amendments, they would still have a vulnerability to them to be changed at some point down the road. So the founders saw that the constitution would be subject to adaptation, circumstances that would unfold in the history of the country going forward. They really wanted that to be the case, but they also wanted it to be hard, to be real work. That is why after the initial founding period, there was nothing done to the constitution until after the civil war, 1865, 13th amendment and the abolition of slavery. For that time in between, that document state as it was. It is hard to change it. 27 amendments and all of that time is not many, but they have younger people being able to vote. Abolition of slavery, civil rights, really significant modifications. What im saying is i think they got it right in that they made it possible to change the document but they made it really hard. Have done anything to protect anything in it with one minor exception. That has to do with slavery. They put kind of a freeze for 20 years when they wrote the original constitution on the ability of prohibiting states, or prohibiting the importation of slaves. The slave trade went on for 20 more years as a result of a constitutional protection. Other than that, the constitution has always been amendable. Does that get at what you were talking about . Sort of . Do you want to come back . Not freeze the First Amendment which is a big reason why colonists fled where they came from to america, religious freedom. That the notion that freedom of speech or freedom of the press, religious freedom would be i may have to back up. Religious freedom is pretty threatened right now. It would be threatened to the extent of two thirds of the house and two thirds of the senate and states being able to get in line to strip a right like that. Least in 1780 seven, that would have been potentially unthinkable. Let me get another question. The current impeachment problem, is obstruction of congress not a criminal charge . You mention no criminal charges were in this impeachment, but the independent office found him guilty of obstruction of congress. Is that not a criminal charge . Let me sort out a couple of things. There is a crime called obstruction of justice which is different from obstruction of congress. There is no Crime Associated with not cooperating in an investigation. There is a federal crime and obstructing a lawful by way of the destruction of documents or something of that sort. Even the house managers are making the argument that the president s lack of cooperation with the house process amounted to the criminal obstruction of justice we have in the u. S. Code. Gaos finding is not a criminal issue. Gao has no authority to form an opinion about criminal law. What they found was that, with regards to the president s legal responsibilities, and they were talking about how a law provides spending of money and whether or not the administration could withhold payments to ukraine, they are focused on noncriminal aspects of whats legally required. It does not get into this category of does anything constitute as crime . This question of was a crime alleged is being conceded. No crime has been alleged in these articles. There may have been a comment made that we did not include them in these particular articles of impeachment. I think i may have to wrap up. Do i have time for one more question . Do i see a hand . This might be a complicated question and i want to get your take. There is a Movement Call National Popular vote in which if enough states enough states sign on, they will give s to the popular vote winner, essentially undermining the Electoral College, and the making the presidency a direct democratic election. Is there anything that prohibits this or that we may not be a republic and instead be a direct democracy . Mr. Mcnulty that is a good question and i will completely dodge it. [laughter] because this is an actual class, when a get to article three i will talk about the election of the president. We will look at the Electoral College, i will remember your question and we will address it then. Preferred to do it in the context of how the Electoral College works. You are right about that movement. Whether or not that has validity based on the constitution. Thank you for getting us started. That is all for tonight. Thank you very much. [applause] announcer listen to lectures in history on the go by streaming our podcast anywhere, anytime. You are watching American History tv. Announcer youre watching American History tv. All weekend every weekend on cspan three. To join the conversation, like us on facebook. Texas a m university is home to the george w. Bush president ial library and museum. Going us as we look at items from the familys personal collections as well as objects from the president s memorial service. The exhibit youre about to see is one we started putting together. People are invested in the Funeral Service because it happened here. The train came up from houston here to College Station. Hey were proud of the fact a lot of that is incorporated into the exhibit. One of the first things you see here is the lifesize statue of sully, president bushs service dog. The ceremony here a couple of months ago, we installed sully sully camey the real to the ceremony. That dog is now at walter reed. Which isiconic photo in the exhibit is of sully in front of president bushs casket. President bush got sully in june of 2018. Forerved president bush about six months until the president s death in november of 18. We have a picture of him as upon it we have a picture of him as a puppy. He helped president bush with everyday tasks. Quality to the last month of his life. The memorial itself, we have the flag that flew at halfstaff over the white house. We also have the flag that flew over the capital. Of my favorite items in this wheel thatthe ships was built by the crew of the uss george h w bush. Last of the class aircraft carriers. The crew built it. They presented it here in june. 2019, i believe. They created it themselves. We had all of the sailors of the year from the ship here. We bring them in once a year and they come to the library and do a service project. The cases have the shells that were used for the 21 gun salute where the body arrived. Here in texas. We have the guestbook from blair that on julypage merkel signed. Angela merkel. We also have the program from the service. Senate the u. S. Condolence book, which is turned to Mitch Mcconnells signature. We have a photomontage of his life. He early life they marry young. He was still in the navy when he got buried. Fromve a montage of photos their life, his career here at the library. From texas as the u p 4140 one traveled from houston appear to the library and carried the body with her. Track cut outoad by you p. Cut out by up. That is the section the train went over. Two. Is one of a series of when misses bush died there was a cartoon of ms. Is bush going to heaven and being greeted by her daughter. When president bush died eight months later, Ramsey Mcdonald Marshall Ramsey from jackson, mississippi did a cartoon of president bush meeting robin and ms. Is bush in heaven. Ms. Bush in heaven. The light from the train. President bush love trains. Railroad travel. Early in the planning process for his funeral, he wanted to be brought from houston to College Station as his final resting place. She wanted to be brought on a train. The drum light from the train and up used some of its Heritage Fleet to bring the family up. Had a car specially designed for the casket. P theyed you created up 4141 franco exhibit we did here on american railroads 10 years ago. Railcar locomotive was used to pull the train and it will be coming here sometime in the next year and will be outside the library. We are looking forward to that. Service issued a stamp in june 2019, a forever stamp with the president s portrait on it. Here at aled it ceremony in College Station. The president picked the portrait out himself. Is andbush and ms. Ms. Bush were so much a part of this place from 1993 until the last years of their life. They were here all the time. They did programming with us. The president and ms. Bush both. She did a Literacy Program for us. He was here for events all the time. It was like their second home. Here weto remember them were we got to enjoy their company for so long. Announcer our cities tour staff are really recently traveled to brian and College Station, texas. To watch more video from brian and College Station, and other stops on our tour, visit cspan. Org cities tour. Youre watching American History tv. All weekend every weekend. [birds chirping] announcer this is American History tv. Featuring exploring our nations past every weekend on cspan3. Previously on american artifacts, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Historian daniel green gave us a tour of the exhibit he curated, americans and the holocaust. Part one focused on the 1930s and the lead up to world war ii. In part two, we learn about the America First movement and how the United States responded to nazi persecution and murder of jews as some of the atrocities became public knowledge. This is about 45 minutes. Daniel in 1939, on september 1, germany invades poland and world war ii breaks out that week. What is on americans minds in 1939 is staying out of war. And you see in this section of the exhibition deep concern in the United States about spies, about nazi spies in the United States. At the time, called a fifth column. Americans are asked by gallup if they believe that germany is starting to organize a fifth column of spies in this country. And 71 say yes. You start to see these fears of spies play out in our Popular Culture and in our political culture. The First American movie, big studio movie to take on nazism