and sock rah tease' café was meant to be a space for friends and foes alike to gather together and explore thoughtfully and reasonably timely and existential problems, an exploration that ideally makes people feel bound together more. um, that was sock rah tease café, and this is constitution café, kind of a follow on in a very imaginative way. let me just ask you a question first. what word does the people's republic of china ban in its blogs and chat rooms but uses many, many times in its own constitution? [inaudible conversations] >> freedom? democracy. how can that be? they're a democratic republic, they claim, and yet they won't allow that word to be used in its blogs and chat rooms. how can that be? off with their heads. however, let me ask you another question. what word is not in the u.s. constitution that you think might be there? i mean, it's beacon of the free world, after all. what word is lacking that you might think? yes? >> democracy. >> democracy. it's in that 4,543-word document. -- it's not in that 4,543-word document. many scholars mistake this do call the united states a constitutional democracy when, in fact, it is a -- >> republic. >> not just a republic, but a constitutional republic. so what is that? constitutional republic is a state, country in which the head of the state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional laws, at least theoretically limit the government's power over all of its citizens. the fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the country constitutional. democracy, on the other hand, is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. well, what document do you think affects the decisions they can make in their lives more than the constitution? um, we'll talk about that a little bit more in just a little bit. the framers of our constitution were radicals at least in this one sense; they wouldn't settle for simply reforming our original governing document, the articles of confederation and perpetual union. they decided that no amount of revising the articles would call advantage them, so the united states need to be constituted anew. not merely with greater power, but also in a way that resolved the underlying uncertainties that they believed had been generated by the articles of the confederation. so the two principle boosters for a new constitutional convention were unlikely bed fellows, james madison and i know some of you people know the other one, who else? >> [inaudible] >> alexander hamilton, at the time an assemblyman in new york. they believed it was time to totally revise the articles. however, the articles of confederation, our original constitution, had this very hard and fast stipulation that any changes made to it had to be agreed to by all the 13 state legislatures. but guess what? when the constitutional convention was convened, only 12 states showed up. rhode island, like patrick henry of virginia, smelled a rat, didn't want to have anything to do with it. so from the very beginning when a majority of the 55 delegates from just 12 states determined the articles could not be saved, the argument could be made they had no sanction to do so. it was an illegal act from the very beginning. couldn't do it. they did it anyway. thomas jefferson learned of their plans from his post in france. a lot of people think thomas jefferson was there, but he wasn't. he was across the water in france. he claim today like much, the principle, the general idea of framing a government which should go on in itself peaceably without needing, as the articles did, continual recurrence to the state legislatures. with the articles all the state legislatures had to agree on just about anything whether it was coming to a treaty or taxes or anything, they all had to agree, and it was just a mess, granted. but even so, that's what they agreed to have. they wanted a highly devaluized government after what they had to encounter with the monarchy. um, even after those taking part had been authorized to carry out the creation of a new constitution, you could make the case that for worse or for better they with respect representative of moat -- they weren't representative of most americans. the typical delegates of the constitutional convention was a privileged member of the upper class and didn't represent directly in any reasonable way american note as a whole. rather, the 55 framers represented the white adult male affluent or near affluent segment of the population. but you might ask, couldn't the same thing be said of the founding fathers? after all, those patriots who signed the declaration of independence were almost unrepresentative of americans as a whole. one telling difference was they signed a galvanizing and unionizing document befitting of thomas jefferson's characterization of it as an expression of the american mind that set the colonists free. the constitution, on the other hand, arguably was meant by those who crafted it to rein them in a good bit. only eight of our declaration signers also attended the constitutional convention and served as framers for the constitution. but even with the absence of the likes of thomas jefferson and most other founding fathers, there were still some very exceptional men of talent and public virtue. for instance, james madison who's considered the father of the constitution, he might not have been a signer of the declaration, but he still was one of our greatest political scientists according to most political theorists today. yet even the incomparable madison couldn't foresee the future of the american republic, nor could he draw on knowledge that might be gained from later experiences with democracy in america and elsewhere. i mean, while the knowledge of madison and his fellow framers may well have been the best knowledge available in 1787, the fact was that reliable knowledge about constitutions appropriate to a large representative republic was, at best, meager. and so they were limited by, so to speak, their inevitable ignorance. nonetheless, the framers of the constitution felt certain that the high value they placed on republicanism was overwhelmingly shared by citizens of all states. there's one hitch to that though. the framers never asked their fellow americans what they wanted, and so they never gave them a chance to weigh in on what specific type of republican system they preferred. rather, with madison steering the proceedings, the delegates agreed to keep their discussions private, supposedly so they could speak freely. as a consequence, there's no public record of the proceedings of the constitutional convention. thomas jefferson, for one, was dismayed by this news, and he wrote to john adams, i am sorry that the convention began their deliberations by so abominable a precedent as that of tying up the tongues of it members. in jefferson's estimation, nothing can justify this example but the ignorance of the value of public discussion. nonetheless, on september 17, 1787, the new constitution was approved, but only by 39 of the 55 delegates. so we can argue about whether that was a good thing or bad thing or not ad nauseam, right? but the two years, more than 200 years after the fact a very prominent political scientist from yale, robert dowel, he asked some very unsettling questions. have we americans ever had an opportunity to express our considered will on our constitutional system? how many of you have had a chance to officially formally express your considered will? just raise your hands. [laughter] oh, come on, don't be shy. how many? oh, come on. not one? nobody's asked -- okay. question number two, how many have ever participated in a referendum that asked them whether they wanted to continue to be governed under the existing constitution? show me your hands, how many. referendum, how many participated? goose egg again. hmm. so dowe says then the answer, of course, is none. nobody's ever asked us. i mean, but we're not alone, in all fairness. not even in ancient athens, the so-called cradle of western democracy, did people have a voice in the creation of their written constitution. now, in recent years new national constitution have supplanted outmoded ones, and emerging democracies throughout the world from kenya to ecuador, serbia and egypt. and nearly all cases referenda were held so that the people themselves could vote on the new constitution. however, in no instance were regular folks ever invited to any table to participate themselves in the framing of their governing document. never. i'll talk to you later about an example. there's one example that i know of in which regular folks were asked, but we'll talk about that later. but winston churchill famously said democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. but has democracy itself ever been fully tried? perhaps paraphrasing g.k. chesteron the on christianity, we might conclude that democracy hat nonbeen tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and not tried. well, enter thomas jefferson, fellow alumnus of the college of william and mary. he graduated a few years earlier than i did. i received my bachelor's in government there, studied jefferson a great deal. i remember way back in my studies that jefferson, for one, derided those who looked at constitutions, quote, like the ark of the covenant, too say red to be touched. jefferson believed that such people ascribe today the men of the proceeding age a wisdom more than human. to him, we might as well require a man to wear a coat -- to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain under the regiment of their barbarous ancestors. never let it be said he didn't have a knack for overstated panache. [laughter] okay, so that's how jefferson felt about the matter. but americans venerate the constitution for the most part, even if -- how many of you venerate the constitution? how many of you like it? all right. let me finish the second clause. okay, americans venerate the constitution even if most of us don't actually know what's in it. [laughter] no offense. national center for the constitution in montpelier, virginia, the former home of james madison, did a national survey that found that younger folks aren't so satisfied with it, older folks like it just like it is for the most part. but what do they have in common? haven't read it. [laughter] in a really long time. how many of you read it in the last week? last month? yeah, i see that little wiggle of a hand. what does that mean? how many have read it in the last year? one. well, okay. so we venerate the constitution, but we haven't read it. a lot of us feel like it's over our heads, out of our reach. beyond reproach by us mere mortals, and this intimidating ideal arguably only makes us to feel like the system it begets can never be changed no matter how much it contributes to apathy and anger. sure, we argue over the way elected officials and judges interpret the constitution, but few of us have qualms about the constitution itself. and meanwhile, our politicians outdo one another in declaring themselves more true to the constitution than their opponents. from the president on down, they give their solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend that babiment -- baby. so as dysfunctional as most people of political persuasions believe our government is -- how many people believe our government is dysfunctional? there we to. see, we found common ground. it's dysfunctional, right? you're just as convinced that the constitution still works. how many are convinced the constitution still works or at least worked before i began talking? most of you, come on. or maybe not -- well, the question is, does it? jefferson's antidote was to take periodically, quote, as a tally every provision of our constitution and see if it hangs directly on the will of the people. those provisions, jefferson felt, that turn out not to reflect the people's will, he believed should be entirely redone, so he urged his fellow people of his era. he said, let us go on perfecting the constitution by supplanting those powers which time and trial show are still wanting. well, that resonated with me when i studied jefferson way back when at william and mary, and as the system became increasingly disfunctional, i thought more and more about this idea that jefferson had about constitutional makeover. his idea that it should be done every 20 years, that every new generation had to revisit it from scratch. and it's been well over 200 years since he first proposed it, but i figured better late than never. and so i started a group -- i decided to embark on a journey across america to take the constitutional pulse of the nation. constitution café. at constitution café, a space dedicated to the jeffersonian idea of freedom, a broad cross-section typically of actual and aspiring americans grapple with how they would sculpt the u.s. constitution if they could start from scratch. the constitutional articles that participants construct often address perceived flaws, loopholes and omissions in the constitution. at times this has led to senate revision of existing articles or the creation of altogether new ones as i recount in my book. in the course of their exchanges, constitution café goers often arrive at insights about whether our current constitution and the institutions that it props up and that in turn prop it up are impediments to or facilitators of our higher democratic hopes and dreams. and that in turn prompted thoughtful exchanges on whether our constitution as barack obama maintains has proved a sufficient defend against tyranny or whether we need to heed jefferson's advice to engame in a rev -- engage in a revolution every two or three generations. so making their case for new constitutional articles in the constitution café project, those taking part reason, persuade, argue and bend over backwards to insure that everyone has the opportunity to introduce and to try to convince others to support his or her big constitutional ideas. as thomas jefferson had it, one cannot have his way in all things when engaged in democratic deliberations but must acquiesce on what others preponderate at times. indeed, jefferson maintained, without this mutual position -- and he maintained this shortly after he became president at a time when deep political rifts were already developing among americans -- without this we are disjointed individuals, but not a society. so that's why the constitution café project began, to see if maybe we could find foundational common ground, learn more about the constitution, maybe gain a greater appreciation for the founders each as we came to new conclusions about what articles we would like today. my wife and my then-3-year-old daughter callie made this sign for me. not very sexy, constitution working group, and i took it all over the u.s. from the people's park in berkeley to san francisco, washington square park to greenwich village, elementary schools, colleges, universities, mall of america. i had one of the most memorable dialogues, it's in this book. we talked about common goods and the general welfare. it all started with just bringing this sign and inviting people but also holding dialogues in spaces where people might be on their hair ray ri -- harried way to one place but would stop and freeze and take part in an exchange like this. it's meant to be open. well, what do you think -- i started the constitution café project, i started at the very beginning of the constitution. what's at the very beginning of the constitution? >> [inaudible] >> say it again. >> we, the people. >> we, the people. and what's that section called? >> preamble. >> preamble. very good, class. [laughter] i feel like i'm leading you, respect i? let me ask you something, what is the preamble of the constitution supposed to do? and if you have an answer, come up here, please. what is the preamble supposed to do? come on up. you don't want to? [laughter] okay, you tell me, me, and i'll repeat it. >> i don't know if i'm right, but set things up. >> don't worry about right or wrong. what do you mean set things up? >> well, sort of give the form it's supposed to take. >> yeah, absolutely. it's supposed to sort of set the stage for what's coming next, right? >> yeah. >> absolutely. so that's where i started with this project. i started with the preamble, and i went to -- how many of you had to memorize the preamble and regurgitate it to a teacher? how many? come on. you all had to do it, i know you did. how many of you got an a? how many of you passed muster? okay, then how many of you promptly forgot it? how many of you know all of it? >> all of it? >> we, the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves in our posterity do ordain this constitution -- i think i said that part, do ordain this constitution -- >> to ordain and establish -- >> to ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america. [applause] >> that's fantastic. when did you learn that? >> um, when did i learn it? maybe about six or seven years ago i was looking through the history book, and i thought to myself, you know, you really should be ashamed of yourself when you can't even recite the preamble to the constitution. >> well, that is very -- what's your name? >> >> evelyn. >> excuse me? >> evelyn. >> that's very beautiful. i'm very -- let me ask you this, what do you think of the preamble? do you like it? >> yes. i think it informs the general public to some understanding about the constitution because most of us if we read it probably wouldn't understand all that's in it. >> so you think it lays the groundwork pretty well. >> it lays the groundwork. >> well, i went to a high school near -- my mom was porn and raised -- born and raised near a coal mining camp. the late senator ronald f. byrd was responsible for pass ago law in which all schools that receive any public funding on constitution day, when is constitution day? september 17th, very good, class, that you have to study the constitution. i'm not so sure that that actually is happening, but it did happen in this class this which i held a dialogue. when we asked ourselves what would we change, if anything, if we could rewrite the preamble from scratch if we wallet today. if we wanted to. and i'd like to share with you, is that okay? i want to share with you what their very intriguing response was. and that's one of the reasons i like to thrust myself in dialogues because with i never know what's going to happen. i never know what kind of insights, especially with young people. so this one young man named william told me when i arrived, well, we've been studying the constitution in class today. and he said, i didn't realize that the constitution wasn't ratified by the states until two years after it was signed by the framers. and we're having this dialogue on constitution day, and he said that's why they're reading all about it. and he said to me, well, last week we studied the declaration of independence, and he said, that was pretty exciting. thomas jefferson really told off the king. he basically said, because you just don't get that we're all born free and equal, because you treat your loyal subjects in the new world as if we're in servitude to you, we're forced to declare our independence from you and good riddance. that's a pretty good summary of it. i liked it very much. a student named jeannie says, well, i enjoyed studying the declaration, but the constitution is so boring. she says, it's mostly about how the spoils of power are divided. it hardly says anything about freedom and equality and rights, not until the end like an afterthought in the bill of rights. and that was added to it two years after the constitution was rat tide. ratified. and she says, i don't think whoever wrote the constitution even read the declaration. and this prompts a student named margaret to say, why suspect the declaration cyst part of the -- itself part of the constitution? everyone in the united states celebrates independence day, the declaration was, well, declared. if constitution day is such a big deal, why aren't there any fireworks to celebrate it too? do y'all have fireworks here for constitution day? [laughter] i did a google surgery, i haven't found any yet. not sure what that says. anyway, margaret says, we should insert the declaration at the beginning of the constitution, make it a preamble. the declaration should be law. the law to end all laws. she says the rights it gives to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are nowhere mentioned in the constitution, yet all those patriots battling in the revolutionary war, well, they did so because they were fired up by the rights and freedoms that the declaration promised them. she says, there never would have been a constitution if they hadn't fought and sacrificed and won against the odds. and times like valley forge when the troops under george washington were freezing, when they didn't have blankets or soles on their boots and they were running out of bullets, it was the words in the declaration that kept hope alive in their hearts and inspired their heroics. it not only kept their eyes on the prize, it was the prize. yet somehow, she says, it was left out of the constitution, so it's time for us to fix that. she says, the declaration's rights need to be put right up front in the preamble as law number one. i asked her, i say, if it's the preambling, would the declaration be a law, or are the only actual laws the constitutional articles that follow the preamble? she says without hesitation, it would be a law. anything within the constitution itself can be considered law. jeepny says, well, the preamble as the introduction is supposed to be, as was said here, kind of a to map out what the rest of the constitution will accomplish. so with the declaration as the preamble, all the laws that follow it would be aimed at making the inalienable rights in the declaration come true. but william says now, well, not all the declaration needs to be inserted in our preamble. we're not declaring our independence from the king anymore, and all the stuff in the declaration addresses down king george is old news. really just a small part of the declaration, the most important part, should lead off the constitution, and then he reads: we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. another student named welcome bs it's this section president obama said his grandmother used to read to him and inspired him to be a politician and help people. it's also this section dr. martin luther king jr. said mote saided him to start the civil righted movement. a lot of people who have tried to move mountains also were principally inspired by this section in the declaration. it's like they believe these rights in the declaration already were part of the constitution. dottie says, well, we should update a little bit that part william quotes so it says what? >> people. >> all people. she says all men and women, all humans in other words, are created equal. margaret's getting really excited by this, how things are coming together. she gets really animated. she says, this is great. with this updated declaration part of the constitution, we'll have to start treating one another equally because as i said, it would be the law with a capital l. but jeannie says, but we're not all created equal. some are born into riches, so into desperation, some have all kinds of talent, some hardly any. some are able to make the most of however much or little talent they have because their parents and the school they go to have the resources that allow them to. but others aren't in the situation in life even to know they have talents, much less figure out how to make the most of them. margaret says, all the more reason to be treated equally. the declaration says that all are endowed by their creator with certain unail yep bl rights -- unalienable rights. in other words, she says, no matter how unequal the circumstances we're born into, no matter how unequal our talents, we're still equal before the eyes of our creator, so we americans should see one another as equally important with equally unalienable rights to life, and the pursuit of -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. having the opportunity to do something with our talents. and i asked now, i say, are these rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are all of them equality important? and william says, let me put it this way, mr. phillips. without the life -- the right to life and liberty, you can't pursue happiness. the pursuit is life, it is liberty. and i asked him, well, how so? he says, the pursuit is all about making something of yourself like margaret sort of said. no, jeannie says flatly, it's about having the right to try to make something of yourself. it's the trying that makes you happy, that makes you feel alive. she says i may never become the olympic track star i want to be, but i'm free to try. just having the freedom to try gives me that freedom that's beyond happy. sometimes, she says, while i'm training after school running up and down all these mountains, i can sort of see beyond them and imagine the life i'm going the make for myself when i graduate from high school and collegement i can see myself in medical school at harvard university. there's a university here could harvard, suspect this? [laughter] -- isn't there? i guess she's talking about the same one. and then coming back here to open a doctors' clinic so no one in these parking lots ever again -- parts ever again suffers in silence. she says, i tell you what, i can run a lot faster and farther than i could a couple years ago because of all this trying. margaret says as long as you have the freedom the pursue your dreams whatever they maybe and as long as you have not only the inspiration but also some of the basic means and the strive, that in itself is a big part of making dreams can come true. and she says, my participants weren't -- my parents weren't able to go to school when they were my age. my daddy, just 14 years old, had to quit school and start working in the mines. my dad key's out of steady work right now. my mama, she left us a while back in the dead of night. if anyone has the right to be miserable, it's my daddy. but he doesn't complain. he does all sorts of odd jobs to make sure i can stay in school. he's making sure my life is a lot more about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happynd than his ever -- happiness than his ever could be. a student named desiree who's been listening intently now says we need the right to life and liberty, i agree. but the barn teed right to the pursuit of happynd? who cares about happy? my mom, she says, i've never seen her crack a smile. but she's fulfilled in her way. she says, like just about everyone's parents in this class, she works whenever and wherever so my life isn't as tough as hers. and you can tell it makes her fulfilled. i've offered mom to help her out more, and she won't hear of it. she says i can help out best by stay anything school and then going on to college and making something of myself. this prompts dottie to say does happy even matter? can't you be tree to be miserable? -- free to be miserable, free to be frustrated? shouldn't we have the right to be happy or not happy? and she says, many people i admire respect very happy. some of them not very happy at all, but they sure have made big differences in the world; doctors, teachers, parents. they have sure made it possible for other people to be happy if they want to by giving them more opportunities than ever to pursue happiness, and this inspires bobby to say, you know, people with lots of money who i'm familiar with on tv don't seem very happy, but around these parts people with no money think they'll be happy with lots of money. he says there's lots of thing more important than happiness, or at least having lots of money if that's what the road to happiness is paved with. the main thing is, happy or not, each person should have the right to lead a life she's proud of to which margaret says making the most powerful part of the declaration with a few small changes a new preamble will be a reminder you treat people a certain way and you treat yourself a certain way, with worth and dignity, because that is everyone's unalienable right. and here's the new preamble they came up with. because we, the people, of the united states hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created equal, that they are eni endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, we do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america in order to realize these truths and preserve and promote these unalienable rights. what do you think ant that? -- about that? pretty powerful stuff. can i read you just a little bit about jefferson and how he ties into the pea amble? because, again, jefferson wasn't a framer, and yet there he was sort of on the scene. before the declaration of independence was each composed, the virginia house of burgesses, the oldest governing body in the new world, already anticipating a full-fledged colonial movement for independence began crafting a state constitution to replace its cloak y'all charter. jefferson wasn't on hand, he was in philadelphia where congress was at the time. nonetheless, jefferson proudly relates -- he's not immodest, he recounts that the virginia legislatures were so impressed by the preamble he'd composed and sent to them that it was tacked to the beginning of their document and became part of the commonwealth's new law of the land. the text of jefferson's constitutional preamble for the commonwealth of virginia is almost precisely the same as what he later drafted for the declaration of independence. did you know that? it's pretty interesting. the fact is, jefferson later explained, that the preamble was prior in constitution to the declaration, and they used necessarily the same materials and, hen, the similar tuesday. while jefferson was pleased that the virginia assembly had included his preamble, he nonetheless found the new constitution wanting as a whole. as he put it, this constitution was formed when we were new and unexperienced in the science of government. and so those who crafted it were ignorant of the very capital defects in it. less than a year and a half after the constitution of virginia was ratified, jefferson was given the opportunity to remedy its defects or so he was led to believe at the time. while the state constitution remained intact, soon after the declaration of independence was issued the virginia legislature asked jefferson to head a committee responsible for proposing reforms to the statutes that they'd enacted. and so for three years he was immersed in the reformation of the laws of the constitution and to the new organization and principles of our goth. government. he and his fellow revisors as they were called were given the unprecedented opportunity, as he put it, to take up the whole body of statutes in virginia laws and serve what was wanting and reduce the hole within as moderate a come pass as it would bear and to the plain language of common sense. but guess what happened? three years of hard work, all the new set of statute painstakingly produced by the five-man committee in nearly all cases were far more progressive than what their fellow assemblymen cared for. even if new statute were truer to the letter and spirit of the organization and principles of government and of the deng la ration itself. declaration itself. while this discouraging experience further cemented the political status quo, jefferson -- he was a never say die kind of guy -- he continued to sculpt the draft constitution. and while it was tailored for the commonwealth of virginia, it was also meant to serve as a blue print, a blue print for promoting democratic governance on a national scale. indeed, the framework of his draft sometimes pair rells that of the u.s. constitution though the specific articles differ in quite remarkable ways that i remark about in this book. this thought experiment reveals jefferson as a founder of political institutions as well as the scribe for revolutionary sentiments. what about this declaration? do you think the people way back when after, in our early founding days, do you think that they felt that the declaration even though it wasn't officially part of the constitution, do you think they felt it was, that it went without saying that it was? what do y'all think? how many think they just felt early on since it's what led to everything really was part of the constitution? yeah. yeah. john hancock, president of the continue innocental congress -- continental congress and the first signer characterized it as the foundation of a new government. jefferson himself considers it a fundamental act of these union states. dennis mahoney, the jefferson was, in fact, claiming it is not the constitution, but rather the declaration that constitutes the american nation. well, after the revolutionary generation had passed, political luminaries continued to take it as a given that the declaration was the constitution's reason for being and as such was itself part of the foundational law. for instance, john quincy adams -- what state is he from? [laughter] well, the sixth president of the united states, he asserted that the declaration contained nothing less than the fundamental elements and principles of american constitutional law. in his view, the declaration and constitutions, quote, are part of one consistent whole founded upon one and the same theory of government. and even abraham lincoln in his gettysburg address in 18634 asserted that the unite was founded four score and seven years ago. in other words, in 1776 when the declaration was issued rather than in 1789 when the constitution was ratified. and such evidence supports the view of those who argue that the constitution is ruled by the declaration which may be considered it real preamble. charles l. black, the acclaimed scholar of constitutional law, argues in a new birth of freedom that the declaration is without doubt part of the constitution, and he contends that the declaration as a whole was an act of constitution, and so the rights and freedoms it sets forth not only have the force of law but are, in fact, an act of law. so to black today this means that it's our federal lawmakers' obligation to enact laws that give people the inalienable rights enumerated in the declaration, thus bringing the disenfranchised into the fold as relative equals. black believes that the general diffusion of material welfare must be seen as an indispensable part in the general diffusion to the right of the pursuit of happiness. to jefferson, however, the general diffusion of political welfare, political welfare with all americans governing as equals was each more important and is what would lead to an overall sense of societal well being. that's from constitution café. thank you. [applause] so, um, i'm going to talk just a teeny bit more at the very end, but now i'd like to invite questions and, please, if you can, come up here, or can they also use -- or would you prefer that they come? they'd prefer that you come up to the mic. so any, any questions? >> the executive branch of the government, um, has been accused of maybe overusing their power. how is that weigh in with the constitution? >> what? [laughter] i can't believe it. i'm shocked you would even think such a thing. [laughter] they couldn't hear, there's no -- >> [inaudible] >> uh-huh. so you said the executive branch has been accused of overstepping its authority, and i'm just stunned. i've never -- [laughter] now, can i ask you something, is that working? for -- okay. do you think that the executive branch is the only branch culpable? laugh -- [laughter] does anybody here think the judiciary branch might be overstepping its grounds? okay, sometimes. and how about congress? no? >> yes! >> oh, all right. [laughter] let's look at the executive branch. president as commander in chief has no authority whatsoever to declare war, engages us in wars all the time. congress has the authority to declare war, has completely, um, become spineless and allowed the president to handle, call them incursions, conflicts, anything, but they're never declared wars. how many declared wars do you think that we have in our history? >> four? >> um, four? the. >> five. just five. last one was world war ii. all these conflicts since never declared. president overstepping his bounds, congress allowing the president to take their constitutional authority. another example, started in earnest with president george w. bush, this thing called signing statements when congress enacts a law and the president signs the law, but he issues these things called signing statements. in fact, i believe a reporter for the boston globe won a pulitzer prize for examining this summit. subject. the president, in effect, sees this law, and he says, well, i don't want like this element and this element and this element, so i'm going to issue a signing statement so ien oi mauve -- so i only approve those elements of the law i like, effectively making himself a legislative chamber of congress. making this one person a legislative chamber. >> how do they get away with that? >> you tell me. how do they get away with it? who lets them? should we get a big mirror up here and look at it? who lets them get away with it? >> congress. >> we, the people. >> they've declared all these wars with no constitutional authority whatsoever, and we write a new constitutional article about that, we write a new constitutional article rein anything the president's authority. let's look at the judiciary branch. long, long ago in a land -- in a democracy far, far away even though it has no constitutional authority to do so, the judiciary branch gave itself this power called judiciary review. nowhere in the constitution does it give them this power. what it means is they have decided they are the final arbiters in determining whether any law passed by congress, signed by the is, in fact, constitutional. when thomas jefferson, when they went up against thomas jefferson when he was president, they tried to, first, declare that they had this authority, and jefferson vehemently denied that they had it. he believed that, look, the constitution, number one, he was a strict constructionist in a very different way than people today consider themselves strict constructionist, i might add. he believed that, number one, the constitution didn't give them this right, doesn't say a thing about judicial review, that if congress passes a law and the president signs a law and the people don't like it, they can vote the bums out. that the people were meant to be the arbiters for determining who has constitutional review. he believes that buy the supreme court -- by the supreme court taking this power from the people that they have prevented some much-needed debates on many, many issues from gun control to abortion rights. these were issues were legislated, essentially. no matter what you think about the issues. one of the most progressive justices on the supreme court who is, arguably, very pro-choice nonetheless castigated the supreme court for taking this court, from wresting it from the hands of congress. and his primary concern was these hot button issues need to be debated. we need to talk about it. we need to. up with of the reasons -- one of the reasons i believe that there's so much shrillness now in discourse where we do not any longer celebrate diversity of perspectives is because we have been marginalized. political debate has been marginalized and diatribe and dogmatism has won the day. they don't have this authority, and they don't have clearly enough faith in us to talk with one another. one of the big aspects of the constitution café project is to bring very diverse people together and have thoughtful discourse. doesn't mean we have to agree on much of anything, but we can talk to one another and listen to one another's stories and quit stereotyping people before we even have a chance to know what they're all about, you know? so often we're just thinking of our next zinger instead of trying to learn what people's stories are. so this is using the constitution as almost an excuse in devicing the articles to come up with our own ideas. so it's being, authority's being usurped all the time, creates record levels of political apathy and anger, and yet it's up to us to do something about it. and, hopefully, this project is meant to start and spark a conversation that in turn might inspire people to become more civically engaged and to call people to the carpet. yes. the letter just put that so they could be recorded. >> i wondered what your opinion is about all the, um, revolution going on in egypt and syria and places like that. >> uh-huh. well, i think it's a beautiful thing. my concern is the same concern, um, that we had in our founding days, that the people themselves have not been asked what they want in their new constitution. i plan to expand the constitution café project to go to emerging democracies and start constitution working groups. again, you have these self-selected elites who have decided that they are the ones who are the most capable, the most high-minded, um, and they sell everybody else short. and i'm, frankly, tired of that. i think that i've met so many so-called -- i've never met a common person, to be honest with you. but we don't have the right forums for allowing us regular folks to reveal our uncommon insights to ourselves, much less to other people. um, you know, everybody talks about the tyranny of the masses. well, there can be aty think of a very little minority, too, and they can lord their will over us. but why can't we be allowed to offer our input and have working groups that allow us to? so that's -- i see this as a golden opportunity to start these types of dialogues there before things ossify again, before that basic fundamental right. it's not enough to ask people to vote on a constitution up or down, there has to be some means and mechanism -- can be informal groups at first, but as i held a dialogue here in which we created a new constitutional article. so if we ever or get to have a referendum which we came up with a democratic process for choosing the people who will write our new founding document, can't they even allow for that process to take place? what's wrong with allowing people to vote for those who will frame their constitution? in our nation's founding, there was one state that had genuinely -- for the times. it was white males, but white males who had no property and white males who paid no taxes were actually allowed to participate, and that state was the state of pennsylvania. the only state that allowed for them not only to vote for those who had framed the pennsylvania constitution, the state constitution, but they were allowed, unbelievably, to even run to serve as a framer. the, and i write about this quite a bit in my book. the framers of pennsylvania came up with this extraordinary experimental document that was truly participatory, allowed all the people in the state to have oversight, they had one year to consider a bill passed by the legislature. they didn't like it, they could just get rid of it. the landed elite in pennsylvania was furious. they waged a demonization campaign from the minute it was passed, and it took them a number of years, but they finally got rid of the one and only truly experimental and beautiful constitution that i know of that has ever been created not just in the united states, but anywhere. the state of pennsylvania. and i urge you to go on google and find this original document. it was amazing the checks and balances that they had, far different from the type that we have in our federal document. most of all, it's amazing the participatory mechanisms that were included so all the people could weigh in not just on election day, but all the time. it was just a beautiful thing. so you could argue we were more progressive at our founding than we are now. yes, bob. >> my, my question is i guess we're talking about the written word. the written word. >> yes. >> and, um, if it's so powerful, the written word, why do we have such a big army national as well as local and regional to back and enforce these words? why are guns a requirement behind the words? in other words, does the word, does the written word, does it surpass the urge of the heart and, you know, the will of the people? >> that's a very interesting comment because one of the reasons that jefferson enumerated in the declaration about why they were revolting against the king was what? standing army. finish from great britain that were intruding in people's lives. and yet, arguably, we have that same problem potentially today. and one of the constitutional articles that we craft, that we crafted, a standing army has to stand down in time of peace. and we define time of peace, or they define time of peace in their constitutional article as anytime in which soil has not been invadeed. but not only that, but if u.s. soil is invaded -- in other words, we can't go to hot spots around the world at will. we're at time of peace unless our soil -- not only that, but that we cannot declare war even, we cannot have war even here on our own soil unless congress declares war, something congress is very loathe to do under almost any circumstances. so, you know, the fear of institutionalized force has, was what prompted the founders to revolt in the very first place. and, of course, you know, eisenhower's famous statement about the military industrial complex that has developed that he was prescient about leads you to wonder would it be better to have brought down the democratic curtain a long time ago if we're reaching the same end of bringing it down by massively building up a force of this time that can insert itself into any conflict and not necessarily for democratic perpetuation or evolution or emergence. >> [inaudible] >> go ahead. >> what is the significance of the written word? >> well, i mean -- >> we say we are a constitutional people, we are people who have written laws, but at the same time we have this explosion of violence from those who are, um, in power to use violence and those who are not in power to use violence. >> so what does that mean to you? what does that indicate to you? >> i mean, emily dickenson and walt whitman and all the great forces of america even though they're still carrying on is overpowered by the blast of the gun and the violence. and even though their words are very strong words, what's overpowering those strong words happen to be this, i guess something like a festival of violence. >> is there any remedy that you think can, um, can be put to that? so that that is, that we can do away with that fear? force? >> well, i write poetry, and i go out into prisons and schools daily and do poetry. because i believe that the word is still powerful. >> so then is that to say then that we have to retake and -- retake the initiative and that there has to be many people who are doing noble things like you are so we can put the power of the word ahead of the power of violation? >> if you look at the room, people gathered tonight to hear you talk about the constitution. i mean, someone is looking for salvation in the word. >> do you think part of that salvation lies in the constitution? >> it lies in the word. the very vibration of the word. you know? you can come out, and you can do violence, or you can do love, and one of it's got to calm the beast down in us. >> uh-huh. well, again, i can only hark back to i think there's a lot of anger when it comes to the word of the constitution that, um, the people who are elected federal officials and give their oath to obey the constitution are doing anything but. um, and it creates animosity in many ways, shapes and forms. um, for instance, i know there's a lot of disappointment over the health care bill that was passed. the, um, guess what group left itself out of all the health care bill's provisions? >> congress. >> congress. congress even from the most liberal to the most rugged conservative, you know, go it alone, support yourself, live by your wits, they all receive the most wonderful taxpayer-subsidized health insurance that money can buy. we pay for that. they receive the best medical care, retirement care, elderly care, everything. child care. they receive these things on our dole. and you ask, i've seen a couple conservatives asked by reporters, well, why don't you give it up? you said you're against this plan, yet you get this public option that the rest of us are denied. they stumble over their words, but not one of them has ever lived by the ideals he or she be purports. that creates anger among people because they're not practicing the ideals they profess. and i think that there's a lot of hypocrisy to go around. not by in means with just conservatives. there's a lot of hypocrisy all across the board, and they're all very beholden to the corporate buck. and that also -- and so they're elected, they promise to abide by the will of those who elected them, and then you don't hear a lot from them anymore. yes. can you -- >> just building on what you are saying right now, the last year the supreme court, was it last year? yes. the supreme court ruled in citizens united v. the election commission, right? and, basically, made corporations individuals based on the first amendment. now f we wanted -- if we wanted to pass some sort of amendment to the constitution to make that impossible, what would be the most efficient process to, a, actually encourage communication amongst people and, b, actually get this done? so, for example, would it be california like propositions? what, what do you think -- >> i'm so glad you asked me that question. [laughter] um, let me tell you this. the last time the constitution was amended was in 1992. the amendment that passed was one that originally had been proposed at the end of the 18th century that dealt with congressional salaries. ever since there hasn't been another amendment ever since. now, when you factor in this that the first ten amendments of the bill of rights, and there have only been 17 amendments ever since. so the framers, even the most pretty staunch federalists, they thought that surely it would be amended much, much more as the human mind progressed and human ideals and values progressed. hasn't happened. a lot of reasons why. um, many times, you know, congress has the authority to vote proposed amendments out of their chambers and then they go to the states, and then the states can vote them yea or nay. one thing that's happened is that congress now places arbitrary limits on how long the states have to consider amendments. that's what happened to the equal rights amendment. they only had a sr. number of years. they couldn't get the number of votes they needed, that was it. so now they've been trying to reintroduce the era every year, congress keeps it bottled up. there's nothing in the constitution that says congress has that authority to put arbitrary limits on how many years an amendment can be considered, but they've done it anyway even though there's extraconstitutional. for many, many years from our founding days like the 27th amendment, it was considered for well over a hundred years, well, well other. nearly 200 years. we don't even have that ability anymore just because of arbitrary limits congress places on any amendment. but the fact of the matter is congress rarely allows any amendment, proposed amendment to even leave the chamber so it can be considered by the states. so it is that those who would like to have a federal marriage act actually put as an amendment, um, the congress bottles that up. those who would like any couple of any gender to be able to marry, that get bottled up too. congress is preventing that debate from the taking place. i think it's shameful. .. >> the states have the authority to have an amendment convention any time they want to. there has to be a certain per sen taming of the states, and once then -- once an amendment convention is held, they can consider as many amendments as they want to essentially holding a new constitutional convention. that's what this offbeat project is trying to spark, a new amendment convention. you don't even have to go to the federal government. just do it at a local level where you have more clout, where there are more response or at least less unresponsive. get the states to call an amendment convention. congress -- i mean, the states have never done this. they were close one time when the u.s. senate, they wanted the u.s. senate, those who ran for the u.s. senate, to be direct lid elected by the people. u.s. senate wanted no part of that, but to be appointed by the state legislatures. that's how the existing constitution had them appointed. they resisted that mightily, but when the states finally threatened to call an amendment convention, the congress releapted, and they allowed the -- relented and allowed the proposed amendment to go out baa they didn't want to states to hold an amendment convention because heaven knows what may have happened. they may updated the constitution itself. that mechanism is there. people in every state just need to organize and insist that they have an amendment convention. it's there. we don't have a change a thing. yes in >> i can't hear you. >> do you think you need a certain percentage of states? >> i believe it's two-thirds of the states. to call an amendment convention -- i don't know chapter and verse. i can look it up real fast if you want me to, but, yeah, it's not an overwhelming threshold. we can sur mount that, and then it doesn't matter what congress thinks. it doesn't matter what they bottle up. when you look at prohibition era started by amendment to the constitution, and it was repealed by an amendment to the constitution. in other words, the amendment process was a conversation piece reflecting the morals of the time. that doesn't happen anymore, and it's a pity, an absolute pity. yes? >> i'm wondering based upon the amendment of passivity and various reasons that the constitution is no lopinger followed, do you think that nonetheless the people who drafted the constitution and the declaration of independence had some level of foresight which unfortunately was not realized, and thinking specifically about the seeming possibility that the end of slavery and the civil rights movement were inevitable almost based upon the language. >> well, i think that the founders who signed the declaration certainly were visionary. even as most people, they didn't always practice the ideals they professed, flawed people in a bundle of contradictions, but they nonetheless created something that still speaks to people across this chasm of time. i believe that the framers of the constitution, for the most part, believed they created an organic document that was not in any way meant to be saint in the sense of unchange changeable. they felt the idea we can change and have faith in ourselves, and somehow it's not that they were more -- they were more high minded than us, more statesmen like than us, i believe, but it doesn't mean we can't repeat the feat. this can be a self-fulfilling prophesy. >> thank you. >> thank you. yes, one more question. >> don't you think one of the biggest problems today is that 46.2% of the people in congress, 535 members, are lawyers, and also the gerrymandering going on now? suspect that a position today that we face in not getting the changes that we need? >> well, one of the dialogues in the book is that subject. why don't we have representatives who are representing? who represent the face of america itself. well, again, the existing constitution, i believe, allowed for one congressman for every 60,000 people or so, but guess what? it used to be that the number -- you know, the number of supreme court justices is not fixed at all, and flux waited mightily until recent times. same with congress. they used to gradually increase the member of congresses as population increaseed. you have unrepresentative representatives. they have so many people, and they are ones with money who run for office because they are the ones who get the message out, and guess who that can be? lawyers. lots of money. sometimes doctors with -- but people with lots of money. the proposed constitutional article here stipulated that from now on, there's one congressman or woman for every 30,000 people. how many congressman, math test -- how many congressmen does that make more or less? >> 30,000. >> one for every 3,000. >> 1,000. >> add a zero. >> 10 # ,000? >> it would be 10,000. how many think that would be unwielding? yeah. guess what, in the days of the cradle of democracy in ancient athens, they had 5,000 people to legislate. back them they had 5,000 people in the state, and now we have means to communicate through internet and things to create committees and so. why is that unwieldy? rather than having 22 congressman and staff members, they propose do away with the staff members. have one congressman for just 30,000. you get to know people's names, hopes, dreams, fears, and aspirations, but more than that, it allows more people to potentially run for office because they don't need so much money to get the message out. they only have to get the message out to 30,000 people. makes it much more probable that people who are more like us can run for office and win. it's -- i don't think it's unthinkable at all. i think in this vast democracy and means at our di poe sal, if the greeks can do it with 5,000 when they didn't have any means except for, i guess, throwing things -- i think that we have those means at our disposal now, even in the vast ways that can create a more participating democracy. jefferson, as i write about in the back, had his ideas of award systems where all people were involved in government all the time. they broke down into units of hundreds where it -- the idea was that we didn't all make decisions about the same things, but we all were representatives in one area of governance for everybody representing everybody else's interests. it was a brilliant scheme, and i think in the modern era, there's more opportunities for bringing to realization jefferson's proposals than back then m the ideas i write about jeffersons are more pert innocent today, and i think -- pertinent today, and i think they need to be thought about more seriously. i just. one thing first -- there's a website, constitutioncafe.org about how to start and facilitate an ongoing constitution working group. there's also information on my personal website at christopherphillips.com that feeds you into that. but consider working groups. there's protocol. there's shrillness. you have to listen to one another even if you're passionate, especially if you are passionate. listen to one another. get your view across, but open it up for others to consider. here's what jefferson said, let us avail ourselves of our crude reason to open up to experienced, wised counsels. now, if you deconstruct this, it was a back handed complement. he characterizes the framer's efforts to create a constitution as wise and well-meaning. on the other hand, he considered their accomplishment a little more than a crude and unexperienced first attempt that should be revisited and remedied. he wrote, i am not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions, but i also know that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind, and as that becomes more developed #, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advantage also and keep pace with the time. that sounds perfectly reasonable. led sanctity to a constitution was not the status as a virtually unchangeable document, but treat it as a work in progress having faith in each generation to improve upon it. our call for a constitutional convention of the people might seem an unlikely prospect, but if a critical mass of people is inspired, they might come to the conclusion that the government is failing to achieve the goals for which it might be design. the time might be ripe at last to cor jefferson's proposal to rewrite the constitution. the declaration of independence that jefferson was charged to write, was the work of a very flawed man who in his words and time and deeds nonetheless revealed an extraordinary empathy whose people's aspirations and hopes were unlike his own. the proposal to revise the constitution is a declaration of independence of sort believing we did the founders is disservice if we looked at their works as iconic. as joyce olden put it, the true jefer sewnian legacy is to be hostile to legacy. he had no doubt coming generations could vastly improve op their accomplishments to realize the higher hopes for self-government. in the last letter to john adams, jefferson composed these stirring words. a first attempt to recover the right of self-government may fail, so may a second, 5 third, ect., but as a younger and more instructed race comes on, the sentiment becomes more and more intuitive, and some subsequent one of the ever renewed attempts will ultimately succeed for what inherent can man leave than prosperity? thank you so much. [applause] i would -- i'm dedicating this presentation to my father, alexander phillips who passed away last saturday. my father, when i told him about this idea, his eyes just lit up, and he said, now, this is really interesting. [laughter] i know he'd love to be here, but thank you so much. [applause] >> for more information, visit the author's website, christopherphillips.com. >> now for the 11th annual national book festival on the national mall here in washington, biographer, justin martin,