Dirksen building. Senatere in the hart office building, which is connected to the dirksen building. They are two halves of the same building, that they are entirely different. Building is the central building. We are in the room known as hart 216. This room was specifically designed for television, and we are in one of the television booths overlooking the hearing room. When they knew that the dirksen building was sufficient, they originally thought they would just replicate the dirksen building and build an identical twin on the other side. They said it would not be large enough. It happened what happened between when the dirksen billing was and the Hart Building, the u. S. Staff tripled in size. Part of that was watergate. The executive branch had provided most of the information that congress was given. When they felt they could not trust it, they felt the need for an independent staff. Every senator was allowed to have at least one staff person on each committee to serve. That was a big breakthrough. They created minority staff as whichs staff as a whole became the majority staff. Other projects required hiring large numbers of new staff. Or just was not room in the russell building or the dirksen building to house them. 76ame to the senate in and in 1976, across a street there were hotels that have been taken over, and staff and Committee Members were working in what had been apartment and hotel rooms. They were not designed for heavy office equipment. You could not have a file cabinet with more than two drawers because the floor could not sustain it. They needed new buildings, so in 1976, congress authorized the construction of a new building. It was named for senator fell apart from michigan senator philip hart. Theically, he was one of senators who had resisted the naming of the russell and dirksen buildings. He felt it was too soon since they had died. But senator hart was wellliked. He was known as the conscience of the senate. While still living, the senate voted to name this building after senator hart. 1983, and it in was empty for a while. The newspapers had been terrible about writing stories saying there was extravagance, that congress should not be spending so much money on themselves. It was going to be a big building and had to house a lot of people. It had to be adjusted for the computer age. It was going to be expensive. There were lots of visitors coming here, lots of constituents, lots of people because of hearing going on. You had to have a large space. And was going to be expensive but that could be used against you when running for office. Political lot of the campaigns argued that the hart extravagance. N people were reluctant to move into the building. But the leadership prevailed on a couple of senior senators, people whom everybody respected and persuaded them to move into the building. Henry jackson. By moving in here, even though he loved his office in the russell building, knew that he would give cover to a lot of the junior senators. Then the sergeant at arms came up with a better plan. He sent eviction notices to those due to move into this one. They were ordered. Here, theyot realized it worked much better for modern senate staff. Instance, can be taken up quickly, and there are channels that run through that computer wires can be put through. There were no computers when building the russell building or the dirksen building, but by 1983, the computer age had come. They could knocked down the walls and reconfigure them, literally overnight, so if a senator left and another was moving in, they could do a quick turnaround for whatever the needs were. All of the staff of the senator would be in a twofloor suite. They would not have to go out the hall or down the hall. They would all be in the same area. I have talked to senators who loved the russell building, and liked being there, but admitted that the Hart Building works better. It creates a more efficient working space. The leastuilding is of the classical buildings. The russell building is very neoclassical. The dirksen building is a mirror image of the neoclassical. But the Hart Building is very modern. Senator moynahan, who lived on capitol hill, disliked a lot of the modern architecture and during the winter when they were working on the building they covered it with plastic. In the spring, they took the plastic down and senator moynahan got the first look at the Hart Building, he went to the senate and introduced a resolution asking to put the plastic backup. He also submitted a resolution saying, no more building should be constructed by the federal government for the remainder of the century. Quite frankly, people have got used to the building over the years. It is a comfortable building. Unlike the russell building that has an openair courtyard, the Hart Building has an openair court building. Empty a desperately space. Vast,e before, it was a empty space and they knew that they needed something in there to fill that space. The builder was commissioned to do something specifically for the space in the hart atrium. Combination space that he called mountains and clouds. Above it, there is a series of clouds that float. They used to float, eventually they became stationary. They create a nice backdrop for the class pictures. It was constructed in the mid1980s. Eycholas brady raised the mon privately. Its one of the largest pieces of Public Sculpture in the world. It was the very last piece of work that alexander did, because after he came to the senate, he went home and died that evening. He never did see the finished sculpture. Has 50 uniteding states senators in here, a large number of the staff. Not so much in terms of committees, they are mostly in the dirksen building, but it has this central hearing room used for special occasions for largescale hearings for things of historic nature, where there will be a large audience. This is a room that will be familiar to people who watched many of the Supreme Court nominations from ruth bader theyurg, to elena kagan, have all taken place in this room. Five of the current justices have had their hearings in the Hart Building. I am humbled to have been nominated for this seat now held by justice oconnor. Haveny major hearings taken place here. This is where the 9 11 investigations took place. There have been many celebrities who have testified here. Christopher reeves came to testify for medical purposes, for federal government funding of medical research. We have had lots of blockbuster hearings in this room. Help saveey can thousands of lives, treatment with stem cells have already begun. The oldschool senators like ted kennedy, and others who have been here a long time, would hold their hearings in the russell building, even though this room was available. They just felt because watergate had been held there, and so many other hearings had been held there, that they were part of that historical trend. This room in the Hart Building has created a New Historical stream of major hearings that lots of prominent witnesses, lots of acrimony often between the senators and witnesses. Even though this is the newest begunng, it has already to establish a long history, and it will continue to serve the United States senate for a long time. The plan made for Operation Iraqi freedom was even more innovative and transformational. Employing a, nation of precision, spee employing a combination of precision, speed, and flex ability. Flexibility. One of the original plans had a gymnasium. At the time, because it with thought to be extravagant, they cut the money for the gymnasium and the restrooms on the ninth floor. They were services that would be provided. Over the years, it became clear that senators have stressful jobs and they need to relax a little. On ones a gymnasium side. It would probably be good for their health if they could unwind a little bit, so they did make an effort to put that gymnasium in. The architect of the capitol said that they already had the money, and could afford to do it. The senate voted to put the gymnasium in. It created a firestorm on the talk radio circuits, and people thought it was a terrible thing that they were going to waste federal money on a gymnasium for senators, so it was blocked. One of the senators who blocked it, was a senator from wisconsin who, ironically, was one of the most physically fit members of the senate. He used to run every day from his home to the senate. He kept in terrific shape for years, and here he was blocking the gymnasium for his colleagues. Part of it is because he was a fiscally frugal person. He is the man who started the Golden Fleece award, to look at things with a government was spending money it should not spend. But the senator got in the way of it, and blocked them building that gymnasium. Perhaps as retaliation, the senate chose to close down a small shower room which occupy the dirksen building, which happens to be the place where the senator took his shower after he ran into work every day. Part of this was the sense that people are here to work and should not be taking time off to exercise. I think it is a shame that the gymnasium was never built. Members of congress and staff could have benefited greatly from that over the years, as they have in the house of representatives. It is also a shame that the restaurant was never constructed on the ninth floor. It created a very nice meeting space where members of congress and others have had meetings in that place. Even though it is not what it was originally designed for, they will find some other use for it. Demands will come along that we have not anticipated in the building will have to be converted to meet those demands. The Hart Building is an unusually shaped holding. Building. One of the reasons for the shape is that it was constructed to preserve an Historical Building that occupies one of its corn ers. That was at the corner of constitution avenue, maryland avenue, and 2nd street. Where you will find the National Womens party house. Organizationfrage that operated to try to get the vote for women, and for many years afterward lobbied for the equal rights amendment in the 1970s, they were out parading that the houses and Senate Passed and sent to the states that was not ratified by the states. The Hart Building was built specifically not to demolish the womens party building. The original building had been on the site of the Supreme Court, in that building had been demolished to make room for the Supreme Court. Once was enough. The womens party felt they had given their all for the government at this point. The Womens Suffrage Movement came and protested in the capital and the white house, and over the years we have had many lobbying groups come through here. We have had protests come through of different types. Recently we have had code pink protests. Please clear the room. [inaudible] [shouting] please clear the room. Everybody wants to make sure that their cause is being heard. The fact of the matter is that the real way that causes are heard is through 4 formal hearings. Where witnesses who are for and against come to testify. Citizens are invited to testify, and they are always open to the public unless dealing with classified information. Everything else is open, the public is invited in. These days you can watch them streaming, or on the internet, and you can come in person to watch the hearings. There is even an occupation that has been developed, called wi ne sitting. You will find students and retirees holding a spot on line, and just before the hearing starts, and welldressed lobbyist will appear and pay them for holding their space. It saves them a few hours of time to get one of these spaces for the hearing rooms. If you go to the russell building, you will see several bronze plaques. Trumang. Harding, haran harry truman, lyndon johnson, richard nixon. There are none in the dirksen building, but there is one in the Hart Building. There is a plaque indicating that barack obama held that office while he was a senator. The heart building itself the Hart Building itself became an issue in the news in 2001, lesson a month after the events of september 11, a letter was sent to the senator in this building that contained a large amount of deadly anthrax. About 10 30 this morning, my Office Opened a suspicious package. Weekend go into the details, because this is an ongoing investigation. Clears soon as it became that there was a suspicious substance in the envelope, we contacted the Capitol Police and the capitol physician. I will have more to say about our own circumstances in the office after dan nichols of the Capitol Police, and dr. John is speakr capital position, to the contents of the letter itself. Nichols,ieutenant dan a spokesman for the Capitol Police. As a senator said, this morning a notice was received in his office which contained a powdery substance. There was an exposure when the letter was opened. The following protocol, the staff following the protocol, the staff contacted the police. The officers response to the scene isolated the situation. We conducted field tests. The first field test came back as positive for anthrax. In order to confirm that, we did a second field test, which also came back as positive for anthrax. They hope that it can be contained in a small area, but after a day they can began to be concerned that it could not be contained. So all of the senate staff who work in the building were required to come to this room to have themselves swabbed, to test if there were any chance they might test positive for anthrax. Within three days, everybody was assured that they were not. No one in this building became ill the cause of it, although two postal workers died as a result of the incident. Because of that, security increased enormously around the capital. The building was actually shut down for three months, very abruptly. Half of the u. S. Senators operate out of this building. They had to find some place else to go. A lot of them roomed with their colleagues from their states. Republicans and democrats alike shared offices. Committees moved in with each other. Senators went over to the Senate Library were nine people went around one desk with one computer and one phone. We operated like that for months. After that we did a series of interviews with people to find out what the experience had been like. We discovered that there was an enormous amount of camaraderie because everybody was operating out of these confined areas. Such crowded areas. People brought in cake and cookies during the days. There were lots of office parties. Afterward, people felt nostalgic about going back to their offices and losing that sense of community that had existed. Sometimes crises bring out the best in people. This was the largest building that was ever decontaminated. A large squad of federal workers, both the military and medical facilities came through here to decide how to clean the building. After three months, we were able to move back in to it. It is been open for a couple of minutes it has been open for a couple of minutes . Good. It is like a little city. It has its own power plant, its own subway system, its own banks, and beauty parlors. There are several thousand people who wear care, both in the senate and the house. The capital building, which was opened in 1800, has grown to meet the demands of the people who work here. Forong ago proved too small all of the things needed here. If you stand on the plaza in front of the capital, and you k at the small stand stone small sandstone, that little square box was the original capital building. It house the senate, the Supreme Court, and the library of congress. If you look around, all of the buildings that you see, the Supreme Court, the library of congress, the house and senate buildings, they all started out in that small sandstone box. They give a sense of how things have grown. The most recent addition is underground, the capitol visitors center. 3 Million People per year visit the capital building. Tourists who watch congress at work. They needed to be able to accommodate these large crowds coming in. For all of that, for all the art, and the historical events, this is really a daily working building, with a large staff of people trying to keep up with issues, and trying to enter constituents interests. Some come early in the morning because their states are on the east coast, some work late at night because their states are on the west coast. There always seems to be a light on in the Office Buildings here. It reflects the Enormous Growth, of the government the services of the government it reflects the Enormous Growth of the government, the services of the government, and the demand. That is the whole story of why we have three Office Buildings and three house buildings surrounding the United States capital. This is one of a series of programs with Senate Historian emeritus don ritchie. We also toured the russell and dirksen buildings where many of the most notable hearings took place. You can watch all of our american artifacts programs in their entirety by visiting our website, cspan. Org history. All weekend, American History tv is featuring long beach, california. It was officially named after the length of its beaches. Her citiesto tour staff recently visited the site, showcasing its history. Learn more about long beach all weekend on American History tv. Long beach has always been proud of its aviation history. The for 1920, 1910, the first United States air meet was held here. People came from all over southern california. It was amazing. A lot of people were inspired to become aviators. They caught what i call aviation fever. Make long goal to beach is important to aviation as detroit was to the auto world. Long beach always had a vision for an airport. The first airfield opened in 1920. It was one of the first beta support airports first municipal airports in the United States. It was where a millionaire heart was inspired to learn it was where Amelia Ehrhardt was inspired to learn how to fly. She decided to get a job as a telephone operator, and earned money enough to learn how to fly. She learned from one long beach another oned it was named frank coxe who took her up on her first flight. In 1921, they decided that land became to valuable. Today we are in one of the most beautiful 10 airports in the world according to the bbc. The long beach in a simple airport in long beach california. Long beach, california. New that there would be a lot of important dignitaries and other people from other countries flying into the Long Beach Airport to visit douglas facilities, so they wanted to have a stateoftheart, beautiful facility. It was in 1940 that he decided to buy land adjacent to the airport from the montana land company. This was after 1939, and world war ii was still going on. He decided that it would be wise to make it a stateoftheart facility. It was the first blackout plant in the United States. It was more or less a city unto itself. There were 11 separate buildings, each camouflaged from the air so that enemy aircraft could not find it. There was an underground Railway System that would transport parts from one area of the plant to another. Virtually a city within a city. At one time, there were 170,000 people working her at one time working here at one time or another. The payroll for the year was 113 million. Started to become more of a military field with the onslaught of world war ii. Six ferryingo the command, that would ferry aircraft throughout the world for world war ii. We also had a woman contingent here, they were called wasps. This woman was in charge of them. She was very anxious to have the women fly more. They knew that they were needed, she was willing to fly them overseas. Ted cruz is a conservative. He really is. They supported him early on. There are a lot of people, though, who see just like dave was saying. He doesnt like casic. He thinks he has a bad economic record but he thinks hes useful to stay in the race to prevent trump from quinning the nomination. Winning the nomination. There are a lot who say lets get behind cruz reluctantly for now then we can get it to convention. Deny trump the nomination. Then anything can happen. Paul ryan made some news, would emerge as a potential snom knee . We als saw this week that all of the three major campaigns are still in the process of hiring big guns in the delegate manipulation area. Really counting the noses and figuring out the strategy. Whats that indicate and how important is that that will get processed when we get to the convention . Right now were in that area where this has become a delegate race. Theres a lot of questions that still exist about how the delegates will come into play at the convention. And donald trump realized even before the convention is taking place in louisiana. We just saw his campaign earlier this week say that they will be moving forward with the complaint about the allocation, the distribution of delegates in that state. So we think that error on their part reinforced the idea and importance of the role that delegates play and they needed to bring somebody on board who has been this dell gat hunter who has expertise in that area to ensure they dont get blind sided at the convention. Ted cruz has organized really sure terms of making that his delegates representing him delegates favoring him are represented on commitees and he will he will have a decent amount deciding on the rules of the convention. So its monumently important at this point. And those two campaigns and im sure john scacic as well has been paying attention too. Were over time here but this was focused on the g. O. P. Whats the snap shots for the democrats . Hillary clinton continues to be the front runner but i think Bernie Sanders is the front runner in wisconsin. Twhrs a two week period. Bernie sanders will have won six of the last seventh. But Hillary Clinton new york is her adopted state. Shes the front runner but only up 12 points in wung pole this week. So its still a competitive race. Again, she continues to accumulate a delegate lead. But if the democrats contest isnt over. And remains enormsly interesting. Thanks for being here. Road tot white house coverage codgets tomorrow with republican president ial candidate texas senator ted cruz at a Campaign Rally in wisconsin. That stated holds its primary vote on tuesday. On tuesday, the george wfrpblt bush president ial Center Hosted a forium with former president ial Campaign Manager white house political advisers from both parties. And one of the creators of Showtimes Program the circus. They discussed Campaign Advertising and offered an inside look at the president ial campaign process. The event combeegan with a showing of president ial campaign ads as far back as 1952. This is about an hour and 25 minutes. Of the debate was all about where to put them. Whether we need them at all. Members of the First Congress used, as an example, it was exactly what madisons strategy was. They would convince the public that the constitution is good. He wanted to win over the antifederalist. He knew there was no hope of winning over the leadership with Patrick Henry. Albert who unfair to use the term gary mander gerrymander, and so he made up henrymander. One of the things that is implicit in what you are saying, madison overly placed praised the Second Convention movement. Both Patrick Henry in virginia and George Clinton in new york, especially clinton, or threatening to petition the states and in the Second Convention, listen to the recommended amendment, which was really a recipe for undoing the constitution. It. Said dont worry about part of his motives in what became the bill of rights was to kill the idea of the second of , the idea amendment of what they are standing on. They are saying, he doesnt really believe in bills of rights. They dont think it serves much of a purpose. He wrote about his experience of virginia. He does not believe the bill of rights is going to do what everybody in the 21st Century America now regard as the essence of the bill of rights. I dont want to give jefferson too much credit, because [laughter] most of the letters madison got after he introduced the bill of rights, the socalled bill of rights. One thing in that letter, back to differences letter that was so important back to jeffersons letter that was so important, he said, just wait until he gets into the hands of the judiciary. Kenneth it took until the 20th century. I would like to comment briefly on how radical the proposals were. He had included stuff done from the state convention. But he also put in his own language. The amendments that he proposed ,ncluded the right to safety the right of revolution, and the individual right to bear arms, which many other states had also proposed. The Committee Just tossed out completely the preamble and he wrote about safety and the right revolution. Of and they have the socalled Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. They railroaded rewrote it. People in court in massachusetts in the last year and a half, we have got to put the brakes on this. So all the radical aspects of those amendments that medicine of prose madison proposed init was very controversial the 21st century. I have a different meaning on this that you do. I think it was a response for the states that were requesting as a guarantee against the standing army. And the language of the Second Amendment that he wrote assumption that defense will be in the hands of the militia. Kenneth he wrote that it was the absolute individual right. Joseph that is wrong. You are wrong on this. , the right toew bear arms is a deliberative is a derivative right from serving in the militia, not a natural right. There is nobody worried about having the right to bear arms denied. It has not happened to anybody. Of 2008 is about as unconstitutional as any decision i have ever seen, absolutely preposterous. Of all the things i done in a career getting up near 45 years or whatever, nothing prouder of or having written in d. C. Versus eller. There is a story in which im. Etting out of this just to echo what you have been saying, you are dead wrong in this. Original languages is about the militia. There is very limited discussion usually tied to the socalled dissent of the pennsylvania delegatesthat murray and the federalist convention. There is a little bit of noise on New Hampshire at this point, but the overwhelming bulk of the conversation, discussion on the right to bear arms in 1787, 1788, 1789 was exclusively by the militia question. This, theyng here in dont care about the name. Congress,hat because in article one section a, has the authority to override the states and organize an army. So those people who wrote this worried about this in terms of slave rebellion. They take opposition. Beselfdefense is going to. Omehow rerouted the key point is justice scalia. I hope hepinion goes on to replace the sitting rest, wherever he may be. Opinion in d. C. Versus eller is so scandalous, it is so disgraceful. , nobody meanly worded should take that seriously. The fact that Justice Breyer in the doll case, the incorporation case a couple years later said, i stand corrected. The historical record is to be considered. Scalia is dead wrong about this. Say,t is perfectly fine to as individuals we have a right of selfdefense, subject to police power regulation of local and provincial government. Im sorry. Jack the idea of personal selfdefense through the Second Amendment is deeply problematic. This is a major qualification when you get to the 14th amendment, which is written in the case of reconstruction. The question of should there be the individual right to selfdefense . It becomes more legitimate. Why . After americans are being slaughtered in large numbers still in the reconstructed south. Is a bit i can say, it more complicated. Some acts are not replicated. Sometimes they truly have absolutism. But i think if we think about it historically, to think about the late 18th and 19th centuries, understanding tells us a great deal about americans getting more and more of a culture with the individual rights to pack to this overtime. I want to ask you another question as madison as author. He was looking at other amendments that states have proposed. He whittled it down to 19 for the final proposal that goes to the congress, it is 19 . Nine. And then the house got into 17 . D then two one comes back to years later. Process,s about this who had his ear. Was he doing it in isolation . People influencing what initial amendments made the cut. What was the process . One really interesting thing is the way you think about the rights have so much to the fact with the first and second falling out. Puttinghink about madison aside, he wanted them incorporated into the constitution. He had been interwoven. The sinking of revising the constitution and ending the constitution internally. This is important because our notion of the constitution and we think of the constitution is that crinkly document that was written in 1787. But in some ways, madison was the thinking of amending the constitution, in a more active way. , when he gave his great speech on june 8, he explained where they all were going to go. Some were good article section 10. Rticle 10 section it would have made it much less important because you could not have seen there never would have been a moment where the document looks like what it looks like. But they had signed the documents that was no longer going to be the document that would be the constitution. Mary sarah so roger stands up and says this is terrible because it ought to be sacred. It is in that moment in 1789 that you begin to get this notion that something particularly special happened that summer in philadelphia. There is enormous contingency on the understanding of the constitution based on that decision. And then there is enormous contingency that they spent 12 amendments out. The First Amendment is actually number three. I dont think it would be important if it was the first [laughter] i have a third amendment right. It is thet sound first, it must be the most important. That is not right. The first two amendments, which are probably the first to be madison in his original list that were supposed to go into article one, they go up. They never get official numbers of adoptions. The First Amendment becomes the third amendment becomes the first i random chance. By random chance. Dont voted for the for that amendment, one of the first two, but by that point kentucky was in the list. You needed another they were perpetually one state short. 11 you could have easily had and it would not have looks like the bill of rights. It was one of the first of two that would have dealt with congress. We wouldve gotten used to that. People were not paying that much attention to the bill of rights in the 20th century. I think that one of the things that is implicit in what you are saying is that if you think of the bill of rights as americas magna carta, it is really a 20th century idea. By the way, as long as you look at the magna carta, the magna carta is throwing out the magna carta. Iss notion that there conversation of semisacred rights and principles created in one moment with fire over their heads if they had gleaning glances at the internal, no. That has never happened. That is not what happened in 19 1789 either. Madison wants to make sure the ratification process would be completed. North carolina still had not ratified when this was still a going on. And then, jefferson, who i normally do not make strong arguments in favor of [laughter] cared much more about the bill of rights that he did about the constitution. Without the constitution would go in 20 years. The bill of rights jefferson cared a lot more about what governments could not do them what government could do. He tended to ink platonically. The notion think platonically. The notion that this would be the premier political scheme of the first 50 years of American History, that really thought differently. They are absolute opposites the way they think about, in this particular case, the bill of rights. The overarching team of amending the constitution, and i want to get back to that question i asked at what point do you begin to touch on this . At what point does this become almost a sacred document, 10 arguments, this cannot be touched, there is danger in that . Jefferson that he would rewrite it every 20 years. Is there a way to identify it, or is it more gradual change . When we really start to get this point where he seemed to be at least many of us today joseph there is not a magic moment when appending congress continue to propose amendments. There is one about going to college in the mid1820s. A lot of that goes nowhere. , theep up the argument 13th amendment with freedom. It is actually the real basis of the lincoln movie. The academic advisor. It is for the like michaels book. , theis basic argument 1850s, amending the constitution has become a very dramatic idea because the framers had acquired this great aura around them. Circumstances to make constitutional amendments, it wasnt their initial, it was at the beginning that the best way to get rid of slavery would be a cause additional amendment. There is a complicated story about how it happened, but the consequence of that story was to revive the idea of amendment process itself, americans could go back to using. And so then come the 14th and 15th amendments. I many legal scholars argue about whether or not reconstruction constituted a second founding or quasisecond founding. A lot is pivoted on the idea that the constitution can be amended for historical purposes. I want to ask you, because i know you are working on a book of establishment religion. Joseph jack free exercise. And pick upome back on something joe said earlier. I think joe said, it was a fairly common perception among americans. What is it that rights do . Rights exempt us from the authority of government. With all respect to joe, i would disagree with that. Most rights do not exempt us from the authority of government. Most of the rights the process in the commitment amendments except the second because i is that enough about that, maybe too much most rights actually set of standards the government has to conform to. But it deals with us. It has to conform to when it deals with us. What is due compensation . Exercise amendment. Because i am writing a book on this, that is what religious different from free exercise. The exercise clause says the way in which historically radical in 18thcentury, here is a realm of behavior where the individual is sovereign. The government would no longer act at all. Would you believe as a matter of conscience that the men and women, men and women are created does, it doesnt span stand the gender gap. This is beyond belief, beyond conscience, radical free exercise of religion. Of all the rights we possess, the one that places the greatest emphasis on individual moral autonomy is freedom of religion. I agree with that. Jack other rights sort of create us that to give us privacy and the other language. Other rights presuppose the government will add. It has to come to some sort of fixed standards with liberty, due process, and so on. Maybe it pushes this, but there is a significant qualitative difference. I just want to alert you now we will come to your questions. There are microphones positioned at both staircases. Be careful as you make your way there. If you are beginning to lineup, we will come to your question in a moment. Mary sarah not to go back to thSecond Amendment, but when the First Congress and everyone discussing things about that, the issue that we care about, they do not care about. The upset the issues they are upset about our what to do with quakers, which religious conscience this is an exact point. They will not join the militia. Page after page, they are worrying about it. Madisons original draft in his june 8 speech, the clause is that, it becomes the Second Amendment. It has explicit language about those willing to circulate of bearing arms do not have to. Scrupulate of bearing right arms do not have to. It is tied to the Second Amendment and not the first. Enormous amount of discussion with the religious cross clause. Revelatory states. Jack in the 18th century context, the quakers would not have been perceived as a First Amendment issue. There was a Second Amendment issue tied directly to the whole issue of the militia. I am feeling a linear storytelling impulse. Ask one moreto question before i come to the gentleman at the microphone and i know him. Over want to skip maybe each of you could tell us about the ratification of the bill of rights and what are the key things we need to know about that, whether it is how contentions it was, he compromises that made it possible for certain states to get in. What are the things you think are important to highlight about ratification . Should we go in reverse order . [background chatter] [speaking simultaneously] states were concerned about federal government increasing powers, what the elastic clause meant, ratification of the bill of rights, no longer an issue in the state. Ratification put its course boring. Mary sarah one trivia thing. In the 20th century, some states like the state i am from, massachusetts, they had not ratified all of the amendments. They picked and chose. In the 1930s, it gets embarrassing and they go back and sort of ratified the ones they did not ratify to clear that up nicely. They didnt ratify any of them. One has did, the other house didnt. The federal government told them in 1939 that if they had not ratified, they were [indiscernible] what do you mean we didnt ratify . Here in massachusetts. Jack the do think that they were not enthusiastic for the bill of rights. He said it was an enormous project. It made him nauseous to himself and colleagues. He felt that the amendments that joe mentioned earlier, the one that would have addressed the states and the powers of congress, he described as the most valuable one that ties in with the whole theory, the real danger that rights would arrive not at the National Level of politics but within the states. There is a number of competitions. The most important is i think madison first and foremost had what was a truly early in theory about the ratification of the constitution. He understands for powerful conceptual reasoning, and to make it the supreme fundamental law, it has got to be submitted to some over sovereign. We have the state ratification convention. Others, they can really say only one or two words, yes or no to the whole document. They could not make approval contingent upon the adoption of the amendment. Acceptanceoved for by late 1788, i think at that point he had a more specific political understanding. I think he felt there was a lot of wellmeaning but misguided antifederalists out there. Madison did not think it was necessary. It is ok. It wont do any harm, but you want to be careful about how distracted. Politically, what he wanted most was to say, if you want to deal full process of approval i think we dont really understand what a process this was. Mean being enthusiastic about every clause. Ecigarette how europeans mingled constitutional treating you think about how europeans mingled constitutional treaties. How do you ratify an actual constitution through a course of popular discussion . Nobody really solved it. They did it in 10 months. I think madison saw the bill of rights adoption as a poster for this two weeks in term. There is a bunch of people, people still who want to assuage and conciliate them. We will give them some amendments, but we will not do anything with the structure of government. It was kind of a deal that was an appropriate something to put in my metaphor is terrible here. It would help to close the deal in a really [speaking simultaneously] Kenneth Madison never called this ambitious project. It was called the nauseous project, all the different states of their conflicting amendments. He was just appealing to hawkins. This is why the ink never dries in your history books. John we need to go to questions here. Ok, so when you ask your questions, it would be great if you could introduce yourself. Unlike me, i modeled badly. Ask a focus question if possible. Chris guthrie. I say first off it took me a little while to realize the bill of. Tt lift freedom of religion, most of the discussion back then seems to be different kind of process protestantbased faith. My impression of early america is that we were antijewish, fairly anticatholic. I have no idea what we thought about muslims. When we they discussed freedom of religion, did the explicitly include all religions, or do they mostly think of protestants . There are two answers here. They off, who is the always used to be qualified. So, the two points they wanted it is important for us to understand american ideas about religious freedom have a deeply radical reticent point. Ant forward jews and catholics, they were deeply anticatholic and antijewish, that is a problematic statement. There is so few of them. There are some thousands of catholics and hundreds, maybe a couple thousand jews. To be worshiping on their own, catholics dont care. They are not going to break the host. Rate the host in public. The first big