Transcripts For CSPAN3 George Van Cleve Making A New American Constitution 20221028

Just two days ago. We celebrated the 234th anniversary of deciding of the us constitution. The framers intended the constitution to be a fundamental framework of law. They did not want the constitution to be changed in response to transient winds. However, they also recognized that American Society and conditions would change over time in ways. They could not predict in 1787. George mason said amendments. Therefore will be necessary and it will be better to provide for them in an easy regular and constitutional way. Then to trust to chance and violence. Article 5 of the constitution lays out the amendment process and sent 1787 more than 10,000 proposed amendments have been introduced to congress. Only 33 amendments have gained enough votes to be submitted to the states for ratification and just 27 have been ratified. So is it too difficult to amend our constitution . During todays program our speakers will address some of the major issues surrounding constitutional reform and whether and how major reforms can be achieved. We look forward to todays conversation about these important questions. The first let me introduce our guest speakers. William treanor is the dean and executive Vice President of Georgetown University law center, and he holds the law centers paul regis dean leadership professorship. He joined the George Washington. Shes me the Georgetown University law center in 2010 from Fordham Law School where he had been dean of the law school since 2002 and paul fuller professor. George van cleve is deans visiting scholar Georgetown University law center he was formally Research Professor in law and history at Seattle University school of law, and he holds a phd from the university of virginia and a jd from harvard law school. Theyre joined today by my colleague emily voss director of education at the Robert H Smith center for the constitution here at montpelier. And theyll be monitoring. It should be monitoring the chat box throughout the discussion. So, please feel free to post your questions as we progress our speakers will pause for q a periodically throughout the program. And now ill turn this over to bill and to george. To you gentlemen well, thank you very much. Roy and george. No, please go ahead bill. Okay, i just wanted to say you know, what an honor it is to be here, and i know speaking for george as well as myself to be invited to montpelier and unconstitution day is incredibly meaningful. So really delighted to be here and thank you for this opportunity what were going to be focusing on at the very start is what doesnt work about the constitution and george has written and i just want to for our audience, but making a new american constitution really an extraordinary book and one of the things that you know, i i found very compelling about it and george will talk about it more. Is that it really challenges us with basic principles. What doesnt work about the constitution. What do we do about that . And somebody whos been in law teaching for more than 30 years. I really welcome this because this is really a critical moment. For consideration of that and we dont normally do it at law schools law schools are really, you know, classically about taking the next step or sometimes about understanding an area of the law but not about you know, stepping back and saying where doesnt it work and what do we do about it in a big picture way and thats thats what this book is about and thats really what our conversation will be about. So, let me start with what i think doesnt work about the constitution, which is thats our really our first arc here, you know, i think the core value of the constitution is that its a. Its a its a document a democratic governments, you know, it uses republican government principles, you know, we elect representatives. We elect a president. Theyre the one who in some ways, you know govern but at its core this is about democracy. All men are created equal all people are created equal. Thats our core principle. So, where do we see that . That doesnt work in our constitution today . And i i really find that. You know what we have to focus on is. You know, where is you know, where is is the voting process . Where does it work . So issues that im very concerned about are gerrymandering. And im very concerned about Campaign Finance. Gerrymandering is you know the Supreme Court a couple of years ago in the in the ruko case said that Supreme Court doesnt intervene in gerrymandering. Its a political question. You know unless theres racial inequities or you know, kind of other special areas, but you know, if its just if its partisan gerrymandering and state legislature is is skewing district so that you know as much as possible people will be from the legislatures dominant party Supreme Courts not going to intervene and thats a thats a crucial flaw in democratic governance that the Supreme Court has has set as part of our constitutional framework. So im actually right now im im talking from new jersey and its the new jersey map behind me, but you know, im im right now i live in maryland and the the Maryland Legislature basically packed all the republicans into one district so that every other Congress Person in the state was a democrat and you had one republican and the Supreme Court said thats a political question. Were not going to look into that right Campaign Finance the power of money. Is really drowning out the power of individual choice. And again, thats the Supreme Court decision. So Citizens United allowed packs to to flood. You know social media to flood tv and radio, you know without any checks on their expenditures. So those are and actually you know, were i think were gonna see, you know more things in the years ahead. So bonto, which was Supreme Court case from last term was one which you know, i think in the way forward it suggested youre not going to have to disclose. You know, who your donors are so that was a limited case about california rules, but i think the underlying logic is very broad. So those are two areas so i think the overlying under under you know, the basic principle the constitution is one person one vote. Those are two areas in which Supreme Court decisions decisions are really undermining it profoundly. But there are also problems that are just kind of in the constitution itself in the most powerful way and the biggest problem. Is is really the power of the states and the senate and the Electoral College. So again going back to my map. All of everybody in montpelier. I know im sure knows that new jersey at the federal Constitutional Convention said every state should get an equal representation in in the legislature. So there was a compromise and the senate represents the new jersey point of view and the Electoral College gives great weight to the states. So thats part of the reason why weve seen a number of minority president s, so i started off with two things where i think the Supreme Court got it wrong, but theyre also things that are deeply ingrained in the constitution. So thats what i see the problem george. What do you say . Well bill, first of all, let me say that i really appreciate your willingness to just pay this conversation because as your presentation shows, this is something youve given a lot of thought to i would say that i agree with the basic point youre making about the notion that the constitution was intended to create an effective political democracy, obviously at the time suffrage was limited and so on but thats the core principle was to create an egalitarian republic. But the concern ive got and and so i share a lot of the concerns that youve expressed about gerrymandering the Electoral College and so on but the concern ive got really goes further because in a sense. The concerns youve described are not enough democracy. The constitution should be more democratic the concern i have is that were in danger of losing our democracy. What do i mean by that . I think and my book tries to show that we face enormous social problems that are not being resolved. Just to take an example the level of economic inequality in the United States. Is so substantial that it is threatening the existence of the middle class. And one thing thats fairly clear. In democratic theory and in a recent book by Ganesh Sitaraman for example is if you dont have a middle class, you cant have a democracy. And really are constitution is founded on the notion. That there will be a middle class so that economic inequality which is far larger than it was 40 years ago is threatening the existence of the middle class. And of course, its also far more damaging to people of color than it is to the rest of the population and you can see that these kinds of problems and the pandemic the treatment of people of color in the pandemic itself. Theyre differential access to healthcare. Theyre different differential exposure to the disease and so on has got a lot of people really angry about the way the country is being run by the government and the constitution is our decisionmaking framework for the government. So if it isnt working, right we really have a fundamental problem and there are people at this point in the New York Times recently quoted a usc law office. For new tolson as saying that its her view that serious change isnt going to occur without violence. And thats how grave i think the problems were facing are. And im determined to try and find a way to bring about peaceful change. In order to avoid the necessity for violent change that i think many people are beginning to think might happen. So as i say, i think were in danger of losing our democracy not just of not having enough democracy and thats why the structural issues that you referred to at. The end are one of my major concerns. We are as a country that the constitution puts us in a position where it provides protections and you describe the Campaign Finance protections, but there are structural protections in the constitution for wealthy people politically powerful people. There are the constitution also structurally allows minorities. To make fundamental decisions whether its electing president s. Or putting Supreme Court justices on the Supreme Court for life. So we dont have a full republic. But beyond that we dont have a government that actually works. The separation of powers, which is the core of the constitutions decisionmaking structure at the federal level is broken. And im not the only person who thinks that the New York Times had a column a couple of weeks ago by greg weiner a thoughtful political scientist in which he said. That we have all of the vices. Of the separation of powers and in fact, none of the virtues what he meant was and i think ive i want to rephrase that because i think ive mischaracterize what he said. He compared separation of power system to parliamentary democracies and essentially said that we are now a a de facto parliamentary democracy. But that we dont have any of the benefits that you would get out of having a real parliamentary democracy now whats clear to me is we cant reexamine those kinds of fundamental structural issues in the constitution. On a piecemeal basis for example, if you increase the power of the president. Which some people think would be a good idea and you dont think it all about the congress . Your weakening the congress. Its a zerosum game. And as a result, youre taking away one of the pillars. Of separation of powers so i think that if youre going to reexamine the constitution at that level youre going to have to do it in a more systematic way than saying lets fix gerrymandering. You know, lets try to fix the electoral collagen and so on. I agree with you that those are all problems. But i think were in a deeper political hole than that. And as a result, i think we need to look at a broader set of solutions. Let me follow up on that. So, you know if you look at kind of the arc of economic inequality in the United States, right, so starting in the civil war really running through up to the new deal, right . You know, there was increasing stratification. Yes dramatic, right right and then starting in roughly, you know 1935 with with roosevelt, right . You know, it was really again for 40 years dramatic compression. Yes until you know, and you know, depending on the survey roughly 1972 73 right right and then starting then you know the obverse, you know again, weve been compacting and now dramatic. Differences right . So so were starting to look more like 1875 as opposed to 1965. Right . So so one question is how does your constitutional analysis fit into that . Why was it that at one point we were getting you know, we were the middle class was growing. Right right, and now its shrinking and is that is that just constitution . Is that the is that the key to reform and whats changed . Okay, those are all fair questions and given the amount of time we have today. Im going to have to be fairly quick and easy about a response but the level of global competition that were facing today is unprecedented. And it as an exogenous factor it plays enormous effect on driving down leverage for workers incomes, you know wages and so on and were stuck with that level of global competition whether we like it or not and what the constitution does in effect is to make the situation worse. And it does that partially by the Campaign Financing that you described. Which allowed 12 people to contribute 3. 4 billion dollars . To political candidates those guys are not contributing 3 billion dollars because they want things to change. You know must most of what theyre doing is saying to people leave us alone. So part of the promise Campaign Finance, but the constitution itself has both political protections for wealth and Legal Protections for wealth. Its not at all clear that if a wealth tax were adopted by congress it would survive this Supreme Courts constitutional review. And wealthy people know that and beyond that the political structure the constitution which gives disproportionate power two small states. The small states are the defenders at this point of the traditional economy. Theyre not the knowledge economy. Theyre the traditional economy. Theyre going to try and defend it and one of the ways they do that is to oppose redistribution systematically. So that if someone says no, i think we really should tax wealthy people more. Most of their representatives are saying no. No, what we need to do is tax less not tax those people more not tax anyone. So we end up in a situation where you dont even have the political will pay for programs that would collapse inequality by by taxing someone pay for them. Okay, thats whatever kind of long way around. But yeah, no, i think so. I think thats so part of it is kind of world situation, right . Its part of it is also kind of the political structure. So its actually let me just before we cut. I mean, id like to follow up on that because i think this is an area where we you know have some disagreement but emily emily voss whos asking questions. Is there anything that you want to to bring forward or should george and i continue with our conversation . Why dont you go ahead and continue and i have a couple questions queued up, but please go ahead and continue. This is a great overview. Okay, so actually, you know, george one thing that i was doing that was, you know was really very striking to me was in advance of this conversation. I you know, i went back and i looked at the 1960 president ial election, you know kennedy n so and there were there were a couple things that really struck me. So that was fine. Famously a hair brett selection, you know point one percent right, but it actually wasnt that close in the Electoral College. You know kennedy one by about 80 electoral votes, right and and it was all so fascinating you looked at. What states . Went democrat and what states went republican right to a striking extent, you know it it was almost a mirror image of of 2020. Yes. So i mean in other words like the northeast, you know the, new york, new jersey pennsylvania in both cases, they went democratic right, but you know the south was democratic in 1960, and it was republican in 2020 and the west, you know, particularly the far west coast was actually solidly republican in 1960, california went republican and not just i mean nixon was from california, but you know, it had been kind of traditionally, you know, you know as much republican and more republicans say than a democratic state. Right, so i guess what, you know one question that i have is im thinking about is first of all, you know, one of your core points, is that the small states small in terms of population will be andy redistribution and you know, isnt that kind of a phenomenon at the moment shouldnt that cant that change through politics in other words, you know, these are the states that are doing poorly economically shouldnt people there at the argument is made to them, right . You know say you know what we really should be in favor of redispute distribution because were at the bottom of the economic pyramid. Um your point about sort of large shifts in pattern over time obviously is perfectly legitimate. But the generation or two that we are looking at now. Running from about 1970 to the present. As a sort of configuration that has shifted into todays structure. Okay, and theres every indication that that structure is more tightly aligned now. Then really would have been true probably for the prior hundred years in terms of this solidity of peoples choices their opinions where theyre locating. I mean one of the common observations the political scientists make about polarization is the people are geographically sorting themselves. They can do that. They are doing that. So on the one hand can things change over a hundred period of time. Yes, i think they can. Do we need to look at . How the constitution is functioning over a century period or over a period where were systematically failing to address Priority National issues. I think if you look at the last 20 years what the constitution has really given us is two minority president s both of whom that people would say probably didnt do the worlds best job in office and it is a Supreme Court justice is chosen by a minority of the population and the jury still out on you know, how some of them are going to do, but the point is if we have a structure that systematically distorts the popular will which is the structure we currently have and it is more distorted every day. Because of the way the senate works if we have a structure that does that were going to increasingly make choices that people dont want to have made and if things dont work out theyre going to think that they didnt have anything to say about what happened to them which is why trust levels are at historic lows for the government. There has never been a time that we know of in our history when the government has had a lower level of public trust and then it does today. So these distortions that are built into the current structure and let me just say one more thing about the states in the book. I point out that many of the states at this point as a practical matter are insolvent. Or bankrupt i chose a group of five states and showed that the federal government directly or indirectly is providing more money to the citizens of those states than their entire state budgets. Those are states that are federal assistance was withdrawn tomorrow would fall apart. They cant possibly tax. To make up the difference in revenues and so the idea that the states are viable units and we should use them without question. To count everything is a really dubious dubious assumption to make today as opposed to 200 years ago when if a state wasnt a viable unit it fell apart. You know, it had to have an army. And today we have states that not only dont have armies. They cant provide Public Health services that cant provide education and if the federal government withdrew, its assistance to them they would cease to exist. Thats the reality here. So small states have a lot to defend. And a lot of what theyre defending is the way the status quo works. I dont see them. Announcing and theyre representatives if you just look at how the representatives vote. Theyre not voting for change. All right. So so i mean, so first of all, you know, i think if you go back to 1787, you know one of the great debates is, you know, are we a nation or are we a confederacy . Right so and and i think you know governor morris who ive written about, you know, one of the things that he you know, he hes one of the great nationalists and he says i am an american and he also says the states have been hazed badly and they should suffer more. So, you know, so, you know, so hes an example of a strong nationalist madison as a strong nationalist madison, of course leaves this consulate in 1787 because he hasnt achieved a lot of what hes wanted to achieve and you know, and the senate is a big part of that. So but i think you know, so i think but i would say, you know as were thinking about it right now. You know, theyre theyre two dimensions that youre talking about, but id like to kind of probe you on right. So one is you know, why is it that the poorest states . Small states get so much from the federal government and thats you know pork barrel, right . I mean the five you knows poorest states have 10 senators, right . And you know if theyre gonna vote for things, you know, you build highways and you build bridges and you you know, you build, you know, all kinds of Government Installations there right so that you know, thats pure pork barrel politics the other part that youre talking about that i also want to kind of press you on though is the sense in which theyre antireadistributive. Yes, right. In other words. I can see why they want, you know, bridges and military bases and the other things that you know are limited goods, but longterm, you know, why is it that they cant be convinced to support a wealth tax for example, which you would think is thats the california people are going to be paying the wealth tax. Billionaires so why is it that wyoming or montana doesnt say thats a great idea. Okay, that is a completely fair question and let me respond to it in two ways the people from montana and wyoming are unlikely to have a choice about whether or not to impose a wealth tax on californians because the constitution there is a perfectly plausible view would outlaw a wealth tax that was designed that way. Thats part of what i wrote about in the book and its part of what i mean when i say the constitution has a bias in favor of protecting the wealthy as to your point about redistribution and small states. I guess what i would have to say to you is this look at who represents those folks in congress. Because realistically of the two parties and its not fair to call them monoliths in any way but of the two parties one party typically favors programs that would involve a higher level of social welfare and some degree of wealthy redistribution. The other party is opposed to increasing most forms of social welfare, and in fact opposed to most forms of Wealth Redistribution again a broad brush, right, but look at who represents the small states, its the folks who generally are on the side of opposing increased economic fairness, i think and i try to explain in the book that they do that because times are hard in those states. People want to keep what they have. And unfortunately at least as things currently exist very often. The small states are dominated by elites that are traditional leads within those states for example the Coal Companies in West Virginia historically you really didnt want to cross a coal company in West Virginia because it had resources that would allow them to come back at you in a way that you would never forget and in fact in the book i talk about one controversy that involved buying buying potentially part of the Supreme Court of West Virginia involving a coal company executive. So these small states a represented by folks who think that a significant part of their job is a to bring in as much in the way of federal benefits, and its not just pork barrel spending, but its also a social welfare payments under existing laws. Their job is to maximize that and their is to protect the existing economy of those states which very often is an economy that from an environmental policy point of view. We probably would prefer to change. You know and so when it comes to Something Like Climate Change, im pretty sure that if you look at the numbers. The coastal states are going to be seeking. Real progress in Climate Change because theyre really exposed to Climate Change right not so much in, iowa. So my point about the small states is that many of them are traditional economies. Theyre representatives believe their job is to protect them. As best they can and its not to say that over the longer term you couldnt persuade them to support redistribution. But the new deal is a really i think not a great example for your point of view because it was a crisis. It was a christ. It was like the pandemic magnified 10 times, you know, the banks were going to close on tuesday and Everything Else was going to close on wednesday. So people were a lot more open to doing whatever it was you could do to try to make life better for average folks. Thats not the run of the mill experience in wyoming and montana, you know, the big ranches there. They just sold an 80,000 acre ranch in montana. For a hundred and thirty Million Dollars those folks are not going to be terribly excited about interference with the way they run the ranch i have you know, i have some distant family out there and i think i can tell you that from personal experience. So anyhow, thats thats my reaction. Yeah, i mean so there a couple things so first of all, lets lets talk a little bit about the wealth tax. So we check in with emily and see yeah emily sure. Yes, and so a couple potential questions which you know, i might put out for your consideration and if this is a good time great, if not, we can maybe parking lot them and we can visit them later. But so one one question has the the reason with regards to the the role of education of citizens in these structural malfunctions, so is it not perhaps just that these structures have become too large too cumbersome to overburdened but is there something to consider when it comes to . Frankly the lack of Civic Education that has been the case over the past couple generations, you know with folks really only getting a semester of civics a semester of government. Is peoples perhaps fundamental misunderstanding of the the way that federal Government Works . Part of this problem and then perhaps someone along with that. Peoples perception of which element of government is responsible for what is that also cause for confusion and also cause for concern thats your george you want to start and then ill follow up. Sure. Well, first of all, i agree that Civic Education in the United States could be dramatically improved. But explaining to people that they really should understand how the separation of powers works isnt going to change the fact that it doesnt work. And the case i make in my book, is that the core institutions created by the constitution really no longer function . In anything remotely like the way they were intended to function when the constitution was written. And so well we can educate people and i would hopefully would educate people and while i would like people to understand that this is not a sort of neutral machine that runs by itself. The fact of the matter, is that the they need to really understand something that goes beyond normal Civic Education, which is that we have a paper structure that works one way and an actual structure that works in a fundamentally different way at this point so ability to that. I mean i think so. I think one thing that that i think is clearly the case is that we dont do the kind of Civic Education that we should and that thats i think thats really a national crisis. You know, were not giving people an understanding of the of constitutional government. And i think you know one of the consequences of that is that you know, it reinforces kind of a lack of responsibility of government actors. Um, you have to say, you know, one of the things that you know that you know that you talk about at a very powerfully in your book. Is the way in which congressman and senators evade responsibility . Right you know, i always you know, one thing a moment that i always think of, you know, as were talking about, wyoming. Was what during the first gulf war . And the question of whether the senate would support intervention, and you know senator simpson getting up. On the floor and saying, you know, i remember. You know during the during the war in vietnam. You know, i was i was a young lawyer and you know, we would have had a softball league, you know, and i would play with other other people my age. And you know, i saw those pete so many of those people who i knew who were my friends. You know fight get drafted fight in the war in vietnam and come home in body bags. And you know, what was very powerful to me, you know was at a time in which you know you had you know, you know the president was kind of thinking this and kind of a grand national dimension. Right . Did you had a senator . You know whos talking about kind of what he personally had experienced and what it had meant for his hometown and what it meant for the people he knew right . And i think you know one of the things that i think partially will address you know this separation of powers crisis, which you accurately identify is Civic Education, you know where both representatives and people realize you know, what the role of representatives is, you know, and again, i mean simpson, you know just was so beautifully embodying that and thats something that weve lost. And that i would like to see more of and again i think Civic Education is a big part of that. Well, i appreciate the story very much. I wish that there were more people in the senate today who were as capable. As alan simpson was and as honorable in their service, but the reason that congressman avoid responsibility is because the system allows them to do that. And the incentives in the system are such that theyre incentivized to avoid responsibility and as i try to suggest in the book if you have 400 or more safe seats in congress. Youre gonna have a bunch of time servers. Who arent terribly interested in standing up and taking a political hit for an unpopular position . So i think that beyond Civic Education we have to change the incentives. That confront people who are going to hold Public Office that put them in a position where they need to take responsibility and be accountable. The the system unfortunately has some builtin easy ways to avoid accountability, you know, remember the house representatives can say, you know, i love this idea, but i know the senate will never accept it, so no i cant do it, you know by cameralism is a builtin excuse for avoiding accountability, but unfortunately the lack of competition the fact that these are at this point lifetime career jobs and i might say very highly paid by many people standards and with enormously great benefits and staff has a culture where if you can avoid responsibility very often that is what members of congress will do and so the president becomes more powerful because he becomes the focus not only of Media Attention but of everyone saying as happened during the eviction controversy recently, well congress didnt act so now its up to the president. To you know, make something up i mean talk about avoiding responsibility. You know first the president says to congress you need to pass legislation to extend this Eviction Moratorium at congress then fails completely to even try to do that in terms around and says no you need to do something to fix this problem. We cannot continue to have a system or people can play, you know hide the ball under the little three monty pieces as a way of doing business for the government. This is a decisionmaking system. That isnt making decisions. And i think but i think gerrymandering is a big part of that right . So let you know. Lets go back to its inside and say much about german. Let me just offer this up. Most political scientists have studied gerrymandering thinks that think it may involve a swing of 30 seats. In other words if you adopted the legislation thats currently pending in congress, which i think its highly unlikely will be adopted unless the filibuster is literally broken but assume its adopted most political scientists believe thats 30 seats. That are in play some of them were in maryland, you know for the republicans, but some of them were democrats in North Carolina. It balances out in such a way that there might be a net gain to one party or the other of 30 seats thats not going to do much to take a divided congress. And move the needle one way or the other. I mean, i favor gerrymandering reform just to be clear, but i dont see it as something that can really fundamentally change the incentive system. That were looking at that has developed over time. I mean, you know until 1946 bill congressman didnt get pensions. I did not know that right taxpayers were not paying pensions to congressman that had a tendency to shorten the terms of service. You know, you didnt need term limits because people said hey, i got to make a living, you know, theyre not gonna pay me a pension here. We now have a system. Whereas you probably know for a long period of Time Congress had the most generous pensions in in the entire federal system. And its only recently that somebody said oh that sounds like its too much you guys already making a lot of money. We have to cut that back a little bit, but the incentives for peoples behavior a really pretty fundamental so to go back to this education point. I mean, i absolutely favorite, but i want people to start thinking about this is a decisionmaking system the whole theory of separation of powers was to create incentives for each institution to jealously guard its prerogatives. Does it really seem to you that thats happening today that congress is guarding its prerogative to legislate and that its saying to the Supreme Court. Hey, you know you really shouldnt get to make those decisions. Were going to make them. Thats thats not the reality today. I dont think yeah, but i think so. Let me go back to gerrymandering. Lets talk about thats right. So theyre really two issues with gerrymandering one is is it andy democratic in that . Its skews what the house looks like, right, you know and as you say political scientists indicate 30 votes right . Thats actually a big deal. But you know, lets lets just, you know focus on that for a minute, but the other is you know, what it does is you know, it creates incentives to not legislate. It creates. So lets take maryland. Right . Right. So so maryland, basically, theres one republican district. Than their eight democratic districts and those eight democratic districts are never going to have a republican and the republican districts. Never going to have a democrat right . So, you know before you had kind of as elegant a gerrymandering system as we had now right, you know what you had in order to be reelected which you you know, you would have a real general election. Right, you know, so if youre democrat, theres a republican whos running against your republican. Theres a democrat running against you and what you have to do is to show that you did something. You have to show you know results, right and results are you know working in bipartisan fashion, right . Thats the old system right . But with gerrymandering youre the only election that you have to worry about is the primary so what youre what you you know, what youre gonna do is youre gonna run to your partys base, right . Because thats what you need to to win in the primary. And so your goal is not to say i did stuff right . Its to say i said stuff. Well, i agree with what you just said that i think youre sort of making my point because what youre really saying is political competition is a good thing. Yeah, and youre ending gerrymandering is not going to restore political competition in most of the seats in most of the country. There are 400 noncompetitive seats and no one thinks that restoring gerrymandering which i favor, you know ending gerrymandering. And thinks that its going to be enough to really restore the competition youre talking about, which believe me. I think that competition is critical. Because years ago when i was paying more attention to this sort of thing. I saw a situations where a democratic governor and republican senators. Were at odds with each other about some issue that was really important to the state and people had to produce. You know, they had to show that they were actually getting something done because if they didnt they can count on they possibility that someone else was going to come after them about it. So we certainly agree about the underlying principle that we need incentives. I just dont think that gerrymandering in and of itself is going to get us there. And because really the entire institution congress is an entire institution many people think is defunct. I mean william howell, whos a very capable political scientist the mercy chicago wrote a book with a colleague not too long ago and it literally says Look Congress is beyond hope cant be fixed and what we need to do is give the president more power to control the legislative agenda. Their basic proposal was oh the president should be allowed to force congress to vote on whatever the president wants them to vote on whether they want to or not. Im not in favor of that. In fact, im not in favor of giving president s more power, but what i mentioned this to make the point that these are very capable political scientists and their position is congress is beyond hope just not a functioning institution, and i dont think you can have a republic. Without a congress you can call it a republic if you want to but itd be like, you know, the french third republic. I mean its not a republican that in the way we think of what so were weve spent a lot of time on the sort of core question of what is reformed desirable. Maybe we ought to talk about whether or not any of the individual reforms. That people are interested in and that are popular really have any prospect to succeeding what he said lets yeah, lets focus on that. But emily we have one question before we turn to you know reform emily. Yes. Thank you very much, and this is a great question and okay, so whether or not there is a middle class and isnt the question of accountability and Fair Distribution of power and important question or problem within the constitution. So basically is the only definition of fairness. An economic outcome or is there some other way to interpret fairness and democracy outside of economic consideration . Yeah, thats a perfectly good question. And i think the constitution itself contains an answer that question. Which is that the rule of law and the principle of equal justice before law. Is another independent core definition of fairness. Is one that i not only support but that part of the reason i think reforms are required is that i dont think its being honored today, especially when it comes to the way people of color and particularly black americans are being treated by the criminal justice system. So thats a core principle that i think is independent of economic outcomes the point about the middle class is not about economic outcomes per se its about the fact that people believe historically in alexander. Hamilton is a good example that you really couldnt trust rich people to be fair to anybody except rich people and youre really probably couldnt trust poor people to be fair to anybody but poor people you needed someone in between who was saying to both groups of people. Wait a minute. Hold on. This isnt going to be fair enough to us as well as to everyone else. So you had a balance within the democratic system and most people think that at the time the constitution was written theyre actually was a fairly from american middle class and my point earlier was not that i think the constitutions necessarily about economic outcomes. Outcomes. Its about maintaining political balance. And about making sure that whatever policy. The country has to confront whether its the military draft. Or the war on in, you know iraq that the outcome is seen as broadly fair enough to people that we dont have people become so disaffected that they think guns are the answer. Right, so i mean so what youre you know to go back to the question. I mean, i think thats a terrific answer, you know. Economic equality is not the only definition of fairness in a democracy, but i think what youre saying, you know, it is a it is one definition of fairness and you know also if you want people to buy into the system, theyve got to feel like they got a shot. You know that they either have you know, they have a comfortable level of living or that they may get it or that their kids make it right and you know, what were seeing right now is you know, things are its getting more and more stratified and and so at some point people are going to say this is not working for me. Exactly, and and thats going to determine you know, whether that leads to violence or dramatic constitutional reform, but its going to lead to some powerful movement. And again, i think youre absolutely right about that but to go back to question. Its not the only definition of fairness. Yeah. No, absolutely and nor do nor do i think that the constitution was ever intended to create economic equality as such it was clearly not intended to do that and bill i would say just to follow up quickly on europe observation that one of the most disturbing things that i learned in the course of working on my book is how sharply social mobility has declined over the last four or five decades because as you say people need to believe to use the hackney phrase that if they play by the rules and work hard they have a reasonable future ahead of them and today the social mobility realities. Are that many people not only dont believe that theres no good reason for them to be right right. And so we need a system. That can maintain those kinds of promises to people and it has nothing to do with creating economic equality. Thats to do with things like making sure criminals justice is fair making sure educational access is open and so on. So thats russia mobility stuff was really really concerning to me the data there is very clear and very disturbing. Right and again, you know and its tied into you know, the kind of the rise of economic stratification, you know, its just you know, and were seeing it now and it just seems like its going to continue more in the future. So again, you know as we think through you know, what we as a society need to address. I think thats i you know, you and i are in total agreement. Thats something that we as a society need to address and the question now is kind of how we do that. Right . And so your Constitutional Convention, you know is something i want to focus, but let me just ask you lets talk about kind of other less traumatic sure options in whether theyll work. Right. So so one thing that you know, it seems to me that you know, and again we made disagree about how much of a difference theyll make but you know if Supreme Court opinions change, which i think you know, were talking about a couple of five four decisions, which i think are wrongly decided. I hope longterm they will change and maybe short term but Citizens United right, you know is one, you know Campaign Finance and and you know in jerry mandarin and the gerrymandering, i think actually the court is not as kind of locked into that as they are with Citizens United. No, i think youre right about that and and you i got the impression from the ruto decision on gerrymandering. That the court was accepting the idea that congress could legislate. To eliminate gerrymandering if it chose to do that and you know from what i can tell the current legislation takes them up on on that as Citizens United goes not only is the court dug in on that issue. But i dont think theres any realistic prospect. That theres going to be an amendment reversing Citizens United. And i dont think im the only person who thinks that a Professor Larry lessig whos written a couple of very good books on cuts on the Constitution Constitutional reform says he he thinks there is zero chance. That congress will adopt any reversal amendment and were ten years or so after citizen united and there are claims that despite the fact that congress hasnt given at the time of day and and wont in the foreseeable future that states supposedly support reversal. Which if it were true would still be 14 states short of what you needed, but more importantly if you look at the numbers carefully there arent 20 states. Several of those states have not taken any formal action as a state. And the states that have taken formal action are divided almost evenly between states who say what we want is for congress to propose an amendment. And states who say what we want is a Constitutional Convention that would consider an amendment now if the states are evenly divided on that prospect it doesnt argue well for either result occurring in the real world, so i hate to say this because susans united is very unfortunate decision, but i cant see any prospect that its going to be reversed in the foreseeable future and i think that thats right. You know, i think that you know, justice stevenss book six amendments one of the amendments was essentially overturning Citizens United, but i think just as a predictive matter that thats not going to happen in the near future. I think what you can have in the Brennan Center actually did a paper on this is, you know, go back to increased Public Financing. So it you know in other words kind of more government money, and i think thats actually i think thats something that may happen. So, you know that i think a positive step that partially addresses Citizens United. The i cant say what i think the prospects for, you know broad Public Financing would be although so far congress has lacked enthusiasm for any real Public Financing system as you know, bill the existing sort of matching system required candidates to say they wouldnt raise money outside of the system the matching fund system and pretty uniformly president ial candidates have said no, i think i can actually do a lot better than that and it may be the ethical thing to do to refuse to raise additional money, but hey, my opponents are doing it. So im doing it the nuclear arms race. In Campaign Financing is going to continue until someone, you know, really puts a clamp on everybody in the business because the big money is being spent on both sides. Okay politics, so so im not im not terribly optimistic about financing the other thing you and i had talked a little bit about is the National Popular Vote Initiative which in theory is an end run for the Electoral College and im in i certainly favor getting rid of the Electoral College, but im skeptical about the prospect after 15 years. That the npvi is actually going to get adopted you apparently dont agree with that, right, you know actually, but let me just go back one of the questions. I think emily asked somebody asked about what is Citizens United. Yes, and if if you have a short answer, thats a great. If not, i can drop a resource in the chat that will explain it further. Please its a Supreme Court decision five for the basically said you know. Political action committees can spend as much money as they want on electro campaign so long as they dont coordinate with candidates. So, you know just totally removed funding limits and weve just seen kind of the tremendous outpouring, you know, used to be that you know, there were limits on what you could spend on candidates, but you know if george runs for senate and you know, i have a Political Action committee, and i dont coordinate with him, but i you know, just say what a fabulous person is and you know lizard the airwaves thats fine so that you know, thats and that has really kind of totally transformed Campaign Finance. It really did open the door to an enormous increase not only in Public Financing but in dark money contributions. Of which there have now been probably at least a billion dollars worth money that nobody knows where it came from. Nobody knows why its there and so far congress hasnt done anything at all about dark money, even though the Supreme Court more or less conceded that they had the power to do that. Its one of the reasons ive skeptical about reversal is congress cant even get to the first step if you will, but you know, but i mean, you know, if you look at you know when you watch tv, you know, youll see a lot of things that look Like Campaign ads, but theyre you know, theyre done by packs and then theyll then youll find that at the end and also, you know just to go on the disclosure, you know, which is something that looked like it was open, but Supreme Court decisions last year in the california case, you know that suggests that even disclosure may kind of buy like the First Amendment so, you know, im not even sure that thats gonna stick right understand that that decision, you know puts a cloud over that issue. So emily, did you have more questions you thought we should take there is another really excellent question, but i think im gonna reserve it for after you have an opportunity to talk about the structure that you envision for making substantive change. Okay. So, let me just ask you one question, you know, so one of the one of the things that that you really focus on very powerful in your book is that there was a big discrepancy between the size of virginia and delaware, right, you know in 1787, but california is just immensely bigger than wyoming now in a way thats just almost a order of magnitude different, you know, and so so people like madison were unhappy with the original framework, but this is just this takes it and now its on steroids, right . So thats one of the quick and then that that affects the Electoral College as well as the senate tonight. Heres one thing that i was thinking of reading your book and and i wanted to get your reaction before we get to the larger question should california split itself into a number of states. So there was actually a movement a few years ago to put on the ballot to slick, california in three states and and periodically theyve been talk about splitting texas into four states, you know, is is that something thats short of a Constitutional Convention or you know dc becomes a state right puerto rico becomes a state so, you know that that would within our existing constitutional framework, right . We would still look more like at least 1787 than we do now. What do you think about that as a possible not a full solution but a partial solution . I guess my this isnt something ive spent a lot of time thinking about accepting one context. There is a book by richard crichner about the history of secession movements in the United States. Which came out a year to ago, and its a its a very well written book that does a good job of describing describing the history and there have been secession movements of various kinds throughout United States history i personally think that one of the reasons we fought the civil war. Was to establish the principle that nobody got to decide by themselves whether or not they were going to be seceding from the union. Yeah, but let me actually let me just before you go further. Its californias splitting into four. No, i understand that what im saying is im not sure its up to, california. But its actually theres a constitutional ive looked at this theres a constitutional provision about this and so what you need is californias got endorse it in congress has to endorse it, right . And so congress the question of whether congress endorses. It is really as far as im concerned the big question because theyre your reallocating the voting structure of the senate. And i literally have no way to know what would happen in the abstract because i dont know how many other people would say. Well californias going to do this. I think illinois should do this. I think new york should do this. I think we need 30 more senators. I mean it could it could turn out that its a very good thing but there would be an awful lot of people in states that couldnt split up who would think that was not the deal. So theres a good example in my view of something youd want to debate in a convention. Right, but you know the convention itself allocated literally allocated seats in the house representatives, you know that they they sat down and they said i think North Carolina should have three and someone else came in and said no. No, i think they should have four and so the convention itself. Allocated the seats because they were making a deal that they thought of as a grand bargain and one of the elements of the bargain was how many votes are you going to get in congress . So i think that if california and other states that thought that was a great example decided they wanted to do this they would be potentially significantly shifting the voting structure of both as the way the constitution works. Theyd be changing the voting structure both the house and the senate both of them and i personally think that rather than having this congress with its dismal performance make that decision it would be better to make it in the broader context. Of deciding what we thought about our national decisionmaking system. And how we would reallocate authority both between the federal government and the states and between individual states and each other. Its another example of my skepticism about changing one thing without thinking really carefully about what its going to do to the rest of the system would be i think my reaction. Okay, so i and just somebody put in i think emily somebody put in the chat the the admissions clause of the constitution, which is what would permit this and you know, weve seen it historically maine used to be part of massachusetts kentucky used to be part of virginia west, virginia is to be part of virginia, so we actually have actually in tennessee used to be part North Carolina and tennessees all of those all of those splits make the basic point that im making they were all made between free states and slave states. And they were yes, there was struck all the way through 1820. Yeah. No, actually they i mean they were literally when it was building our first one and it came in and prayed it came in right trade for for kentucky, right but the other two were no no, thats not true. Kentucky came in very early. So kentucky did now before maine maine is later. Amazing 1820. Its its kentucky in tennessee. Come in in the 17th, right literally the course of admissions for the first 20 or 30 years was the north gets a state the south gets a state now. Its actually i mean thats a separate and fascinating. Maybe well get invited back to montpelier on that but i would disagree with you on that as historical method. The main is an example, main and main and missouri coming together. Yeah, and thats thats not let me just finish shirt, kentucky and tennessee come in early before they realize before theyre kind of locked in on free state and northern states. And actually the north is stupid because they have vermont which is the 14th state and then they should stop and theyve let in kentucky and tennessee, but lets go back to thatll be when were invited back by roy and emily, but lets talk. Lets talk about your book and your basic. Weve got 20 24 minutes talk about your thesis and the case for it whether the responses to it, okay . So the basic argument that i make in the book. Is that because there is a need a clear compelling need. For largescale reform of the constitution and because its fairly clear. That many of the Structural Reforms that are clearly necessary. Cant be made through individual amendments or by Supreme Court decisions and so on that really the way youre going to do this if youre going to get reform is youre going to hold a Constitutional Convention. Because frankly there is no other viable reform route. You suggested a series of what i would think of this somewhat smaller reforms, but youre not going to restructure the separation of powers outside of a convention. Youre not going to change the structure of the Senate Outside of a convention. Because people are simply not going to tolerate that from the existing political system. So i think a Convention Really is. A necessary and what by and large the arguments against it are oh that would be worse than what we have now. Or oh, you couldnt possibly actually get anything done. Or gosh, you would just be dominated by the koch brothers. To be very, you know, sort of broad brush about the whole thing. So, let me just try and take some of these objections. And talk about it. And first of all, it seems to me its eminently practical to hold a convention. Its clear you could raise the money to hold a convention. Its clear that we can run fair and open elections whether its outside of the existing electoral system, which doesnt work very well at all as we all know or not. So its its practical to do this people worry about a Runaway Convention my goodness, might change everything. Well, Philadelphia Convention in 1787 was a Runaway Convention. So not all Runaway Conventions are a bad idea. But the fact of the matter is that convention has no authority of any kind whatsoever over anything unless and until its proposals are ratified. The only ratification system that is going to achieve any Public Acceptance is going to require a supermajority for ratification. If you say its going to be a simple majority, i think its a nonstarter. There are people who proposed that i think thats fundamentally misguided. There has to be super majority ratification and super majority ratification is going to create political safeguards against extreme proposals. We know that the 1787 convention. Did not make proposals that its members all supported because it was worried that the constitution wouldnt be ratified. And we know that some of the proposals that were killed at the convention would have guaranteed that the constitution would be defeated James Madisons a great example. He proposed that congress have a complete veto over any state action of any kind. And i can assure you having looked at the dynamics of ratification that that would have killed the constitution unquestionably killed it and yet madison. Was convinced that it was so important that he wrote letters to Thomas Jefferson complaining about the fact that he didnt get what he wanted out of the convention. I dont think anyone is going to get everything they want out of a convention. Thats why its a good idea. People are going to have to come to the table. And in return for getting some of what they think is important in the way of reform theyre going to have to agree to some things in the way of reform that they dont like and thats what a grand bargain is. The 1787 constitution is a classic grand bargain. No one got everything they wanted out of it. And in fact some of whats in it turned out to be a really bad idea. But it was a way of taking an intersectional conflict that threatened to break the country up. And resolving it and resolving it with a stable government that was able to support the expansion. Of the country across the continent so conventions are practical. Theyre not anywhere near as dangerous as people say they are despite the fact that they may produce some things that some people dont like there are political safeguards that can be built into the system. And you know, i i have to say having spent a lot of time listening to people complaining today. There are people who complain about the idea that a convention would be convened under article 5. In my book, i give examples of people who say oh even the existing amendment system is so dangerous. That we shouldnt even think about using it. Those are people who are essentially saying i dont want to see anything change. Or if i do see anything changed i want to control the levers of change. Youre not going to be able to do that. In this process youre going to have to come to the table. And reach an agreement. So those thats my basic reaction to the criticisms of the convention people. Theyre only going to accept this when they dont have any other alternative thats clear as long as i think scissors uniteds going to get reversed. I will never agree to hold a Constitutional Convention. So part of what im trying to say to people is wake up smell the coffee. Youre not going to get what you want. And youre not going to get anything fundamental changed the lesson until theres a convention. Okay, actually, so let me emily. There are a couple of questions in the chat. So why dont you ask george that and then ill jump absolutely so and theres theres a few structural sure about how you envision. This working. So for example number one who would be allowed to participate in a convention of this kind the followup being how would they be selected but a third then being the Philadelphia Convention was notably closed to the public and the participants were not to discuss with the Broader Society with the press or anyone what was happening. Do you envision a convention of this nature to be similar . Is this something that would happen behind closed doors in in effort to make coming to compromises easier . Those are all really good questions. I believe its the case that my book addresses each one of them in detail. And i dont have time here to give detailed responses, but what i would say is i envision. A popularly run process and by that i mean a group of concerned citizens would organize a committee that would have as its purpose. Establishing a call for a convention it would say when the convention should be held it would say what the basic crown rules for election delegates would be and so on and so on and it would put that out essentially to the public as a proposal for a convention and if there were enough public support to raise the money that would be part of the call then the convention could proceed in a sense. Its a little bit like running a Political Campaign in texas if youre beto orourke and youre running against a powerful incumbent you raise 80 Million Dollars in crowdfunded contributions so that theres no question whatsoever that youre going to be able to go forward with your campaign now as it happens, you know, you dont always win and that might be that might happen here as well. But the point is this would be a popular process to organize. What is essentially a private. Association and by that i mean it would be a meeting held by the elected delegates, but without any form of federal or state funding or sanction. So that this would be a group that would be protected by the First Amendment and not subject to claims that somehow it was violating someones rights in an unturned way unless it violated, you know, civil rights laws or Something Like that. Theres no question in my mind that people are going to fight bitterly against any proposal like this. I dont think it matters in 1787 several major states fought bitterly against even convening the Philadelphia Convention. They tried as best as they could. New york and massachusetts in particular to rob the delegates of the power to make any fundamental change to the confederation. Just absolutely bitterly opposed this in the new york Senate Hamilton and his colleagues propel who wanted to see a convention prevail by one vote. So theres no question that theres going to be better opposition. I dont think it matters one bit in the United States today everybody whos unhappy runs to court. But under the structure, im proposing those court cases are losers. Because this is privately raised money in small contributions to put together a large meeting to make proposals as to the question of. Public access and participation obviously circumstances are different today. Id say in the book the convention is going to have to decide how to balance the need for in some level of confidentiality and privacy as opposed to simply being broadcast on tv 24 7. But thats something that convention can work out for itself at the Time Congress. I dont know if most people know this or not, but congress. Commonly closes sessions to the public when it decides that National Security is at stake or defense issues are at stake or intelligence issues or at stake. The public doesnt say. Oh, weve got a right to know it says obviously congress has a good reason for closing this part of their meetings and theyve been doing that for 200 years. As i recall part of the watergate impeachment was held in executive session again for fairly good reason, so theres going to be a balance thats going to have to be struck by the people who put this together. I dont know if you can say in advance exactly what the balance should be but my broad point is that the fact that people dont like the idea of holding a convention. My First Response is tell me what you think is a better plan if you accept the fact that none of your individual proposals are going to go anywhere. Otherwise, arent you really saying that you think the constitution is unamendable . And will never change. And bill you are the one who pointed out to me that you are not a huge fan of the living constitution, which is all youd be left with. If you take the position that the constitution cannot be amended, so the first problem folks have if they oppose a convention is explaining how theyre going to get anything done in the way of structural reform. The second problem is that they got to get beyond pretextual objections. This may run away. Im not going to get what i want. They might do something terrible and explain what it is. Thats really wrong with holding a National Meeting to get to the heart of these problems when George Washington was preparing for the 1787 convention. He wrote to James Madison and said that he wanted madison to pursue radical reforms without regard to how anyone felt about them. Because they needed to get to the heart of what was wrong with the confederation. And you know i give that washington enormous credit. For understanding that the confederation was so fundamentally broken. That someone was going to have to figure out how to change it from the heart. Forward and i think were in the same position here. Honestly, you know when people start to give interviews to the New York Times talking about how its going to take violence to make change. I personally as someone who favors peaceful change and who doesnt like the french revolution the Russian Revolution or anything remotely like it as a way of doing business for a government. I get really concerned about that, especially when i think that people have a reason to be unhappy so its time i think for people who have proposals, for example, i mentioned this princeton thing to you earlier, i think bill that a series of Princeton Alumni were asked about their views on constitutional reform and one of them said gosh, i think it should be easier to amend the constitution. So do i. But you know what thats never going to happen unless theres a convention no one is going to agree to change article 5 outside of a convention. Thats just as clear as it could possibly be and i think we need to get past the point where people can offer up proposals for reform that they would like to see happen without having to give any thought whatsoever to how it is. Those reforms might actually be possible because really otherwise youre just kind of like school kids painting with tempera on a piece of glass. Were not making political change. So thats what i think the Convention Issue is really about. So let me ask i mean, i think its this is a very important book and i think its you know, as were thinking through how we move forward. You know, youre having us think about do we in some sense almost start from scratch, you know is very powerful and you know, i think well lead to very rich discussion. What id like to do is let me raise one concern and then i think emily has one question that she wants to ask to close. I mean one of my concerns about this is, you know, would it work in todays very polarized society right . So, you know when the 1787 first of all you didnt have the same kind of polarization that i think that you have now the legislatures all endorsed except for rhode island supported the setting people to the federal Constitutional Convention. It was within the governmental system. When you have you know, you had state ratifying conventions again within the governmental system. And you know the strongest opponents, you know, ultimately accepted the system, right . So Patrick Henry, you know the leading addy federalist in virginia. Becomes a federalist government governor, you know, he accepts the the results of the ratifying convention, which is a paper thin margin in virginia. Governor clinton in new york fights the constitution, but when he loses accepts the outcome and ultimately becomes Vice President , right so that the the losers buyin, you know, i have to say, you know, if you have what youre proposing, you know, lets say 80 of the people voting favor of it, you know, first of all, youre going to have 20 who oppose it, right . Youre gonna have people who say, you know, were not going to vote. So the 20 doesnt begin to you know, i mean right now we have, you know, incredible opposition to standard voting right, you know, what would be the opposition that were going to see so so my question, you know, before we go to emilys final question is isnt this going to produce in our polarized society. This is just not going to be accepted even if you get that is overwhelmingly in favor of the conventions document. Um, i think you raise a important question polarization. Is a fact of our political life and many people are concerned that it makes it impossible for us to agree about much of anything. There are two ways you can go in a really polarized society one is one group, you know the other group. And the other is the society can dissolve. Neither of those outcomes is anything we should be looking forward to in the United States now, let me go back to your points about the Philadelphia Convention. Ill explain why i think its actually a much better analogy for today. First of all, the country was incredibly polarized in 1787. If you go back to my confederation book. Theres an entire chapter explaining that congress had essentially convened had dissolved with no definite date for return. Several months before the convention. Why was that well, because the spanish treaty issue was so divisive. That people were talking about the need to leave the confederation completely. The reason that Patrick Henry didnt serve as a delegate was that he was convinced that the same guys who were trying to sell the spanish treaty would find a way to stick it into the constitution and make him eat it and he thought that was the end of the south as a political entity. So there was enormous polarization bill. I mean just enormous polarization. I really strongly encourage anybody who doesnt follow this the spanish treaty in past in 1786 to go back and take a hard look at it because it was driving the country completely apart. Thats why washington thought it was on saturday to have a convention. The second point you made is oh the states all endorsed this. No, actually thats not quite what happened. What happened was that virginia put out a call for a convention at the end of 1786 and several states quickly jumped board, even though the Continental Congress actually had the exclusive authority to call a convention and it had opposed an earlier proposal for a convention. The states went ahead without them outside the confederations rules and at that point, massachusetts and new york tried to find a way to stick a fork in the process by killing it completely or making sure that the delegates had no power. So this was not uniformity uniform endorsements pieces of paper that people later put together to say well send delegates washington didnt agree to go to the convention until he was sure that every state not only would send delegates but would send them with unrestricted authority and would send people that he thought would be willing to come to the table and actually reach an agreement if you read the correspondence between the governor of virginia and washington about this washington turned down two appointments. To be a delegate to the convention, you know before he finally ultimately agreed and he agreed because by the about six weeks before the convention, he finally concluded that there was a real basis for believing that this polarized country would actually be willing to come together and try and work out an intersectional grand bargain. You know that there were huge sectional differences of opinion. And the sections essentially compromise them and philadelphia. Thats what washington wanted to get done to move enough power to the federal government to give it the ability to run the country as a whole and to resolve sexual controversy. So among other things for example, the northwest ordinance got passed just by coincidence during the Philadelphia Convention the spanish treaty was killed just by coincidence more or less during the Philadelphia Convention because a grand bargain a section intersectional agreement was being created. So do i think that today is kind of like that . Yes, i do. I think its kind of like that and i think we have a similar choice to make about the future of the country at this point we can continue to sort of move around the edges and think well if we could just get rid of the filibuster. You know, everything would be fine. Okay. Well, let me tell you its clear from the constitutions political structure the getting rid of the filibuster is not going to make everything fine. Climate change legislation for example isnt going to do any better. After the filibuster is gone then it would do before gun control legislation wont do any better after the end of the filibuster that would have done before so we can as i say we can sort of tinker around the margins in a variety of ways or we can come to terms of the fact that the kind of rioting that took place. I guess its two years ago now. Is was a real expression of genuine unhappiness with the core way that weve been running the society on behalf of a lot of people and the people who are involved in the demonstrations peaceful protests and so on were a very large group of people probably as large as the vietnam war if you added up all the people so theres real unhappiness and we have a choice about how we address it and im real skeptical and this is what the book says that under the existing structure. Very much that matters is actually going to get resolved and im not alone as these rana whos a rising young constitutional scholar talk to the New York Times and said he thinks the government is headed toward institutional paralysis. I think thats exactly right. Were simply not addressing these issues. So i think you know, i think were i think everything youre saying is right about the history of 1787. I do think that there was a legal sanction thats very different from what youre envisioning and thatll be very important. But i think emily has kind of one big question that we should leave on because it really goes to the federals emily it does and actually george you referenced it a little bit already. So the question from earlier was the biggest world crises today are Climate Change pandemics and economic wealth disparity and the biggest stakeholders in all of those issues. Our children and then generations yet. Unborn who have no voice. They have no direct influence in the process that youre describing. And the the questioner goes on to say the writers of the constitution. Were not thinking about Climate Change or pandemics or economic disparity and they were solving the problems of now so is there a way to create a constitution or a system that will prioritize the interests of children and generations yet unborn . Instead of just solving the problems of now. So let me answer that and then i think george since its your book. I think you should close but its a terrific question and you know to some extent this was a big debate between madison and jefferson. Jefferson said you know 20 years. You shouldnt be legislating beyond that you shouldnt be legislating for future generations and what madison was trying to do was to put in place a framework that was sufficiently supple. So that future generations would be heard so that you know, that was a great debate in 1787. It continues now and i think you know the question and i think you know the the big problem with the constitution is it was the questioner says its more than 200 years old and the people were responding to a very different set of circumstances. So, you know the you know, i think in some sense the Compelling Force of georges book is to say shouldnt we be thinking now about both ourselves and what comes ahead and you know, i think you know the reason why ultimately i think im reluctant to sign on with georges that you know, i think that madisons recognition of the importance of a constitutional framework particularly at this moment where were dealing with such a divided society, you know outweighs kind of moving and starting from scratch, but you know, george makes the case very powerfully, even though i disagree with it. So george closing so i also think its a great question about how to reconcile the interest of different generations in a constitutional framework and bill is certainly right that Madison Jefferson had radically different views about that. I personally think that at the core of this problem is resilience. The government needs to be resilient it needs to be able to cope with. Changed conditions and even dramatically change conditions. The pandemic would be an example. And what im confident of is that todays government lacks resilience. It is a rigid system that does not have the trust of our citizens and as a result when we try to change social behavior relatively quickly as we did during the pandemic and awful lot of people say im not on that train. I dont trust those guys. And you know, we need a government that can be resilient and we need to create the incentives to look to the future and thats why Climate Change is so significant in this debate. I really am firmly convinced that one of the fundamental problems we have with getting decent Climate Change legislation. The United States is the structure of the senate. Because you look at the voting patterns in the center to ask yourself who is going to be voting. For significant Climate Change legislation in the senate and youre going to find a lot of the folks that have been given disproportionate authority. There are 28 states that have 56 of the votes in the senate and 20 of our population. And they have a controlling interest block in the senate if they decide to oppose Climate Change, so we need a resilient system. We need a system that can change to need to change conditions and to protect the interest of the future generations and the current constitution does not do that. Thank you. Well, thank you both a very much for your your perspectives this evening. Its been really really fascinating. So thank you all for the the viewers and thank you all for your excellent questions, and we certainly hope that you keep this conversation going whether its around your dinner table or with friends. This is certainly an issue that this is far from over. So we really look forward to seeing how this conversation out coming up. You yes and george. Thank you very much emily. Thank you roy and thank you for all of our parti