I was very pleased with how popular it became it i wasnt entirely surprise. I remember when it first went to broadway thinking this might do well in part because the American People have a certain long before the founding generation, a longing for an understanding of it. They understand that the generation that if figured out, was not a utopian civilization but they were interesting people. They were people who set in motion a government that would last through the ages and would foster the development of the greatest civilization the world had ever known. A lot of the stories from the founding era have been lost by attrition in some cases, benign neglect and others. Maybe deliberately in some cases. Some wanted to reconnect the American People with some of our forgotten founders. Host i want to ask you about that but first hamilton, did you see it . Guest it. Ive listened to the soundtrack countless times. I been waiting for the price of the ticket to go down just a little bit of the 10,000. Host its i think worth seeing because the keyword in what youre saying was people. What hamilton makes clear is the founders were people. Thats what i see and your book as well and its of lovely rendition, so many different founders, many people who folks havent heard of. Sure, you cover people, people know a lot about ehrenberg but then you also have in your book remarkable people, mercy warren ehrenberg native americans, and your whole chapters on each of these people and want to talk about each of them but i think my first question is how in the world to give time of your sitting United States senator. To do a book that surveys just not absent if unassertive like campbellton but people who nobody heard up today. I have long airplane right. Ive sometimes long recesses and lots of pentup emotion whe it s to federalism and separation of power. Host your day job is not enough to keep you busy . Guest my day job dovetails quite nicely with this subject matter. Im always on the lookout are good stories. Whenever i good stories i like like to write about them. I taught constitutional law for 20 years. Ive never heard of how does a story like that come to you . Guest i can say when on the lookout for them they come to you gradually. Ask friends come of the people who they thought should get more credit than they did. This is an iroquois indian chief and interest of the principle of federalism because they lived for centuries before we were our own country. I was intrigued by the from the outset because if not in a most people know anything about. And yet he had a profound impact on our system of government. Hes the guy who enabled Benjamin Franklin to learn about federalism and Benjamin Franklin isecunda to which this information flowed for the rest of the founders. Maids were forced into the articles of confederation and then anymore perfectly into the constitution. Host amazing amazing. Before we get into that, the subject matter of the book itself, i did have the privilege as i mentioned to meet your late father was a legendary figure, one of the Top Supreme Court advocates, and really the father of the modern Supreme Court bar. Is there an influence from him in this book . Guest without question. As i was growing up we talked about things like federalism and separation of powers around the dinner table. I think i was 32 i relies not become does that. I think they should. It made for interesting dinner conversation in our home. My dad used to say there are these two structural protections that are as important as any of the feature of it. And that one is vertical and we call the federalism. The other sores awfu on and recl that separation of powers. When you put those together they prevent any one person or one group of people from getting too much power and using those who are subject to the government. Host maybe for the ideas tell everyone about what to federalism means and what separation of powers needs and had a different. Guest federalism to distribute bi within our government along a vertical axis meeting it organizes the balance of power between the federal government on the one hand and states for the people on the other hand. It sets the default principle both in the original constitution and by extension to the tenth amendment. I default proposition that most powers are going to be the state and local level with the people, and those identified as federal are vested in congress. It articulates those enumerated powers that are federal most of which are found in article one , section 8 of the constitution. Those that are not found there and are not reasonably linked to that were necessary and proper to the accomplishment of one of those and by that im referring to powers like, it provides clearly for congress to the power to provide for our National Defense for various closet of article one section eight. It doesnt specifically identify will be no call the Veterans Affairs department, but it contemplates that because it is necessary and proper. You cant have an Effective Armed forces or should i do take care of your veterans. Everything else that is not properly allocated to the federal government through the constitution is supposed to be reserved to the states or to the people. Host lets take, make it concrete for everyone, like a lot of states are legalizing marijuana. And isnt something that the founders what it said that if something should be left to states and the people . Guest yes. Most certainly it wouldve been. As a matter First Principles i think deciding whether or not youre going to allow a particular treatment, a particular pharmaceutical product, for example, especially if the product can be produced and sold entirely within the state in question, that a state to have that power. Congress has taken a different turn in recent decades and has come up with a comprehensive regulatory scheme. If we were to return to First Principles we would probably cultivate a system in system in which each state could decide for itself independently whether not to allow that or any other treatment. Host you call in the book for a return to the First Principles. Am i to connect the dots and say your vision of the constitution is one that would prevent the federal government from this and to allow that to be for states of the people to decide the legalization of marijuana . Guest ultimately yes, thats the logical conclusion one would reach. That doesnt mean we can do it immediately or abruptly or ignore existing federal law. I do think taken to its logical conclusion the tenth amendment and the principle of federalism within the constitution as a whole contemplates a state ought to be up to decide that. I would phrase it differently than you did. It is a matter for the state to decide, the people get to decide that at the state level and thats with the constitution does is it allocates what part of government undertakes which task. Host so would that be true as long as the product could be confined within state lines . Dimmable moved to the book, but lets say its not marijuana for heroin. I could also be confined within state lines. So with this in view say that states to legalize heroin . Guest youre talking this something that can be produced entirely within one state. If the state wants to do it. The principal federalism would suggest yes. It would also suggest that congress can decide whenever somebody is moving in interstate commerce, if there is an interstate or International Commercial transaction involved or one involving indian tribe, that would implicate caucuses federal power. Host but if its when the state bounds and so on, then your constitutional view is guest as a matter of first principle that is a state animal subject to state regulation. Host lets talk about your book, you say that a lot of people are ignoring certain founders, haviland about them. I dont think your sink in some malicious way, even people who care about the stuff dont learn about some of these people. Who are some of her favorite people in the book as you talk about that you want people to know that . Guest i really like the story of Luther Martin, the original antifederalist. Antifederalist. Most people dont know much about it. He was an interesting guy. He was drunk almost all the time. He was a successful lawyer, started out in virginia, when to maryland and ended up becoming marilyns longestserving attorney general. Was also a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He was so the choice was drinking at one of his clients upon reaching him demanded that as a condition of the agreement between the client and the lord that Luther Martin refrain from drinking got the representation. So Luther Martin got around this by taking al a loaf of bread, soaking getting brandy and then eating a piece of the bread whenever he felt like he needed a drink. As a lifelong woman who doesnt drink, i find this one quite curious. But Luther Martin foresaw the fact that the constitution might enin the producing a system in which it would be a dominant federal government, one that would erode upon the rights of individual americans to be governed at a more local level. I think he was head of his time in this regard. Host just on the very first page of that Luther Martin chapter, theres a fabulous chapter, so engaging and fun to read i think in a way a lot of history books are not. I recommend the book as a whole but particularly that chapter. The first page as that Luther Martin was really upset about the Philadelphia Convention enclosed in secret. That of course has been set up as one of the great things that 89 men walked into the Philadelphia Convention on a hot day in may 1787 and a close those doors and they dont leave for three months. They debate everything and it doesnt leak. Because it doesnt leak they can really have a full fair debate. And then they go and sell the constitution to the world and that ratifying conventions and so on. You have the privilege of serving in the senate for a while now. Sometimes you do have closed hearings for various things that you are also exposed to all sorts of classified information. Was Luther Martin wrong to say that the convention should have been open and not closed . Guest he would be critical of the decision to close it. It goes against what we feel like is the command of good government. Yet i understand why they closed it. I think you are right in suggesting that this probably could not of happen, but would not a turned up the way that it did have been not closed it. Its the semi can criticize Luther Martin for raising the concern, especially the way i do things i probably wouldve been critical of that decision as well. Does mean i wouldve been right in that instance. The document do produce i think is good. Host and today i think what is your view on government secrecy . Do you think martin that theres basically sunlight everything you should do is in somewhat . Guest it illuminates and disinfects and i think the process demands the kind of transparency that we typically happen. Youre right, there are times when we have classified precedent, classified hearings where classified information is being discussed that cant be released or else it would undermine some of the National Security interest. I understand that. I do worry sometimes that there is an overclassification phenomenon that can occur especially with some hearings. I have attended some hearings in the senate that event scheduled for a classified setting, have been deemed classified where very little if any actual class that information gets discussed. It makes me want at times whether those scheduling it in classifying it just want to keep the press out for the own convenience. Host have you ever thought about, maybe it sounds hokey, but using a Luton MorrisonLuther Martin argument and say what are we doing . Our founding principles really to call it generally for openness. There is some need for national skewed as you say but to try to push the body element in favor of openness . Guest yes. Absolutely. I dont have a thought about it bubut i spoken to my colleagues about it. It is important to me. One of the things i found frustrating, there been times when passed legislation where i discovered a as a classified anx to this legislation. Ill send one to go see the classified annex. One time i was finishing readig the classified annex to a piece of legislation and i said okay, i guess thats about it. One of the staffer said he had seen annex to the annex. And i said okay, show me the annex to the anixter he said eyecatcher you that. Why . Because its classified in a way that doesnt allow you to see it. Sigh stability comes on being asked of some member of the senate to vote on something that has an annex to annex that im not about to see. This was deeply troubling to me. It was later explained to me there are legal nuances. I said of the people explain to me technically thats not part of the legislation. Technically thats analogous to commit a report. But regardless i found a troubling. Host absolute. One of the other things you did in your career was for the Supreme Court for justice alito. The court has come under some criticism for not having cameras in the courtroom. Its almost functions to Many Americans like a secret body. They do have written opinions in the way that you written bills that you pass and legislation but the process is only visible on any given day to about 400 people and i think only about 100 seats are for the public or Something Like that. My math might be wrong but its not a dramatic number. Wouldnt Luther Martin like principles counsel in favor, he couldnt contemplate a camera let alone a kind of web streams or argument or Something Like that, but with those principles be counsel in favor of cameras for the court doing its work . Guest possibly. It may will be the case. It is a different, you referred to some of this, most of what happens in court is an open process in that the briefing most of the arguments as you know better than anyone consists of briefs that are submitted. They have an oral argument. The oral argument transcript are available to a good sometimes audio records are made available to everyone. Not everyone can see it and see it live, but this is only one part of the process. I would love it if they did open it up. As a lifelong if his use of the Supreme Court, someone who started watching Supreme Court arguments at the age of ten for fun, i would love nothing more than if the Supreme Court decide to start televising arguments. I dont think its up to me as a member of the Article One Branch to to article iii branch, the Supreme Court how to manage his courtroom. In the sense that dont think would be appropriate for us to pass legislation requiring them to cameras in the courtroom. If they allowed cspan in there or of the cameras, i would be thrilled. Host i knew you would be thrilled but i think the questions dont you think would be right for the American People to be able to see this . I just ten the respecting constitutional boundaries and you will not pass legislation, but branches give each other advice all the time. Certainly the courts are not shy about giving you exactly. Would you be willing to give the court, the Supreme Court some advice in that regard . Guest i think would probably be a good idea, a net benefit for the public. I said that because i think members of the public saw the way arguments are handled in the Supreme Court. I think it would be encouraged. They may not agree with the outcome of the courts deliberations in every instance, and even though the court frustrates me at times i would hold up against any of its counterparts anywhere in the world. Host i completely agree. Guest i think the American People would be thrilled to see how it works to see the caution, the care that is put into each and every argument. Host well said. Lets talk about another of the found in your book, edinburgh. Tell us about him. Some people know about him from hamilton, the guys the baguette in the play who shoots hamilton in the dual but there is so much else to this mans story and a chapter really brings it out. Guest hes known as the damsel who shot as a say in the play. But theres much more to him than that. He was the Vice President a United States of course under Thomas Jefferson , even that story is quite interesting how he became Vice President. Guest as is the fact once he became Vice President he became this defender of the little guy, this defender of those who face impeachment trials, and facing impeachment trials for host the chief justice of the United States. Guest well said. Hardly the whole guy. But aaro aaron burr without rego their station knew only that these people were facing a trial. Facing a trial in the senate. They could either be treated fairly and with due regard for the Due Process Rights or it could be rushed through in a Kangaroo Court type fashion. Would have been tempt