and sock rah tease' café was meant to be a space for friends and foes alike to gather together and explore thoughtfully and reasonably timely and existential problems, an exploration that ideally makes people feel bound together more. um, that was sock rah tease café, and this is constitution café, kind of a follow on in a very imaginative way. let me just ask you a question first. what word does the people's republic of china ban in its blogs and chat rooms but uses many, many times in its own constitution? [inaudible conversations] >> freedom? democracy. how can that be? they're a democratic republic, they claim, and yet they won't allow that word to be used in its blogs and chat rooms. how can that be? off with their heads. however, let me ask you another question. what word is not in the u.s. constitution that you think might be there? i mean, it's beacon of the free world, after all. what word is lacking that you might think? yes? >> democracy. >> democracy. it's in that 4,543-word document. -- it's not in that 4,543-word document. many scholars mistake this do call the united states a constitutional democracy when, in fact, it is a -- >> republic. >> not just a republic, but a constitutional republic. so what is that? constitutional republic is a state, country in which the head of the state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional laws, at least theoretically limit the government's power over all of its citizens. the fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the country constitutional. democracy, on the other hand, is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. well, what document do you think affects the decisions they can make in their lives more than the constitution? um, we'll talk about that a little bit more in just a little bit. the framers of our constitution were radicals at least in this one sense; they wouldn't settle for simply reforming our original governing document, the articles of confederation and perpetual union. they decided that no amount of revising the articles would call advantage them, so the united states need to be constituted anew. not merely with greater power, but also in a way that resolved the underlying uncertainties that they believed had been generated by the articles of the confederation. so the two principle boosters for a new constitutional convention were unlikely bed fellows, james madison and i know some of you people know the other one, who else? >> [inaudible] >> alexander hamilton, at the time an assemblyman in new york. they believed it was time to totally revise the articles. however, the articles of confederation, our original constitution, had this very hard and fast stipulation that any changes made to it had to be agreed to by all the 13 state legislatures. but guess what? when the constitutional convention was convened, only 12 states showed up. rhode island, like patrick henry of virginia, smelled a rat, didn't want to have anything to do with it. so from the very beginning when a majority of the 55 delegates from just 12 states determined the articles could not be saved, the argument could be made they had no sanction to do so. it was an illegal act from the very beginning. couldn't do it. they did it anyway. thomas jefferson learned of their plans from his post in france. a lot of people think thomas jefferson was there, but he wasn't. he was across the water in france. he claim today like much, the principle, the general idea of framing a government which should go on in itself peaceably without needing, as the articles did, continual recurrence to the state legislatures. with the articles all the state legislatures had to agree on just about anything whether it was coming to a treaty or taxes or anything, they all had to agree, and it was just a mess, granted. but even so, that's what they agreed to have. they wanted a highly devaluized government after what they had to encounter with the monarchy. um, even after those taking part had been authorized to carry out the creation of a new constitution, you could make the case that for worse or for better they with respect representative of moat -- they weren't representative of most americans. the typical delegates of the constitutional convention was a privileged member of the upper class and didn't represent directly in any reasonable way american note as a whole. rather, the 55 framers represented the white adult male affluent or near affluent segment of the population. but you might ask, couldn't the same thing be said of the founding fathers? after all, those patriots who signed the declaration of independence were almost unrepresentative of americans as a whole. one telling difference was they signed a galvanizing and unionizing document befitting of thomas jefferson's characterization of it as an expression of the american mind that set the colonists free. the constitution, on the other hand, arguably was meant by those who crafted it to rein them in a good bit. only eight of our declaration signers also attended the constitutional convention and served as framers for the constitution. but even with the absence of the likes of thomas jefferson and most other founding fathers, there were still some very exceptional men of talent and public virtue. for instance, james madison who's considered the father of the constitution, he might not have been a signer of the declaration, but he still was one of our greatest political scientists according to most political theorists today. yet even the incomparable madison couldn't foresee the future of the american republic, nor could he draw on knowledge that might be gained from later experiences with democracy in america and elsewhere. i mean, while the knowledge of madison and his fellow framers may well have been the best knowledge available in 1787, the fact was that reliable knowledge about constitutions appropriate to a large representative republic was, at best, meager. and so they were limited by, so to speak, their inevitable ignorance. nonetheless, the framers of the constitution felt certain that the high value they placed on republicanism was overwhelmingly shared by citizens of all states. there's one hitch to that though. the framers never asked their fellow americans what they wanted, and so they never gave them a chance to weigh in on what specific type of republican system they preferred. rather, with madison steering the proceedings, the delegates agreed to keep their discussions private, supposedly so they could speak freely. as a consequence, there's no public record of the proceedings of the constitutional convention. thomas jefferson, for one, was dismayed by this news, and he wrote to john adams, i am sorry that the convention began their deliberations by so abominable a precedent as that of tying up the tongues of it members. in jefferson's estimation, nothing can justify this example but the ignorance of the value of public discussion. nonetheless, on september 17, 1787, the new constitution was approved, but only by 39 of the 55 delegates. so we can argue about whether that was a good thing or bad thing or not ad nauseam, right? but the two years, more than 200 years after the fact a very prominent political scientist from yale, robert dowel, he asked some very unsettling questions. have we americans ever had an opportunity to express our considered will on our constitutional system? how many of you have had a chance to officially formally express your considered will? just raise your hands. [laughter] oh, come on, don't be shy. how many? oh, come on. not one? nobody's asked -- okay. question number two, how many have ever participated in a referendum that asked them whether they wanted to continue to be governed under the existing constitution? show me your hands, how many. referendum, how many participated? goose egg again. hmm. so dowe says then the answer, of course, is none. nobody's ever asked us. i mean, but we're not alone, in all fairness. not even in ancient athens, the so-called cradle of western democracy, did people have a voice in the creation of their written constitution. now, in recent years new national constitution have supplanted outmoded ones, and emerging democracies throughout the world from kenya to ecuador, serbia and egypt. and nearly all cases referenda were held so that the people themselves could vote on the new constitution. however, in no instance were regular folks ever invited to any table to participate themselves in the framing of their governing document. never. i'll talk to you later about an example. there's one example that i know of in which regular folks were asked, but we'll talk about that later. but winston churchill famously said democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. but has democracy itself ever been fully tried? perhaps paraphrasing g.k. chesteron the on christianity, we might conclude that democracy hat nonbeen tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and not tried. well, enter thomas jefferson, fellow alumnus of the college of william and mary. he graduated a few years earlier than i did. i received my bachelor's in government there, studied jefferson a great deal. i remember way back in my studies that jefferson, for one, derided those who looked at constitutions, quote, like the ark of the covenant, too say red to be touched. jefferson believed that such people ascribe today the men of the proceeding age a wisdom more than human. to him, we might as well require a man to wear a coat -- to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain under the regiment of their barbarous ancestors. never let it be said he didn't have a knack for overstated panache. [laughter] okay, so that's how jefferson felt about the matter. but americans venerate the constitution for the most part, even if -- how many of you venerate the constitution? how many of you like it? all right. let me finish the second clause. okay, americans venerate the constitution even if most of us don't actually know what's in it. [laughter] no offense. national center for the constitution in montpelier, virginia, the former home of james madison, did a national survey that found that younger folks aren't so satisfied with it, older folks like it just like it is for the most part. but what do they have in common? haven't read it. [laughter] in a really long time. how many of you read it in the last week? last month? yeah, i see that little wiggle of a hand. what does that mean? how many have read it in the last year? one. well, okay. so we venerate the constitution, but we haven't read it. a lot of us feel like it's over our heads, out of our reach. beyond reproach by us mere mortals, and this intimidating ideal arguably only makes us to feel like the system it begets can never be changed no matter how much it contributes to apathy and anger. sure, we argue over the way elected officials and judges interpret the constitution, but few of us have qualms about the constitution itself. and meanwhile, our politicians outdo one another in declaring themselves more true to the constitution than their opponents. from the president on down, they give their solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend that babiment -- baby. so as dysfunctional as most people of political persuasions believe our government is -- how many people believe our government is dysfunctional? there we to. see, we found common ground. it's dysfunctional, right? you're just as convinced that the constitution still works. how many are convinced the constitution still works or at least worked before i began talking? most of you, come on. or maybe not -- well, the question is, does it? jefferson's antidote was to take periodically, quote, as a tally every provision of our constitution and see if it hangs directly on the will of the people. those provisions, jefferson felt, that turn out not to reflect the people's will, he believed should be entirely redone, so he urged his fellow people of his era. he said, let us go on perfecting the constitution by supplanting those powers which time and trial show are still wanting. well, that resonated with me when i studied jefferson way back when at william and mary, and as the system became increasingly disfunctional, i thought more and more about this idea that jefferson had about constitutional makeover. his idea that it should be done every 20 years, that every new generation had to revisit it from scratch. and it's been well over 200 years since he first proposed it, but i figured better late than never. and so i started a group -- i decided to embark on a journey across america to take the constitutional pulse of the nation. constitution café. at constitution café, a space dedicated to the jeffersonian idea of freedom, a broad cross-section typically of actual and aspiring americans grapple with how they would sculpt the u.s. constitution if they could start from scratch. the constitutional articles that participants construct often address perceived flaws, loopholes and omissions in the constitution. at times this has led to senate revision of existing articles or the creation of altogether new ones as i recount in my book. in the course of their exchanges, constitution café goers often arrive at insights about whether our current constitution and the institutions that it props up and that in turn prop it up are impediments to or facilitators of our higher democratic hopes and dreams. and that in turn prompted thoughtful exchanges on whether our constitution as barack obama maintains has proved a sufficient defend against tyranny or whether we need to heed jefferson's advice to engame in a rev -- engage in a revolution every two or three generations. so making their case for new constitutional articles in the constitution café project, those taking part reason, persuade, argue and bend over backwards to insure that everyone has the opportunity to introduce and to try to convince others to support his or her big constitutional ideas. as thomas jefferson had it, one cannot have his way in all things when engaged in democratic deliberations but must acquiesce on what others preponderate at times. indeed, jefferson maintained, without this mutual position -- and he maintained this shortly after he became president at a time when deep political rifts were already developing among americans -- without this we are disjointed individuals, but not a society. so that's why the constitution café project began, to see if maybe we could find foundational common ground, learn more about the constitution, maybe gain a greater appreciation for the founders each as we came to new conclusions about what articles we would like today. my wife and my then-3-year-old daughter callie made this sign for me. not very sexy, constitution working group, and i took it all over the u.s. from the people's park in berkeley to san francisco, washington square park to greenwich village, elementary schools, colleges, universities, mall of america. i had one of the most memorable dialogues, it's in this book. we talked about common goods and the general welfare. it all started with just bringing this sign and inviting people but also holding dialogues in spaces where people might be on their hair ray ri -- harried way to one place but would stop and freeze and take part in an exchange like this. it's meant to be open. well, what do you think -- i started the constitution café project, i started at the very beginning of the constitution. what's at the very beginning of the constitution? >> [inaudible] >> say it again. >> we, the people. >> we, the people. and what's that section called? >> preamble. >> preamble. very good, class. [laughter] i feel like i'm leading you, respect i? let me ask you something, what is the preamble of the constitution supposed to do? and if you have an answer, come up here, please. what is the preamble supposed to do? come on up. you don't want to? [laughter] okay, you tell me, me, and i'll repeat it. >> i don't know if i'm right, but set things up. >> don't worry about right or wrong. what do you mean set things up? >> well, sort of give the form it's supposed to take. >> yeah, absolutely. it's supposed to sort of set the stage for what's coming next, right? >> yeah. >> absolutely. so that's where i started with this project. i started with the preamble, and i went to -- how many of you had to memorize the preamble and regurgitate it to a teacher? how many? come on. you all had to do it, i know you did. how many of you got an a? how many of you passed muster? okay, then how many of you promptly forgot it? how many of you know all of it? >> all of it? >> we, the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves in our posterity do ordain this constitution -- i think i said that part, do ordain this constitution -- >> to ordain and establish -- >> to ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america. [applause] >> that's fantastic. when did you learn that? >> um, when did i learn it? maybe about six or seven years ago i was looking through the history book, and i thought to myself, you know, you really should be ashamed of yourself when you can't even recite the preamble to the constitution. >> well, that is very -- what's your name? >> >> evelyn. >> excuse me? >> evelyn. >> that's very beautiful. i'm very -- let me ask you this, what do you think of the preamble? do you like it? >> yes. i think it informs the general public to some understanding about the constitution because most of us if we read it probably wouldn't understand all that's in it. >> so you think it lays the groundwork pretty well. >> it lays the groundwork. >> well, i went to a high school near -- my mom was porn and raised -- born and raised near a coal mining camp. the late senator ronald f. byrd was responsible for pass ago law in which all schools that receive any public funding on constitution day, when is constitution day? september 17th, very good, class, that you have to study the constitution. i'm not so sure that that actually is happening, but it did happen in this class this which i held a dialogue. when we asked ourselves what would we change, if anything, if we could rewrite the preamble from scratch if we wallet today. if we wanted to. and i'd like to share with you, is that okay? i want to share with you what their very intriguing response was. and that's one of the reasons i like to thrust myself in dialogues because with i never know what's going to happen. i never know what kind of insights, especially with young people. so this one young man named william told me when i arrived, well, we've been studying the constitution in class today. and he said, i didn't realize that the constitution wasn't ratified by the states until two years after it was signed by the framers. and we're having this dialogue on constitution day, and he said that's why they're reading all about it. and he said to me, well, last week we studied the declaration of independence, and he said, that was pretty exciting. thomas jefferson really told off the king. he basically said, because you just don't get that we're all born free and equal, because you treat your loyal subjects in the new world as if we're in servitude to you, we're forced to declare our independence from you and good riddance. that's a pretty good summary of it. i liked it very much. a student named jeannie says, well, i enjoyed studying the declaration, but the constitution is so boring. she says, it's mostly about how the spoils of power are divided. i