>> THIS IS A
>> THIS IS A TEST. TESTING.
>> THOSE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN DEFEATED AND YOU ARE MOVING FROM
A PROPOSAL FOR UNLIMITED TAXING POWER. CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZES
CONGRESS TO CREATE A NAVY AND CALL INTO FEDERAL SERVICE
WITHOUT RESTRICTION. NOW, YOU NEED TO COMPARE WITH THE
ARTICLES AND UNDER THE ARTICLES, CONGRESS CAN REQUISITION. NOW, YOU HAVE
CONGRESS THAT CAN RAISE AN ARMY, NOT ONLY DURING WARTIME, BUT
DURING PEACETIME AND NO LIMITS TO DURATION AND IF THEY HAVE TO
GET A SUPER MAJORITY COMMITMENT AND THAT'S A SHIFT OF POWER TO
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND AT THE TIME, THEY FELT THAT
STANDING ARMIES WERE VERY DANGEROUS TO THE ENEMY AND THEY
THOUGHT THAT CONGRESS WOULD PRESENT DISPERSE. AND THE
LIMITED POWER. AND FOURTH, CONGRESS HAS IMPLIED POWERS
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND
EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT CONGRESS MAY ONLY EXERCISE THOSE POWERS
THAT ARE EXPRESSLY DELEGATED AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE
CONSTITUTION CLEARLY AUTHORIZES IMPLIED POWERS AND LISTED IN ARTICLE ONE, SECTION EIGHT AND
CONGRESS ALSO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PASS LAWS THAT ARE NECESSARY
AND PROPER TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OTHER POWERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT AND THAT'S EXPLICIT OF THE CONGRESS IMPLIED POWERS.
THAT WAS AN INTENSELY PROPOSITION IN THE RATIFYING
PROCESS AND FINALLY, THE CONSTITUTION IMPLIES THE
MECHANISM FOR A ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL CONFEDERACY AND THE
TREATIES WITHIN THE CONFEDERATION CONGRESS, BUT THE CONFEDERATION
CONGRESS HAD NO WE WAY OF IMPLEMENTING. GIVING THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT THE AUTHORITY ANY POWER TO VETO ANY
STATE LAW IT FELT LIKE VETOING AND INSTEAD, THEY CAME UP WITH A 3-PART PROVISION FOR
ESTABLISHING FEDERAL SUPREMACY AND IT IS THE FEDERAL SUPREMECY
CAUSE IN ARTICLE SIX OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IT IS SUPREME
OVER STATE LAW TO THE CONTRARY. SECOND, THE CONSTITUTION CREATES
A FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM AND THERE WERE NONE UNDER THE
ARTICLE. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
AND CONGRESS IS AUTHORIZED, BUT NOT REQUIRED TO CREATE THE
FEDERAL SUPREME COURT AND YOU HAVE THE FEDERAL JUDICIALS THAT WILL ENFORCE THE
FEDERAL SUPREMACY AND NO STATE SHALL MAKE ANYTHING FOR GOLD OR
SILVER LEGAL TENDER AND STATES SHALL NOT PROVIDE THE OBLIGATION
OF CONTRACT AND THAT'S SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED TO THE
PAPER MONEY LAWS AND THE DEBTOR RELIEF LAWS AND THE MAJORITY OF
THE STATES HAVE BEEN PASSING IN THE MID 17 '80S AND OTHER THAN THE
GREAT DEPRESSION AND THE MAJORITY OF THE STATES THAT
ENACTED THE RELIEF LEGISLATION AND IT IS AN OFFICIAL FORM AND THE DEBTORS
AND THEY WANTED TO SUPPRESS THAT THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION. IT
IS IMPORTANT AND WORTH TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE
MAJORITY OF THE STATES HAD PASSED THESE LAWS IN THE MID 1780'S AND HOW REPRESENTATIVE
THE OPINION WAS IN THE COUNTRY. NOSE ARE THE NATIONALIST
PROVISIONS AND LET ME TURN TO THE ANTI-POP PEW LIST PROVISIONS
AND ARTICLE TEN IS AN ANTI-POP PEW LIST LIST LEGISLATION. THIS
IS RELATIVE TO THE ARTICLES AND STATE CONSTITUTION AND UNDER THE
ARTICLES THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES SPEND ONE YEAR
IN OFFICE AND UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND THE LOWER HOUSE
HAD AN HAD AN YULE TERMS IN OFFICE AND
THE MAJORITY OF STATES HAD GOVERNORS WHO SERVED ANNUAL
TERMS IN OFFICE AND SOME STATE SENATES. AS YOU KNOW, UNDER THE
U.S. CONSTITUTION, THE CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES
SERVED TWO YEARS, THE PRESIDENT SERVED FOUR YEARS. MOST OF THE
DELEGATES WANTED TO GO FURTHER IN EXTENDING THE TERM IN OFFICE.
FOUR STATE DELEGATIONS VOTED AT ONE POINT FOR LIFETIME TENURE
FOR THE PRESIDENT. THAT'S A SCARY THOUGHT FOR YOU, DONALD
TRUMP AS A LIFETIME PRESIDENT. HAMILTON WANTED SENATORS AND
PRESIDENTS TO BE LIFETIME TENURE. HE FELT THAT WAS THE
ONLY WAY THAT YOU COULD ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE PROPERTY
RIGHTS AND THEY MADE A RADIFICATION AND THAT'S WHY THEY
REDUCED THE TERM TO 2, 4, AND 6 YEARS. AS YOU KNOW THE
SENATORS WERE ELECTED FOR THE STATE LEGISLATURES AND THAT
REMAINED THE CASE UNTIL 1913. THE PRESIDENT WERE
AND STILL ARE CHOSEN BY THE METHODS THAT ARE CHOSEN BY THE
STATE LEGISLATURES. TODAY, WE ASSUME THAT WAS GENERAL
ELECTIONS. IT DIDN'T MATTER. NOBODY WAS VOTING FOR PRESIDENT
AND THEY IN THELY -- INDEPENDENTLY
DELIBERATED AND CHOSE THE PRESIDENT. THE REASON FOR THAT,
THEY DISTRUSTED THE PEOPLE TO CHOSE THE NATION'S DELEGATE.
QUOTING "IT WOULD IMPROPER TO DEFER THAT CHOICE TO THE PEOPLE
AS IT WOULD BE TO DEFER A TRIAL OF COLORS TO A BLIND MAN".
THINK ABOUT THAT. THE PEOPLE CAN'T POSSIBLY TRUSTED TO CHOOSE
THEIR REPRESENTATIVE. IT WOULD BE A LIKE A BLIND MAN CHOOSING
BETWEEN COLORS AND THE DIRECT REPRESENTATION OF THE DIRECT
DELEGATES AND THEY EVEN STRUCTURED THE HOUSE, SO IT
WOULD BE INSULATED FROM THE POPULAR OPINION. CREATING A
VERY SMALL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE
INDIVIDUAL CONGRESSMAN WOULD BE WITH CERTAIN CON STITCH WENCIES.
AND BACK AT THE TIME IT WAS LIKE 40 OR 30,000. YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT CONSTITUENCY 20 TIMES AS LARGE FOR THE HOUSE AS
IN MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE. FAIRLY LARGE CONSTITUENCIES IN
FAIRLY GEOGRAPHIC AREAS. THE REASON FOR THAT IS TWOFOLD AND
THE PEOPLE MORE AFTER FLEWENT AND THE LARGER THE CON STITCH
WENCY, THE LARGER THE REPRESENTATIVE AND THE CONSTITUENT. AND 65
CONSTITUENT. AND 65 FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTY. THE NEXT POINT
AMONG THE SAME DIMENSION AND AUTHORIZING CONGRESS TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE CONSTITUENCIES WERE EVEN LARGER. PROVIDING
THAT CONGRESS CAN CHANGE THE STATE REGULATIONS FOR THE TIME,
PLACE, AND MANNER OF THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS. WHAT THEY HAD IN
MIND WAS THAT CONGRESS COULD SAY TO A STATE LEGISLATURE, WE
INSIST THAT YOU ELECT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE AT
LARGE, RATHER THAN BY DISTRICT. VIRGINIA WAS THE LARGEST AND THE
MOST POWERFUL STATE AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING. VIRGINIA HAD
TEN REPRESENTATIVES AND YOU HAVE TO ASSUME THEY HAD TO BE
DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES AND THE FLAMERS FIGURED THAT
CONGRESS WOULD PICK TEN CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES
FROM THE ENTIRE STATE. EVERY VIRGINIAN VOTES FOR EVERY
REPRESENTATIVE AND THAT WOULD BE EVEN AN ENORMOUS CONSTITUENT
AND THEY WOULD BE EVEN MORE INSULATED FROM THE DIRECT
SUPERVISION OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS. AND THE RECALL
AND THE MANDATORY ROTATION IN OFFICE. EACH OF WHICH, I WILL
ELABORATE IN A SECOND AND UNDER THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION,
THEY EXISTED AND THE FRAMERS CONSCIOUSLY LEFT THEM OUT OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. INSTRUCTION IS PRETTY MUCH WHAT
IT SOUNDS LIKE AND THE MECHANISM THAT ALLOWS THE CONSTITUENTS TO INSTRUCT THEM HOW TO VOTE.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT FOR THE MOST PART BACK THEN. BUT A NEW
ENGLAND TOWN MEETING COULD SAY TO ITS REPRESENTATIVE, WE WANT
YOU TO VOTE THIS WAY ON RAISING TAXES AND IF YOU DIDN'T WHAT
YOUR CONSTITUENTS INSTRUCTED YOU TO DO, YOU WOULD BE MORALLY ABOUT DOCTOR -- ABOUT BRIDGED
TO RECALL YOUR SEAT. AND AT ANY POINT IN OFFICE, THEY WOULD BE
RECALLED BY THEIR STATE LEGISLATURES. YOU CAN BE SURE
THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURES DID THEIR BIDDING OR IMMEDIATELY
REMOVED FOR THE OFFICE. THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T PROVIDE FOR
THAT. UNDER THE ARTICLES, YOU CAN ONLY SERVE THREE OUT OF
EVERY SIX YEARS AND AFTER SERVING THE SIX YEARS, YOU ARE
ROTATED OUT OF OFFICE. AVOIDING THE LEGISLATURES FROM GETTING
EMBEDDED IN OFFICE. THEY WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOT TO BE
SUSCEPTIBLE OF THE POPULOUS IMPULSES AND SHUT DOWN
ANY STATE LEGISLATURE IF A STATE TRIES TO PASS IT GOING
FORWARD. THAT'S THE FIRST PART OF MY TALK. THE SECOND PART IS
EXPLAINING HOW THE CONVENTION. AND THE
ANTI-FEDERALISTS AND THE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSED RATIFICATION AND THE
DEMOCRATIC AND THE ARISTOCRATIC PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY WERE IN DIFFERENTLY REPRESENTED IN
PHILADELPHIA. HERE'S SOME DISCREET POINTS THAT MAY ADD UP
TO AN EXPLANATION AND I'M GOING TO PUT MY POINTS ON THE COUNTER
REVOLUTION AND I DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY HAS SUFFICIENTLY
EXPLAINED WHY THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION WAS SO
UNREPRESENTATIVE AND HOW THEY CONVINCED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO
DEPRIVE THEM OF SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE OVER THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT. THE STATE LEGISLATURES ELECTED THE
DELEGATES FOR THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION, EXCEPT FOR ONE.
RHODE ISLAND DIDN'T SEND DELEGATES TO PHILADELPHIA AND
OTHER STATES, THE STATES CHOSE THE
DELEGATES. THEY SIMPLY CHOSE THEIR MOST EMINENT, WELL-KNOWN,
LARGE REPUTATION CITIZENS. IN PENNSYLVANIA, THEY ARE GOING TO
SEND BENJAMIN FRANKLIN AND GEORGE WASHINGTON
AND CHOOSING THE WELL-KNOWN, EMINENT CITIZENS AND THE WAY
THAT YOU WOULD REQUIRE SUCH A REPRESENTATION IS EITHER SERVING
FROM THE CONFEDERATION CONGRESS AND/OR THE REVOLUTIONARY ARMY. THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES SERVED
IN THE CONFEDERATION CONGRESS AND THE REVOLUTIONARY ARMY. IF
YOU SERVED IN THE CONFEDERATION CONGRESS, YOU ARE USED TO
THINKING IN PA ROCK KEEL TERMS AND IN ADDITION MANY PEOPLE WHO
SERVED IN THE REVOLUTIONARY YEARN LEARNED TO DISTRUST THE
STATE, LIKE GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JOHN MARSHALL AND SAW THE
STATE OFTEN AS BEING OBSTRUCTIVE AND REFUSING TO ANTI-UP MAN AND
ANTI-UP MONEY AND TURNED THEM INTO NATIONALISTS FOR LIFE.
THEY TENDED TO BE WELL EDUCATED, LARGE LANDOWNERS AND
NOT HAVING A POP PEW HIS INFLUENCE ON GOVERNMENT.
IT HAD NO REASON TO MOBILIZE AND ADVANCE THAT AGENDA BECAUSE
THEY HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT THAT'S WHAT THE PHILADELPHIA
CONVENTION WOULD BE UP. ENDS UP, IT WAS IN THE HEAD OF ONE
MAN, JAMES MADISON. HE SERVED IN THE CONFEDERATION CONGRESS
AND VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE AND HE WAS WELL REGARDED AND PEOPLE
LIKED HIM. HE WAS NOT A FORMIDABLE SPEAKER
AND OFTEN, THE REPORTER HAD TO WRITE DOWN WHAT MADISON WAS
TALKING AND HE WAS SICKLY AND DIDN'T HAVE A BIG
PRESENCE LIKE GEORGE WASHINGTON. HE PLAYED A LARGE ROLE BECAUSE
HE WAS THE BEST PREPARED MAN IN THE ROOM.
ALWAYS THE BEST PREPARED PERSON IN ANY DEBATE. MADISON SPENT
THE MONTHS BEFORE THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION
SYSTEMATICALLY ANALYZES THE CONFEDERACY AND DIAGNOSING THE
PROBLEMS THEY TENDED TO SUFFER FROM AND PROPOSING SOLUTIONS. HE QUEERED -- COORDINATED AMONG
HIS VIRGINIA DELEGATES AND THEY ARRIVED A FEW HOURS EVERY DAY
TALKING THROUGH THEIR NEW IDEAS FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND TOGETHER,
THESE TWO LARGE STATES, THE THREE LARGEST STATES AT THE TIME
WERE VIRGINIA, PENNSYLVANIA AND MASSACHUSETTS. THEY ARE THERE
EARLY AND THE LARGEST STATES AND COD NATING ON A FAIRLY
NATIONALIST ANTI-POPULIST AGENDA AND IT IS CALLED THE VIRGINIA
PLAN AND IT TURNS OUT THAT PROPOSAL WAS VERY NATIONALIST
AND ANTI-POPULIST. OBVIOUSLY, WHERE YOU END UP DEPENDS ON
WHERE YOU START AND THEY STARTED ON A POPULIST POINT ON THE
SPECTRUM. TEN DELEGATES DECIDED TO TURN
DOWN THEIR POPULIST. THEY BECAME LEADING
ANTI-FEDERALISTS AND APPOINTED TO THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION
AND DIDN'T GO AND BECAME LEADING PROPONENTS OF RATIFICATION. IT
IS HARD TO KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T GO. SOME OF WHAT THEY SAID AND
IT IS A FAIRLY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE AND DANGEROUS TO SPECK CUE
LATE AND ONE POSSIBILITY IS THAT THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T GO BECAUSE
THEY HAD LITTLE SYMPATHY FOR THE MILDLY CONVENTION AND THEY
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON IN PHILADELPHIA WAS A FAIRLY
REVOLUTIONARY REFORM PROJECT AND IF THEY KNEW THAT, THEY MIGHT
HAVE GONE TO FIGHT AGAINST IT. BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS
GOING TO HAPPEN, SO THEY DIDN'T GO. SOME DELEGATES WENT TO THE
PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION AND DIDN'T APPROVE TO THE
NATIONALIST AND ANTI-POPULIST DIRECTION AND LEFT EARLY.
LEAVING ONLY ALEXANDER HAMILTON, WHO WAS THE LARGEST NATIONALIST AND
ANTI-POPULIST OF THEM ALL. LUTHER MARTIN WAS ONE THAT LEFT
THE CONVENTION EARLY AND BECAME ONE OF THE LARGEST
ANTI-NATIONALISTS IN MARYLAND AND YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THEY
LEFT. IT WAS DOING SOMETHING I WILL HEEGITIMATE AND THEY DIDN'T
WANT TO STAY. YOU CAN STAY AND FIGHT AGAINST IT AND MAKE IT
LESS OBJECTIONABLE. THEY CHOSE TO LEAVE AND THAT WAS PROBABLY A
MISTAKE. AND FIFTH, THEY CLOSED THE DOORS TO
THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION AND MADISON SAID IF THEY HADN'T
DONE THIS, THEY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COME UP WITH ANY
CONSTITUTION AT ALL. ONE OF THE REASONS FOR CLOSING
THE DOORS IT LIMITED THE DELEGATES TO TAKE VERY EXTREME
ANTI-NATIONALIST POSITIONS AND IF THEY WERE MAKING THESE
STATEMENTS WITH THE PRESS IN THE GALLERIES AND CLOSING THE
CONVENTION MEANT THAT THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS, THE PEOPLE WHO
WERE GOING TO OPPOSE THE CONSTITUTION WERE DEPRIVED OF
FOUR MONTHS OF OPPOSITION. IF THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS WOULD HAVE
KNOWN WHAT WAS GOING ON, THEY COULD HAVE STARTED IMMEDIATELY
ORGANIZING THEIR OPPOSITION, BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL THE
CONVENTION OPENED ITS DOORS. AND THE DELEGATES MADE A MOMENT MOMENTOUS DECISION TO SEIZE THE
CONVENTION AND MADISON IS AIRING HIS IDEAS AND THINKING THROUGH
HIS IDEAS ABOUT TALKING ABOUT AND WITH THE LETTERS WITH
WASHINGTON, THEY FIND WITH THEIR MUTUAL SATISFACTION THEY AGREE
IT IS NOT TEMPORAL EXPEEDENS AND THEY WANT THE CONSTITUTION TO
DO SOMETHING MORE. GIVE UH P ON THE IDEA OF INCREMENTAL REFORM
AND DO SOMETHING MORE DRASTIC. AND WHEN HE INTRODUCES THE PLAN
AND GEORGE WASHINGTON IS IMMEDIATELY MADE THE PRESIDENT
OF THE CONVENTION AND ACCORDING TO MADISON'S NOTES. HE,
RANDOLPH, WOULD NOT AS FAR AS DEPENDENT ON HIM WOULD NOT LEAVE
ANYTHING NECESSARY UNDONE. THE PRESENT MOMENT IS FAVORABLE.
AND PROBABLY THE LAST. THEY WENT FOR BROKE AND TO GET THE
TYPE OF GOVERNMENT THEY REALLY WANTED AND THEY WERE GOING TO
PURSUE SOME MORE RADICAL REFORM.
THEY TRIMMED THEIR SAILS TO SOME EXTEND TO ENSURE THE LIKELIHOOD
OF RATIFICATION AND THEY WERE GOING TO OVERHAUL THE
GOVERNMENT. HOW DID THEY GET THIS RATIIED WHEN IT IS SO
DIFFERENT FROM WHAT PEOPLE WERE EXPECTING AND PROBABLY WANTING.
IT IS A POINT OF EMPHASIS AND YOU SHOULDN'T ASSUME THIS WAS
INEVITABLE AND IT WAS A HIGHLY CONTINGENT SERIES OF EVENTS. IT
ALMOST FAILED. TWO STATES REJECTED THE
RATIFICATION BEFORE CHANGING ITS MIND. AND THE FEDERALISTS, THE
SUPPORTERS OF THE CONSTITUTION HAD ARRANGED FOR THE CONVENTION
TO BE ADJOURNED WHEN THEY SAW THEY WERE GOING TO LOSE AND THEY
COULD COME BACK IN A FEW MONTHS AND FIGHT AGAIN. IN VIRGINIA,
THE VOTE WAS 89-79. AND IN
MASSACHUSETTS IT WAS 187-168 IN FAVOR. THOSE ARE
THE TWO LARGEST STATES AND IF 1 OR 2 HAD REJECTION THE
CONSTITUTION, IT WAS PROBABLE THAT THE CONSTITUTION WOULD HAVE
GONE INTO EFFECT. EVEN IF NINE STATES RATIFIED, YOU
COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT WITHOUT VIRGINIA AND MASSACHUSETTS AND
PENNSYLVANIA. THE THREE LARGEST STATES. THIS IS NOT A RIGGED
SYSTEM, NOT A SCAM, BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT IT WAS NOT AN ENTIRELY
FAIR FIGHT AND AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD. THE FEDERALISTS
ADVANTAGE WITH MALL PROPORTION IN SOME STATES, ESPECIALLY,
SOUTH CAROLINA. IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND 20% OF THE WHITE
POPULATION AND ONLY MEN AND THOSE THAT OWN LAND ARE VOTING.
AND 20% OF THE POPULATION LIVES IN COASTAL AREAS ALONG THE
ATLANTIC SEA BOARD AND THE SUPPORT IS VERY STRONG IN THOSE
AREAS AND IT ELECTS 60% OF THE DELEGATES AT THE RATIFYING
CONVENTION BECAUSE OF THE MISPROPORTION. AND PEOPLE WHO
HAVE POLITICAL POWERS TEND TO BE ALTRUISTIC IN NOT SHARING IT.
A MAR -- MAJORITY OF THE
POPULATION OPPOSED THE CONSTITUTION AND BECAUSE OF
SEVERAL PROPORTION, TWO-THIRDS OF THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES VOTED
IN FAVOR. 90% OF AMERICANS LIVED OUTSIDE OF CITIES IN 1877 AND 1878 AND THE
NEWSPAPERS TENDED TO BE OVERWHELMING SUPPORTIVE OF THE
CONSTITUTION. ANY FEDERALISTS HAD A HARD TIME
EVEN GETTING THEIR ESSAYS REPRINTED IN MANY STATES. AND
THE LEADING FEDERALIST IN SOUTH CAROLINA COMPLAINED THAT THE
WHOLE WEIGHT AND INFLUENCE OF THE PRESS WAS ON THE SIDE OF THE
CONSTITUTION. ONLY 12 OF THE 90 NEWSPAPERS IN CIRCULATION IN
THE ENTIRE COUNTY POSTED IN FAVOR OF THE
FEDERALISTS. IT IS LIKE TODAY, ONLY HAVE FOX NEWS. FOR
EXAMPLE, IN NEW YORK, 19 OUT OF EVERY 20 VOTERS IS
ANTICIPATING ELECTING DELEGATES FOR THE CONVENTION, 19 OUT OF 20
VOTED FOR A FEDERALIST DELEGATE AND THIS HAD AN EFFECT IN WHERE
THE ELECTIONS WERE HELD INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE STATE
RATIFYING CONVENTION AND ALL OF THE ELECTIONS WERE OPEN TO THE
PUBLIC AND THAT MEAN THAT THE GALLERIES TENDED TO BE DOMINATED
BY SPECTATORS AND THE CITIES TENDED TO BE DOMINATED BY THE
FEDERALIST SPECTATORS WHO WERE NOT SHY ABOUT VOICING THEIR
OPINIONS. IF THE FEDERALISTS GOT UP TO SPEAK, THEY WOULD BE
BOOED AND HISSED AT. DIFFICULT FOR ANY FEDERALIST TO GEFRN --
EVEN GET THEIR OPINION VOICED.
HOLDING OPEN HOUSES AT THEIR HOMES DURING THE DURATION OF THE
SOUTH CAROLINA CONVENTION AND ADJOURN TO THEIR HOMES AFTER THE
DAY'S DELIBERATIONS WERE OVER AND YOU CAN BE SURE THEY WERE
WHISPERING INTO THE EAR'S OF THE DELEGATES, THE POSITIVE AND
GLOWING THINGS OF THE CONSTITUTION. FEDERALISTS JUST
HAD AN EASIER TIME ORGANIZING THEIR SUPPORTERS. THIS IS AN
ERA OF VERY RUDIMENTARY COMMUNICATION AND THE AREAS THAT
WERE REMOTE FROM THE COMMERCIAL CONNECTION AND REMOTE FROM THE
ROADS, THEY TENDED TO OPPOSE THE CONSTITUTION. IF YOU WOULD
ASSUME THAT THE FEDERALISTS AND THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS ARE EQUAL
IN NUMBER, THE FEDERALISTS HAD AN EASIER TIME ORGANIZING THAN
THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS. AND THE ELITE OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED
RADIFICATION, THAN IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. THAT WAS A BIG
ADVANTAGE FOR FEDERALISTS IN THE RATIFYING CONVENTIONS
WHEN THE ANTI-MATERIAL -- FEDERALISTS
WERE OPEN TO HAVING THEIR MINDS CHANGED. ANTI-ELITISM 225 YEARS AGO. I'M GOING TO
MENTION A COUPLE OF OTHER POINTS AND THEM I'M GOING TO BE DONE
AND HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS. THE GENIUS OF THE ARTICLE SEVEN
WAS A HUGE POINT AND PUTTING THE CONSTITUTION INTO OPERATION AND
NO STATE COULD BIND ANY OTHER. UNANIMOUS STATE CONSENT AND THE
ARTICLES WERE NEVER SUCCESSFULLY AMENDED. THEY COULDN'T BE
BOUND WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, BUT ALSO NOT PART OF THE COUNTRY,
UNLESS THEY RATIFIED. IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE
IT IS PRESERVEG EVERY STATE'S RIGHT TO GO ITS OWN WAY. ONCE
NINE STATES HAD RATIFIED, THE OTHER STATES WOULD BE -- THEY
ARE NOT IN THE COUNTRY AND YOU HAVE A NEW COUNTRY AND THEY ARE
NOT GUARANTEED MILITARY PROTECTION AND SUBJECT TO
FOREIGN TRADE TAXIFICATION AND CUT OUT THE IMPORTANT DECISIONS
THAT WERE MADE BY THE FIRST NEW CONGRESS AND ONCE THE NEW
CONGRESS MET, IT IS GOING TO HAVE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT
DECISIONS TO MAKE. LIKE WHERE TO PLACE THE NATIONAL
CAPITOL AND THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION. AND ONCE THE
NINE STATES RATIFIED, THE OTHER FOUR DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE AND
THEY JUST MADE IT UP AT THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION AND
ENTERING INTO THE CONVENTION, EVERYBODY THOUGHT BECAUSE THE
CONVENTION SAID IT, ANYTHING PROPOSED WOULD HAVE TO BE
APPROVED BY CONGRESS AND THEY JUST CHANGED THE RULES AND
THOUGHT THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT, AND THEY COULD.
ESPECIALLY, IN NEW YORK AND VIRGINIA, WHERE ANY ANTI-FEDERALIST MET, IT WAS NINE
MONTHS AFTER THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION ENDED AND I THINK
THEY CALCULATED IT WAS GOING THE GIVE THEM MORE TIME TO RALLY
THEIR SUPPORTERS. WHAT THEY DID, THEY MADE
THEMSELVES IRRELEVANT AND BY THE TIME IT WAS UNDERWAY IN LATE
JUNE. NEW HAMPSHIRE WAS THE NINTH STATE TO RATIFY AND THE
VIRGINIA CONVENTION WAS THE TENTH STATE TO RATIFY AND IT
HUGELY CHANGED THE CALCULUS IN NEW YORK. WHETHER YOU LIKE THE
CONSTITUTION OR NOT, DO YOU WANT TO BE PART OF THE NEW NATION
AND THE NATION'S CAPITOL IS IN NEW YORK AND THEY WERE GOING TO
LOSE IT IF THEY DIDN'T JOIN THE UNION AND THEY WERE GOING TO
LOSE HARD CURRENCY AND HAD VIRGINIA OR NEW YORK CHOSEN TO
GO IN A DIFFERENT FAVOR, IT COULD HAVE INFLUENCED THE LATER
STATES. ONE THING I WANT TO EMPHASIZE AND THE FEDERALISTS
MANAGED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE AND I LEARNED THIS WORKING ON THE
BOOK AND IT WAS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO THEIR SUCCESS TO
KEEP THE IMMEDIATE OPTIONS OFF OF THE TABLE. AND THE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH AT LEAST, HALF OF THE COUNTRY WAS
SIGNIFICANTLY FLAWED. THEY WANTED TO DENY PEOPLE A CHOICE
ON THE SPECTRUM SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN THE ARTICLES AND
THE VASTLY MORE NATIONNATIONAL IST AND POPULIST CONSTITUTION.
THE TWO WAYS TO ARRIVE AT AN INTERMEDIATE SOLUTION WERE THE
FOLLOWING PROCEDURAL MECHANISMS. ONE WAS AMEND THE CONSTITUTION
BEFORE IT GETS RATIFIED RATHER THAN AFTERWARDS AND THEN, LET'S
HOLD A SECOND CONVENTION. ANY
FEDERALISTS, THEY MADE GOOD ARGUMENTS. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT
MIND -- PATRICK HENRY SAID THIS, YOU HAVE TO BE A LUNATIC TO
SIGN A CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER PARTY WHEN THAT PARTY GETS TO
CHANGE THE TERMS THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO. THAT'S LIKE
AGREE TOGETHER THE CONSTITUTION WITH AMENDMENTS TO COME. YOU
SHOULD INSIST ON SEEING THE AMENDMENTS IN ADVANCE, WHICH
SEEMS PRETTY REASONABLE. AND IT WAS UNVEILED AT A SECRET
CONVENTION AND WE HAVE HAD A BIG NATIONAL DEBATE AND PEOPLE HAVE
TOLD YOU ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS AND NOW, LET'S VOTE FOR MORE
DELEGATES AND GET TO A MORE INTERMEDIATE POSITION, WHICH IS
WHERE MOST OF THE DELEGATES WERE AT. THEY OPPOSED THESE
ALTERNATIVES BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT A SECOND CONVENTION WOULD ALAW
THEM TO PRESERVE THE CORE OF WHAT THEY HAD DONE IN
PHILADELPHIA. THEY WANTED TO ARRIVE AT WHAT MOST AMERICANS
AGREED WITH, BUT WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS BEST FOR THE
NATION'S GOOD. RANDOLPH, THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA AND MADISON
ARE CORRESPONDING. AND MADISON IS TOYING WITH HIS IDEAS AND
RANDOLPH SAYS, WE SHOULD PRESENT IT TO THE COUNTRY IN A DISATTACHED FORM AND MADISON
WAS HORRIFIED BY THIS. THIS IS WHAT MADISON SAID TO JEFFERSON
LATER THAT YEAR." IN VIRGINIA WHERE THE MASS OF PEOPLE ARE
ACCUSTOMED TO BE GUIDED BY THEIR LEADERS, THE MATTER OF WHETHER
TO RATIFY OR NOT RATIFIED THE CONSTITUTION SURPASSS WHAT
MOST ARE INFORMED ON ". TO SUM UP IN ONE MINUTE.
THE CONSTITUTION IS MORE POP PEW HIS THAT WHAT MANY AMERICANS
WANTED AND THEY BARELY GOT IT RATIFIED AND BENEFITTING FROM
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PROVED ADVANTAGEOUS AND MISCALCULATIONS
BY THEIR POLITICAL ADVERSE SAYS AND SOME LUCK. WHETHER YOU
AGREE WITH WHAT THEY DID IN PHILADELPHIA AND YOU THINK IT IS
LEGITIMATE OR I WILL LEGITIMATE, YOU HAVE TO STAND
BACK WITH ADMIRATION OF WHAT THEY ACCOMPLISHED BECAUSE IT WAS
A TYPE OF CO. THIS IS NOT WHAT MOST AMERICANS BARGAINED FOR.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. I CAN TAKE SOME QUESTIONS. I
DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME WE HAVE. HAVE.
[APPLAUSE] HAVE.
[APPLAUSE] >> THING THAT YOU DIDN'T MENTION
IS THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THAT MUST HAVE PLAYED A BIG PART IN
THE CONVENTION AND THE RATIFICATION OR DID IT NOT?"
>> THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS TACKLED IN THE LAST CHAPTER OF THE BOOK.
NO STATE DELEGATION SUPPORTED THEM. THE FEDERALISTS DURING
THE RATIFYING CONVENTION HAD TO EXPLAIN AND DEFEND THE ABSENCE
OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THAT'S THE NUMBER ONE OBJECTION THERE
IS NO BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE PROTECTION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND SO ON. THE FEDERALISTS HAD
ARGUMENTS WHY THEY THOUGHT THE EXISTENCE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
WOULD BE DANGEROUS. IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME IF THEY WOULD HAVE
OPPOSED THE BILL OF RIGHTS IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROPOSED IN THE
CONVENTION AND THEY WERE THERE FOR TEN LONG HOT SUMMER MONTHS
AND THE DELEGATES JUST SAID THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THIS. IT TURNED OUT TO BE A PRINCIPLE
MISTAKE AND MADISON WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND WANTED TO BE
ELECTED TO THE FIRST CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA AND IT INCLUDED A
LARGE SHARE OF THE CENTRAL VIRGINIA BAPTISTS AND THEY HAD
BEEN OPPRESSED AND MANY BAPTIST PREACHERS HAD BEEN THROWN IN
JAIL FROM THE PREVIOUS DECADE. THEY COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY
THERE WAS NO PROTECTION FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN THE
CONSTITUTION. AND MADISON WAS RUNNING AGAINST JAMES MONROE, A
REVOLUTIONARY WAR HERO AND THIS WAS A DISTRICT THAT HAD BEEN
GERRYMANDERED TO KEEP PATRICK HENRY OUT OF THE FIRST CONGRESS
AND NOW, HE WOULD SUPPORT A BILL OF RIGHTS NOW THAT THE
CONSTITUTION HAD BEEN RATIFIED AND MADISON GETS UP IN CONGRESS ON JUNE 8, 1879, AND SAYS I'M
PROPOSING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESS. THEY ARE NOT
INTERESTED IN WHAT MADISON IS PROPOSING. THEY WANT STRUCTURAL
CHANGES AND LIMIT THE TAXING POWERS AND THE MILITARY POWERS.
THAT'S WHAT MADISON OFFERS, THE RIGHT AGAINST SEARCH AND SEIZURE
AND ROBUST, SIGNIFICANT PROTECTIONS. THEY WANT LIMITS
ON NATIONAL POWER RATHER THAN THE RIGHTS PROTECTIONS AND THE
CONGRESS SAID TO MADISON, NOW THAT YOU HAVE DONE YOUR DUTY,
YOU NEED TO SIT DOWN AND BE QUIET BECAUSE WE HAVE IMPORTANT
THINGS TO DO LIKE RAISING THE TAXES AND WHY SHOULD WE BE AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION
AND MADISON PERSISTS AND MAKES ARGUMENTS AND IF WE DON'T
DELIVER WHAT OUR CONSTITUENTS WERE PROMISED,
THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO TRUST US AND MADISON PERSISTS AND AT THE
END OF THE DAY, HE'S ABLE TO GET CONGRESS TO APPROVE THE TEN
AMENDMENTS AND THAT'S HOW WE GET THE BILL OF RIGHTS. IT IS
FASCINATING AND NEITHER SIDE CARES MUCH ABOUT THE RIGHTS
PROVISIONS AND THEY THINK OF THEM AS PARCHMENT BARRIERS. AND'S NOT WHAT WE
THINK TODAY BECAUSE WE CELEBRATE OUR BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE
JUDGES ENFORCE THEM, BUT IN 1879, NEITHER SIDE THINKS IT IS
IMPORTANT IN THE CONSTITUTION. THE ADOPTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND MOST OF THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS HAD COME
AROUND AND JAMES MADISON WAS MORE OR LESS THE MAJORITY LEADER
AND I WONDER IF JAMES MADISON WOULD HAVE SEEN THIS AS A
SUCCESSFUL COO AND IF THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS WOULD HAVE ALSO
RETHOUGHT THE SITUATION? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I
HAVE TO BREAK IT INTO TWO PARTS AND THE FIRST PART, WHAT
HAPPENED TO THE CRITICAL CRITICISM. AND JAMES WOOD, ONE
OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL POLITICAL WRITER IN THIS PERIOD,
AND THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS DID GIVE UP THEIR ANTI-HE GET --
ANTI-LEGITIMACY DEBATE AND THIS IS I WILL GET ATE. ATE. PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE
DUBIOUS MIGHT HAVE SAID IT IS ABOUT GREAT BRITAIN OPENED UP A
DEMAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND THE UNITED STATES WAS MORE
INTERESTED IN THE LAW AND WITH THE BOOMING ECONOMY, PEOPLE ARE
NOT AS INTERESTED IN OBJECTING TO THE ARRANGEMENTS THAT EXIST. THE CONSTITUTION QUICKLY
PROVES THAT THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS TYPES COULD
MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENTS THEY MADE AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION. ONE OF THE FIRST DEBATES IS IF
CONGRESS CAN CHARTER A NATIONAL BANK.
AND JAMES MADISON SAYS THERE IS NOTHING IN THE POWER THAT ALLOWS
THEM TO CHARTER A BANK. AND ALEXANDER HAMILTON SAID ON THE
OTHER HAND, IF CONGRESS CAN RAISE TAXES, WOULDN'T IT BE
CONVENIENT TO HAVE A BANK. THE ARGUMENTS OF WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION MEANS AND IF THE STATE SENATE THAT APPROVED THE
SECRETARY OF STATE PLAYS A ROLE IN REMOVING THE SECRETARY OF
STATE. JAMES MADISON ATTACKS IT AND SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT
CAN ONLY DECLARE WAR AND NOT PEACE. AND IT TURNS OUT THAT
THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS TYPE CAN GO ON MAKING THEIR SAME STATE
RIGHTS POPULIST ARGUMENTS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AND IN THE FIRST CIVIL WAR, THEY DOMINATE THE GOVERNMENT.
WHAT'S THE POINT OF ATTACKING THE CONSTITUTION WHEN YOU CAN
CONTROL ITS INTERPRETATION. AND MADISON SEEMED LIKE A HUGE NATIONALIST IN 1787. BY 798, MADISON IS
ARGUING TO NULL FIE A FEDERAL LAW AND HE'S WRITING RESOLUTIONS
FOR THE VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE AND THAT A STATE AUDIT COULD RATIFY THE FEDERAL
LAW. WHAT HAPPENED TO JAMES MADISON? MADISON WAS ONLY A
NATIONALIST WHEN HE HAD IN MIND THE STATE DEBT RELIEF AND IF THE
STATES ARE GOING TO BE DISTRIBUTING THE WEALTH FROM THE
DEBTORS, THE STATES NEED TO SIGN ON TO THAT. MADISON
DOESN'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE A NATIONAL BANK AND THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSIDIZE THE STATE DEBT AND MADISON IS A
VIRGINIA ARISTOCRAT AND THE SOUTH VIRTUALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY
BANKS AND NOW, TRYING TO CREATE
