Podcasts about constitution thursday

The Convention finally gets underway. First things first, rules have to be established and agreed upon. Then the business of reforming the Government can get rolling. The first presentations take on the problems the nation confronts, including the biggest danger facing America. The local Newspaper wants a story, and somebody, just who isn't exactly clear, is giving them one. George Wythe and his rules committee approved two special rules that will serve to ensure secrecy and flexibility. As an add-on for Constitution Thursday, I have compiled for you a couple of PDF Documents which contain the biographies of the 55 Delegates who participated in the Convention. It is a rather large file (18MB) and is nearly 400 pages in length, but it provides a quick reference for the men involved in this discussion. You can download CONSTITUTION THURSDAY – The Delegates HERE. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/plausibly-live/message

One of the things that I have wanted to do for some time is a complete revision of the Convention Episodes of Constitution Thursday. This summer, except for the three weeks I will be gone, Dave Does History gives me the chance to do just that. For the next few months we will take a weekly look at the things that happened in the Philadelphia in the Summer of 1787. This will not be a word for word repeat of the original Convention episodes, but with a new audience it will give us a chance to once again consider the struggle that lead to our Constitution… This week in 1787 is the designated time for delegate appointed by each State – except one – to arrive in Philadelphia to begin the process of revising the Articles of Confederation. In the previous year, at a conference in Annapolis, it was finally recognized that the government of the United States was just not functional in a meaningful way. This Philadelphia Conference was meant to try and fix some of the glaringly obvious issues that were causing more and more problems. Of note, the weather in Philadelphia, and all up and down the mid-Atlantic seaboard, was a mess. The delegates had been scheduled to arrive beginning on May 13th, but few had actually managed to navigate the morass of mud and torrent filled rivers to get there. But those who had arrived, almost entirely Virginians, were determined to make good use of the time while they awaited the rest of the Delegates… --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/plausibly-live/message

June 14, 2012 MODESTO, CA - It was one of the greatest moments in the history of Afternoons Live with Dave & John. It was a Thursday, and there were reports of a UFO in the skies over California. The MID was trying to sell our water to San Francisco. Alec (or Stephen) Baldwin lost his case against  Kevin Costner, who was cleared of charges that he and his partner had scammed him out of some contracts for something or another. It is Papa Considine's Birthday but John has failed to dress for the occasion. It was also Flag Day on Constitution Thursday when Dave undertook the effort to tell John the true story of the US Flag...

One of the most important lessons that I have learned in 11 years of Constitution Thursday is this: “I don’t like that” is NOT a valid Constitutional or legal argument. There are plenty of things that I don’t like. I don’t like broccoli or fish, can’t stand the Las Vegas Raiders or the New Orleans Saints; despise the San Francisco Giants and the Boston Red Sox, and I refuse to eat raisins or cooked carrots and I don’t like smoking. The fact that I do not like those things is not now and has never been, a valid reason, legal or otherwise, for the imposition of my will against everybody else. Albeit a given that if I were to achieve dictatorial powers by some chance, those things will be outlawed. In the meantime, there is no argument that there is always some level of dishonesty and/or flat out cheating in every election that we’ve had since 1796. Even the one in 1820, when James Monroe effectively faced off against nobody. In 1876, Bourbon Democrats were pulling guns on people to change their votes. It’s no wonder the Democratic Party of today wants you to believe that the two Parties somehow, miraculously, switched places, like the plot to yet another really bad horror film. That said, and with the understanding that there was some level – although nobody can show me how much that level is – of cheating in the 2020 Election, the case that the Trump Campaign has filed in Pennsylvania essentially boils down to “I don’t like it.” And that, my friends, if you really and truly support and defend the Constitution, isn’t a good enough reason…

As occasionally happens in this biz, my guest was not available today. Which kind of left me wondering about some things and the unanswered questions that I have about things like Kenosha… NOTE: My guest will be rescheduled for tomorrow, and Constitution Thursday will on Friday…

It’s Friday and it’s a new National Emergency Day! The President has declared that Tik Tok is a National emergency Of course, it is. It’s a national emergency of people who are willing to give up their privacy for short videos of people doing silly things… Constitution Thursday has been expanded to include all of the Dave & John (Afternoons Live) episodes and The Saturday Podcast Episodes.

History, they say, is written by the winners. Which could explain how it has come to be that while Americans consistently rank Ruther B. Hayes as one of the lower ends of the “Best Presidents” lists, there is at least one place where he is honored and revered. In fact, if not for President Hayes, that place might not exist at all. Still, part of the reason that we don’t celebrate his accomplishments is because of the success of those who would rewrite history to their own advantage. On the battlefields, they lost. But in the public mind, they won. And only now are we truly beginning to see the damage they wrought on our nation…

In 1902, the State of Virginia decided it was time to throw off the constraints of the Reconstruction Constitution and redraft it. But it was also clear that this redraft would be for a single purpose – to disenfranchise black voters in spite of the 15th Amendment. They look to Mississippi for inspiration, where not only did the State redraw its Constitution, but they used a set of ideas that made it impossible for Black citizens to vote or serve on juries. When Henry Williams was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, he decided to take the blatantly discriminatory practices to the Supreme Court. The ruling would directly impact Virginia’s effort to rewrite its Constitution…

There is a commonly believed idea that the Political Parties of today at some point in the past “switched” with each other, kind of like the Chicago Blitz and Arizona Wranglers exchanged everything, including their uniforms, back in 1983. So now, we are told, “everybody knows,” that the Democrats of today are the Republicans of the 2nd half of the 19th Century; and that the Republicans of today are the Democrats of the 2nd half of the 19th Century. In the past months, I have found that there are a great number of people who accept this claim of a complete and total switch as a historical fact. But so far, only one has given me any explanation of how – and when – this exchange happened. Of course, the reality of things is seldom what populist belief hold them to be. If we are going to honestly study the issues we face today, we have to be willing to fully examine the “everybody knows-isms” and reject those that are untrue. The issue of the “switch,” if there was such a thing, happened much earlier than the Depression…

A recent Supreme Court decision (Bostock) has many on the Political right proclaiming the death of the conservative movement. Their reasoning is rooted in a combination of dismay and what has to be some COVID inflicted loss of perspective, but in either case, there is a great deal of anger and gnashing of teeth at Justice Neil Gorsuch, who not that long ago was the darling of the Conservative Right. This ruling by the Supreme Court has resulted in a number of Facebook posts, one of which caught my eye because it came from a friend who I regard as wise, educated, and having a good understanding of how things work. which brings me back to the same COVID inflicted loss of perspective, and reminded me that it might be time to talk about Article V and how Congress, at least used to, regularly “overrules” the Supreme Court.

June 14, 2012 MODESTO, CA - It was one of the greatest moments in the history of Afternoons Live with Dave & John. It was a Thursday, and there were reports of a UFO in the skies over California. The MID was trying to sell our water to San Francisco. Alec (or Stephen) Baldwin lost his case against Kevin Costner, who was cleared of charges that he and his partner had him out of some contracts for something or another. It is Papa Considine's Birthday but John has failed to dress for the occasion. It was also Flag Day on Constitution Thursday when Dave undertook the effort to tell John the true story of the US Flag.

Dave is once again, unemployed.  So what does that mean for the show? At least he now reads eMails. And one from this week has him worried about the lack of critical thinking about anything,  let alone the so-called Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone... Constitution Thursday on Anchor

One of the life lessons that pretty much everybody learns, sooner or later, is that there is a difference between what you can do and what you should do. In the words of the illustrious Dr. Malcolm, “You were so busy thinking about whether you could that you didn’t stop to think about whether or not you should.” In the time of COVID, the Constitution has become a focal point for debates and argument which have now spilled over into other areas of civil action and protest. But the question remains about whether or not things that are permissible are in fact, beneficial? The President, tweeting fiercely, announces that he wants something done. In this case, he is threatening to deploy the military to stop the riots. Can he do that? Well… the answer is yes, he can. Should he do that? That is an answer that is not quite as clear, is it?

A couple of weeks ago, the administration issued its long-expected Executive Order which purports to “protect free speech” on social media. Now, for many of us, the idea of forcing a private business to allow a takeover by political speech which it either does not support or doesn’t like, to be something of an anathema. Oddly enough, buried deep in the EO is a citation to a Supreme Court case that Conservatives have long hated because it seems to eviscerate private property rights and allow the taking of private property as banned by the 5th Amendment. So why is a President who Conservatives and say they like, pushing a ruling that they hate in order to get what he wants, which is to be allowed to Tweet without any limits or restraints on a platform owned by a private business?

I know that most people find it odd, but I did spend a good portion of my life in the theological field. At the end of the day, what drove me out was the seminal change from people who sought knowledge and discussed things into people who depended upon inductive reasoning to determine their beliefs and refused to learn anything outside of what they had already decided was their “truth.” In the case of my own denomination of birth, we went from a doctrinal text that delved into the depths of theology to a comic book style “What We Believe.” The dumbing down of theology and teaching is what – in my opinion (and others) has led to the decline of faith in our country. It's too easy to learn and so little effort is put into it. It was a major factor in my own path to Judaism. Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is realizing what you don't know. When I started on this voyage of Constitution Thursday, it was eye-opening how much I simply did not know. It's surprising to me that even ten years later, I feel like I am still in Constitution 101. So when a “Professor of Government” at a large state-funded university in a “Conservative” State writes a major article claiming that the Constitution “is the problem,” I am left to wonder if it really is, or if this is just a continued dumb down of knowledge and dependence upon inductive reasoning?

It's hard to believe that we are coming up on ten years of Constitution Thursday... September 17th is, of course, Constitution Day, the day that the framers signed the proposed Constitution of the United States. It is also the birthday of one John Rutledge, a member of the Convention that proposed the new Constitution. He would go on to be one of the original Associate Justices of the Supreme Court but left to become the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Court. A few years later, after Jay returned to become Governor of New York, President Washington used the Recess Appointment Claus of the new Constitution to appoint Justice Rutledge back to the Court, this time as the Chief Justice. As the Senate would not be back in session until December, the new Chief Justice took his oath and then did something that virtually no other Chief Justice has ever done - he gave a very public speech in which he suggested something that in today's Social Media world would have gotten him instantly fired. After, of course, numerous apologetic tweets and the de rigueur screaming from chat Radio talking heads, like myself, who would alternately explain what he did or did not mean by what he said. T he Senate, which finally came back in December, was not impressed. And the first Recess Appointment to the Supreme Court discovered that the People of the United States will always have the final say, even over George Washington...

The Congress shall have Power To ...regulate Commerce...with the Indian Tribes... ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 3 That's how it always begins. Very small. A man living in Oklahoma has a girlfriend who has an ex-boyfriend who gets into it with the man. In a gruesome crime, the ex-boyfriend is murdered, his genitals left on his chest on the side of the road. Not being a criminal mastermind, the man, Murphy, is caught. As there is little doubt and much evidence that he did it, he is tried and convicted of capital murder. The sentenced is death. Not so fast... The crime was committed by a member of the Creek nation. The victim was also a Creek. And it appears that the crime was committed on Creek land. That being the case, the State of Oklahoma would have no jurisdiction, it would be a Federal case, requiring a Federal (not State) prosecution. Because of the laws and agreements with the Tribes, such a crime cannot have a death penalty unless the tribe agrees to it, which they almost never do. Not so fast... was it on Creek land? The Treaty of 1831 says that it is, but subsequent treaties (1866) make it less than clear. Did Congress intend to take the land where the crime occurred away? Did they actually do it? Did somebody make a big mistake and forget a sentence in a document more than a century ago? And if it is Creek Land, what does that mean to the State of Oklahoma? What if the State of Oklahoma, as we've known and loved it since 1907, isn't the State of Oklahoma? What if it's only half the size it is today? Absurd, you say? That's not what the 10th Circuit Court says. And depending on how the Supreme Court rules, it might not be so crazy. By next June there might be a new old Territory and fifty percent less of the State of Oklahoma. It's Constitution Thursday on The Dave Bowman Show...

In 1971 a Senator from Alaska began publishing classified documents known collectively as "the Pentagon papers." The ensuing kerfuffle tested the limits of Article 1 Section 6. Dave & john take a look at the Constitution and The Pentagon Papers

After recent school shootings, the proposal was made to raise the age for purchasing guns to twenty-one. in at least two cases, challenges were filed and in at least one of those, the challenge was upheld as the practice was seen as being in violation of equal protection and various State laws. So now we move to the state of Louisiana. The Legislature there, deeply concerned about the well-being of young and vulnerable women who dance with exposed breasts and/or buttocks for money from patrons who must remain at least three feet away, must be twenty-one years of age in order to do so. Naturally, the dancers who performed with exposed breasts and/or buttocks and who were under 21 sued in Federal Court. They are claiming that the law would violate their constitutional right to dance with breasts and/or buttocks exposed for money from patrons who must be at least three feet away. Now look, there are a whole lot of issues here that we could get into, and perhaps we will tomorrow. But for now, the question is simply this: does a law restricting the right to dance with breasts and/or buttocks exposed to twenty-one and older meet muster Constitutionally? It's not quite as clear cut as you might think, and it's what we talk about today on Constitution Thursday...

After recent school shootings, the proposal was made to raise the age for purchasing guns to twenty-one. in at least two cases, challenges were filed and in at least one of those, the challenge was upheld as the practice was seen as being in violation of equal protection and various State laws. So now we move to the state of Louisiana. The Legislature there, deeply concerned about the well-being of young and vulnerable women who dance with exposed breasts and/or buttocks for money from patrons who must remain at least three feet away, must be twenty-one years of age in order to do so. Naturally, the dancers who performed with exposed breasts and/or buttocks and who were under 21 sued in Federal Court. They are claiming that the law would violate their Constitution right to dance with breasts and/or buttocks exposed for money from patrons who must be at least three feet away. Now look, there are a whole lot of issues here that we could get into, and perhaps we will tomorrow. But for now, the question is simply this: does a law restricting the right to dance with breasts and/or buttocks exposed to twenty-one and older meet muster Constitutionally? It's not quite as clear cut as you might think, and it's what we talk about today on Constitution Thursday...

In recent days, we have watched the debate over the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. While the debate rages around things such as abortion, gay rights, women's rights, and so forth, the single fact remains that these things are rarely the meat and potatoes of what the Supreme Court does. Almost never are those things noticed until after the fact. indeed, very few (if any) questions of any nominee relate to them or to the understanding of how those things might end up affecting our day to day lives. In 1820, a Pennsylvania man was found guilty of violating a State Law that required him to report for duty as a part of the militia during the War of 1812. He had refused service in the Pennsylvania Militia, and now it was time for the state to lower the boom. But the Feds also wanted their pound of flesh, because they believed that the Congress has powers over the Militia, and this man has spurned those laws. The Court ruled that the 5th Amendment didn't apply because (a) there was no incorporation and (b) the Constitution had not limited states from passing laws to punish people for failing to show up for the Militia and (c) Congress had passed such laws. Back in 1922, a man was found guilty in the State of Washington of violating the state's prohibition against the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages. Then the fed stepped in and after he was convicted charged him with violations of the Volstead Act, the national law against the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages. He protested, claiming that under the 5th Amendment this amounted to double jeopardy. The Court said that there were two systems of sovereignty, State and Federal. As a citizen, we voluntarily accept that we live under both sovereigns and therefore we can be punished by both for the same act, just not twice by either. And in 2015, a man was stopped for having a headlamp out in his car. The officer who stopped him smelled marijuana and found the driver was a convicted felon, so he searched the car, finding drugs and a 9mm handgun. The man (Gamble) does not deny this. The state convicted him of being a felon in possession of a handgun, and then the Feds also charged him with the same crime. And the Supreme Court has been asked, once again, to consider whether or not the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine is Constitutional.

When the USS Caine, a fictional minesweeper in WWII, was in danger of foundering in a hurricane, the Executive Offer, with the encouragement of the Wardroom, relieved the CO and "saved" the ship. It was a clear cut case of mutiny, and as such a Court Martial would be required to resolve the matter. In the climatic moment, it becomes clear that though the Captain may be in trouble, the XO acted improperly and precipitously. He was not well advised and the Wardroom failed in its primary duty. The interesting thing is that the movie itself, and specifically was in the minds of the commission that gathered to consider the words of what would become the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. Today you can buy a "25/45" T-shirt and you'll hear Talking Heads debating the whole idea of how the 25th Amendment could be used to rid the country of the hated Trump. What was once considered a ridiculous idea has gained enough steam that Vice President Pence had to specifically deny that he had conversations with the Cabinet regarding the implementation of the 25th. In fact, many people still believe that he wrote the infamous New York Time Op-Ed as the opening shot of a 25th coup d'état. The problem is that the 25th was never intended to get rid of a President because some part of the country doesn't like the way he parts his hair...

James Madison once wrote that "A Government is instituted to protect property of every sort...This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." So what happens when a government, other then the national government, that is, decides that it wants what you have, even if they claim it's for a "public benefit?" In the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, a nice old lady - she's even named Rose Mary Knick - owns a cute place on the edge of town that has a bit of property around it that - this is important - she owns. (Commence menacing music here) The Township loves its history and it wants to share it - all of it - with pretty much anybody who happens to saunter through the Township. And for reasons that will soon become the focal point of our discussion, it has decided that some of that history is on little old Rose Mary's property. So what's a Township to do? You might think that they would sit down with Rose Mary and have a nice pleasant conversation - probably over tea and milk and homemade cookies that she would make for the occasion - about the importance of this particular piece (or pieces) of history that might be on her land and work out a way that would benefit the Township, Rose Mary Knick and all the history loving wanderers who go gallivanting through the Township of Scott. Yeah... you might think that. So of course, that isn't what the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania decided to do... And it's our case for this week on Constitution Thursday, somewhat tongue in cheek titled: Grandma's Haunted History...

James Madison once wrote that "A Government is instituted to protect property of every sort...This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." So what happens when a government, other then the national government, that is, decides that it wants what you have, even if they claim it's for a "public benefit?" In the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, a nice old lady - she's even named Rose Mary Knick - owns a cute place on the edge of town that has a bit of property around it that - this is important - she owns. (Commence menacing music here) The Township loves its history and it wants to share it - all of it - with pretty much anybody who happens to saunter through the Township. And for reasons that will soon become the focal point of our discussion, it has decided that some of that history is on little old Rose Mary's property. So what's a Township to do? You might think that they would sit down with Rose Mary and have a nice pleasant conversation - probably over tea and milk and homemade cookies that she would make for the occasion - about the importance of this particular piece (or pieces) of history that might be on her land and work out a way that would benefit the Township, Rose Mary Knick and all the history loving wanderers who go gallivanting through the Township of Scott. Yeah... you might think that. So of course, that isn't what the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania decided to do... And it's our case for this week on Constitution Thursday, somewhat tongue in cheek titled: Grandma's Haunted History...

A few years ago there was a wonderful show on TV, "How the States Got Their Shapes." Host Brian Unger takes you around the country and looks at.... well... how the states got their shapes. It's all based on the book of the same name (HERE). For what it's worth, the show is better than the book, but the information is the same. At any rate, why does any of that matter? Yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled that the much-heralded and discussed Prop 9, a vote by the people on whether or not to separate California into three States should be removed from the ballot because it "might" violate the States Constitution. Now... whether it does or not we have to ask some questions about this whole deal. Plausibly live, It's Constitution Thursday on The Dave Bowman Show!

A few years ago there was a wonderful show on TV, "How the States got Their Shapes." Host Brian Unger takes you around the country and looks at.... well... how the states got their shapes. It's all based on the book of the same name (HERE). For what it's worth, the show is better than the book, but the information is the same. At any rate, why does any of that matter? Yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled that the much heralded and discussed Prop 9, a vote by the people on whether or not to separate California into three States should be removed from the ballot because it "might" violate the States Constitution. Now... whether it does or not we have to ask some questions about this whole deal. Plausibly live, It's Constitution Thursday on The Dave Bowman Show!

On Constitution Thursday we delve into the statement by the current President to the effect that he could pardon himself, were such a pardon were actually needed. It isn't as clear-cut as you might want it to be - from a Constitutional viewpoint. But I would think that from a political viewpoint, it would create immense problems. Great problems. The biggest and best problems we've ever seen in this country. And that would be, of course, just the beginning...

Constitution Thursday looks at the "free exercise" or religion. From Jefferson's Danbury Letter to a ruling from the 6th Circuit, how far can the Government go to limit 'the free exercise" of belief? If a Church decides to open a cafeteria to serve the public, using members of the congregation as staff for the express purpose of proselytizing, can the government claim that it'a violation of labor laws?

In Danbury, Connecticut, the local Baptist congregation is deeply concerned about the ability to freely practice their religion. Sure, the Constitution says they can, but those words are only as good as the men who uphold them. They are pleased that Thomas Jefferson, a well-known fighter for religious freedom is now President. Still, they want to make sure where he stands, so they write him a letter. Two Hundred and twelve years later, the Grace Cathedral Church in Akron, OH, which didn't exist when Jefferson replied to the Danbury Baptists, decided to freely exercise their religion by opening, of all things, a public cafeteria on their own property. Much of the staff was paid and employed by the Church, but many of the service staff were volunteers from the church. They were there to "help" smoothly run things and to proselytize while they worked. You will not be surprised to learn that the government objected to this arrangement and filed a lawsuit alleging violations of FSLA rules. Mind you now, not one single person complained or filed a complaint about it. The government decided that it was a violation and shut it down hard. And so we take a look at the Case of the Danbury Cafeteria...

In a ruling that surprised absolutely nobody - with the possible exception of the President himself - the Southern District of New York ruled that the President cannot block people on Twitter. Shocker. Let's spend Constitution Thursday digging into this and seeing what other things it might end up impacting...

In a ruling that surprised absolutely nobody - with the possible exception of the President himself - the Southern District of New York ruled that the President cannot block people on Twitter. Shocker. Let's spend Constitution Thursday digging into this and seeing what other things it might end up impacting...

It's Constitution Thursday, and we take a look at Federalism and its evolution in The United States under the Constitution. What seemed at first to be a pretty clear distinction between state and federal powers, has slowly morphed into a whole lot more Federal and less State. And the journey to get there started long before the Progressive era. In fact, it really started the day after the Constitution was ratified. We'll take a short look at two cases in the news this week. One of them went before the Court and the law passed by Congress was stuck down, allowing for sports Betting to be opened up across the nation. It's the opinion in that case that has Progressives excited and one of them even exclaiming that "Federalism can be good for liberals!" The other deals with the laws being debated by Congress as we speak to make any attack on a Police Officer a Federal Crime. who would oppose that? After all, we "support" Law enforcement, right? Or do we support and defend the Constitution?

It's Constitution Thursday, and we take a look at Federalism and its evolution in The United states under the Constitution. What seemed at first to be a pretty clear distinction between state and Federal powers, has slowly morphed into a whole lot more Federal and less State. And the journey to get there started long before the Progressive era. In fact, it really stated the day after the Constitution was ratified. We'll take a short look at two cases in the news this week. One of them went before the Court and the law passed by Congress was stuck down, allowing for sports Betting to be opened up across the nation. It's the opinion in that case that has Progressives excited and one of them even exclaiming that "Federalism can be good for liberals!" The other deals with the laws being debated by Congress as we speck to make any attack on a Police Officer a Federal Crime. who would oppose that? After all, we "support" Law enforcement, right? Or do we support and defend the Constitution?

President Trump has exercised his Executive authority to call forth the National Guard for the expressed purpose of "doing Military things' to guard the border with Mexico. Whether or not you agree with his policy, we ask the question about why it is that he President is calling forth the militia of the several states, when Article I section 8 makes it clear that Congress is supposed to be doing that. The President is the Commander in Chief. It's Constitution Thursday on Plausibly Live...

Live broadcast of Constitution Thursday looks at the limits of the 26th Amendment in the light of calls for raising the purchase age of guns to 21

Live broadcast of Constitution Thursday looks at the limits of the 26th Amendment in the light of calls for raising the purchase age of guns to 21

Constitution Thursday takes a look at the history of the Supreme Court's process through the lens of one of the most controversial rulings ever made, Roe v Wade and the function of the 9th Amendment. At Launch by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...) Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-... Artist: http://incompetech.com/

As the debates rolled on, the nation considered many elements of the proposed Constitution. In Rhode Island there was grave concern over the idea that the State would not be able to print its own paper currency. In Virginia the Kentucky Counties worried about the navigational rights on the Mississippi River. But nearly everyone agreed on one issue - the idea that if the nation went to war, it would be stronger united than not. On April 6, 1917, Congress gathered to vote on whether or not the United States should declare war on Imperial Germany. Four days earlier President Woodrow Wilson had made it clear that the United States was needed and ready for the fight against an evil and depraved monarchy that chose war over peace and threatened the entire world. But, he made he clear, that it would not be, it could not be, his decision alone to send the US into World War I. Despite the changes in the world since 1787, one thing remained the same. It was that one thing that the Framers had in their prescience foreseen: that no one person should ever be allowed to take the US to war.

On Monday, Judge Leonie Brinckema, a Federal Appeals Judge in Virginia, issued an injunction against President Trumps Immigration Executive Orders on the basis that they are in fact, a Muslim Ban. The Government has argued that the doctrine of Plenary Powers over National Security and Immigration should make the Orders unreviewable. But can such power be given under the Constitution? If the answer is no, then can a statement made outside of the Orders by the President and his advisers be taken into account as to the intent of the orders? If the answer is yes, are we prepared to accept a country where he sitting President has unchecked power which neither the Courts nor Congress can counterbalance? It's a Valentine's Day Tuesday episode of Constitution Thursday!

On Monday, Judge Leonie Brinckema, a Federal Appeals Judge in Virginia, issued an injunction against President Trumps Immigration Executive Orders on the basis that they are in fact, a Muslim Ban. The Government has argued that the doctrine of Plenary Powers over National Security and Immigration should make the Orders unreviewable. But can such power be given under the Constitution? If the answer is no, then can statements made outside of the Orders by the President and his advisers be taken into account as to the intent of the orders? If the answer is yes, are we prepared to accept a country where he sitting President has unchecked power which neither the Courts nor Congress can counterbalance? It's a Valentines day Tuesday episode of Constitution Thursday!

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed... 8th Amendment In recent days, members of the California State Senate and Assembly have made the reformation of the Bail system a "Legislative Priority" in the State. Their reasoning is that on any given day, 63% of the people held in the States Jails have not been convicted of any crime. They are simply awaiting trial and cannot - for a variety of reasons - make bail. The Legislative argument goes that the main reason that people cannot make bail is twofold. First, that bail levels are set far too high in the State. Second is that the Bail system discriminates against those who are "poor," in favor of those who have money. So the solution that at least two other States have elected to employ is to eliminate Bail requirements for some "low level" crimes. The history of Bail in The United States traces its origins to 1689 and the Glorious Revolution. And, with just a single word change since, has been a cornerstone of those rights which we have held dear, both as Englishmen and as Americans. So is Bail really discriminatory? Or is there a bigger problem? Or any problem at all? And why hasn't the Supreme Court addressed it? Today we look at Bail on Constitution Thursday.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed... 8th Amendment In recent days, members of the California State Senate and Assembly have made the reformation of the Bail system a "Legislative Priority" in the State. Their reasoning is that on any given day, 63% of the people held in the States Jails have not been convicted of any crime. They are simply awaiting trial and cannot - for a variety of reasons - make bail. The Legislative argument goes that the main reason that people cannot make bail is twofold. First that bail levels are set far too high in the State. Second is that the Bail system discriminates against those who are "poor," in favor of those who have money. So the solution that at least two other States have elected to employ is to eliminate Bail requirements for some "low level" crimes. The history of Bail in The United States traces its origins to 1689 and the Glorious Revolution. And, with just a single word change since, has been a cornerstone of those rights which we have held dear, both as Englishmen and as Americans. So is Bail really discriminatory? Or is there a bigger problem? Or any problem at all? And why hasn't the Supreme Court addressed it? Today we look at Bail on Constitution Thursday.

When the Massachusetts Convention gathered in early January, 1788 to consider ratification off the Constitution, the state faced three hurdles to ratification. First, the lingering suspicion and distrust of a central government from the western part of the State when just two years before, Shay's Rebellion had shaken the nation. The western part of the State saw the Constitution as little more than a larger form of the same government that had suppressed their rights and demanded their hard currency, and strongly objected to the idea that Congress would be able to tax and that only gold and silver could be used to pay debts. The Second problem was Maine. At the time, Maine was part of Massachusetts, and because of it's physical separation had often felt both neglected and treated as second class by the Boston mercantile class. Furthermore, Maine had staunch loyalist leanings during both the Revolutionary war, and would again during the War of 1812. It was assumed by most people that Maine wanted to separate from Massachusetts, but that the proposed Constitution made it virtually impossible to do so since Massachusetts would have to give it's consent to do so. But like many assumptions about both people and the Constitution, this turned out to be the least of the Federalist's worries. The third, and potentially the greatest hurdle to Massachusetts ratification was Sam Adams. He had made it clear that he saw in the Constitution, not a protection of the sovereignty of the States in a federal union, but instead a national government, which he was certain would crush the rights so recently and so difficultly won. Despite his "open mouthed" opposition to the Constitution, he was elected as a delegate by Boston, which supported the ratification. As Henry Knox informed General Washington, 2/7th's of Massachusetts was "insurgents" who had supported Shays, 2/7th's was Maine which opposed the ratification on their own grounds. Leaving only 3/7th's to try and carry the Constitution and try and make Massachusetts the 6th State to ratify...

In early 1788, a Weston, Massachusetts newspaper reported that, "Little else, among us, is thought or or talked of, but the new Constitution." The debate seemed to engross the attention of all classes of people, including women, who normally would be excluded from politics. . But as Massachusetts debates, the fate of the Constitution is as yet, undetermined. If Massachusetts ratifies, it is likely that the Constitution will be adopted. But if not, it seems that New York, Virginia will most likely follow their example. The debate's have consumed Americans of all political and social divisions. for the first and perhaps only time in her history, the level of political engagement is nearly one hundred percent. Even former Loyalists have and interest in the Constitution being ratified, as it would mean they would finally receive their long ago promised compensation. But no longer will States simply approve the Constitution in quick and easy conventions. In Massachusetts, where the Revolution really began, the life or death of the Constitution will face it's first real test among the States.

By the summer of 1787, George, the youngest and smallest (population size) State, seemingly had very little to offer to the nation, and needed a great deal of help to deal with her problems, many of which could be described as more or less self-produced. The biggest problem was Georgia's indifference towards... well... pretty much everything, including defending herself, first against the British and now against the hostile tribes on her borders and territory. And while her participation in Congress had been spotty at best, she had managed to send four delegates to the Convention. Now, in very late 1787 - December 25th, to be exact, Georgia's leaders gathered to debate ratification of the Constitution. For her, it was more a matter of what was to be gained, than what could be lost. And when the New Year finally rolled in, Georgia kicked it off by officially ratifying the Constitution.

In late 1788, Pennsylvania was, without a doubt, the most culturally, religiously and politically diverse State in the Union. It was also the one State that managed to spend most of the preceding decade disenfranchising most of its own citizens as a small powerful, anti-British, anti-Quaker minority ruled the State politically and used that power to maintain its base. It was only in 1786 that laws had been repealed that allowed the ouster of the political minority from power. Now, just two years later, the State delegates meet in the same room where the Constitution had been forged to debate whether or not Pennsylvania would follow Delaware's lead and ratify the document. Unlike Delaware, in this room sat men who adamantly opposed the Constitution, and interestingly enough, had recently been removed from power in the State. Over the few weeks of debate, the fight in Pennsylvania moved out of the State Hall, and into the media of the day - newspapers and pamphlets. And whoever won that, would win the ratification debate. Our story today begins in the office of a prominent Wilkes-Barre citizen, who supports ratification of the Constitution. On his desk, given to him by another, perhaps more prominent citizen of the city, are pamphlets that present a Federalist, pro-constitution view of the matter, with instructions to distribute the pamphlets throughout the city. But Ebenezer doesn't like the fact that the pamphlets contain rebuttals to arguments against the Constitution. He fears that if the good people of Wilkes-Barre read these, they will discover that there are cogent arguments against the Constitution. And so, he hits upon an idea...

Breaking both the timeline and the 4th Wall, the debate of religion and government in the United States has taken on a new and particularly partisan tone in recent days, as the Nation tries to decide what to do about the Syrian Refugee problem. Oddly enough, the debate has taken on religious tone, as some say that "as Christians" we must accept the refugees, while others say that we must not. Scripture is quoted to both support and defy the idea of bringing in the refugees. But as Dave so often says, people do not change. The do the same things for the same reasons usually with the same results, throughout history. Indeed, as we have already seen, they even have the same arguments. As the debate over debate the ratification of the Constitution continued, one of the ideals bubbled to the surface - religion, and the lack thereof in the proposed Constitution, came to the front and center. But you might be surprised as to who was on which side of things, and why. And how it shows that all these centuries later, we are still debating the same questions as those who debated the Ratification of the Constitution.

John DeWitt issues his second letter, in which he begins to get to the details of issues over which he is concerned about the proposed Constitution. Later, Hamilton, writing as Publius, will answer the objection to the lack of the Bill of Rights in Federalist #84. But both arguments should remind us of one important historical fact: that the Bill of Rights was, in essence, given to us by people who objected to the general functions of the proposed Constitution. Even today, on a College Campus in Columbia, MO, we see what is, in effect, the exact same argument from all those years ago. Should there be a central basically unrestrained government with the power to command the citizenry, or should that strong central government have limits placed upon it to protect precious rights which are necessary for liberty? The answer to us today seems clear. We venerate and honor our Bill of Rights. But the argument isn't always so clear cut, and the issue not always... black and white... Extra Reading: Hamilton's "The Continentalist #1"

As he closes the 2nd Federalist Paper, Publius appeals to the words of the poet to remind Americans that all of our greatness, all that we have achieved and could yet be, will be erased if we reject Union. The arguments take on a more philosophical tone, between classic republicanism and what each side believes is the best definition of that term, and what is the best way to achieve the singular goal of Union to protect individual rights, liberties and the survival of the Nation? In the study of the Constitution, we begin to realize that our long held beliefs about what the Framers thought best, might not match up with what they themselves told us they believed. It should not change or passion, or even necessarily our positions. But it should remind us that Union is still the only way to achieve what we can be as a Nation. That we must join, or die.

By the end of October, 1787, the two side in the debate had been clearly delineated. There were those who were opposed to the Constitution, and there were those who favored it. Those opposed, the Anti-Federalists, as they would become known, had been first to publish their ideas with the first two DeWitt letters. But even as the second hit the papers, the first pro constitution article appeared. It was addressed to the People of the State of New York, and signed by the penname Publius, one of four men who overthrew the monarchy and established the Roman Republic in 509 b.c.e. Over the coming months, many more pro constitution, or "Federalist Papers" would be written. Their purpose was clear - to convince the people of the State of New York, and by extension, the entire country, to favor ratification of the Constitution.