Podcasts about federal convention

Over the summer of 1787, the Federal Convention in Philadelphia debates the idea of an executive branch for the new government. Blog https://blog.AmRevPodcast.com includes a complete transcript, as well as more resources related to this week's episode. Book Recommendation of the Week: Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution, by Richard Beeman Online Recommendation of the Week: The Growth of the Constitution in the Federal Convention of 1787: https://archive.org/details/growthconstitut00meiggoog Join American Revolution Podcast on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AmRevPodcast Ask your American Revolution Podcast questions on Quora: https://amrevpod.quora.com Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast: https://www.facebook.com/groups/132651894048271 Follow the podcast on X @AmRevPodcast Join the podcast mail list: https://mailchi.mp/d3445a9cd244/american-revolution-podcast-by-michael-troy  ARP T-shirts and other merch: https://merch.amrevpodcast.com Support this podcast on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/AmRevPodcast or via PayPal http://paypal.me/AmRevPodcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Over the summer of 1787, the Federal Convention in Philadelphia struggles with the details of how the new federal legislature will work. Blog https://blog.AmRevPodcast.com includes a complete transcript, as well as more resources related to this week's episode. Book Recommendation of the Week: 1787: The Grand Convention, by Clinton Rossiter. (borrow on archive.org) Online Recommendation of the Week: The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Day by Day Account: https://www.nps.gov/inde/learn/historyculture/stories-constitutionalconvention.htm Join American Revolution Podcast on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AmRevPodcast Ask your American Revolution Podcast questions on Quora: https://amrevpod.quora.com Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast: https://www.facebook.com/groups/132651894048271 Follow the podcast on X @AmRevPodcast Join the podcast mail list: https://mailchi.mp/d3445a9cd244/american-revolution-podcast-by-michael-troy  ARP T-shirts and other merch: https://merch.amrevpodcast.com Support this podcast on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/AmRevPodcast or via PayPal http://paypal.me/AmRevPodcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Delegates at the 1787 Federal Convention struggle to decide whether the new government will represent the states, or the people. Blog https://blog.AmRevPodcast.com includes a complete transcript, as well as more resources related to this week's episode. Book Recommendation of the Week: Bowen, Catherine Drinker: Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, Little, Brown & Co. 1966 (borrow at archive.org). Online Recommendation of the Week: The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, (Farrand, editor.). Vol. 1: https://archive.org/details/recordsoffederal01unit Vol 2: https://archive.org/details/recordsoffederal02unit Vol 3: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.58320 Or Online Liberty Library edition: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-3vols Join American Revolution Podcast on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AmRevPodcast Ask your American Revolution Podcast questions on Quora: https://amrevpod.quora.com Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast: https://www.facebook.com/groups/132651894048271 Follow the podcast on X @AmRevPodcast Join the podcast mail list: https://mailchi.mp/d3445a9cd244/american-revolution-podcast-by-michael-troy  ARP T-shirts and other merch: https://merch.amrevpodcast.com Support this podcast on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/AmRevPodcast or via PayPal http://paypal.me/AmRevPodcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Constitutional Convention got off to a rocky start, beginning nearly two weeks after the planned start date. Not enough states showed up until then. Delegates spent the first few days electing officers for the Convention. They unanimously selected Washington to preside. They also created rules for the Convention. Finally, Virginia introduced its Virginia Plan to begin the actual debate. Blog https://blog.AmRevPodcast.com includes a complete transcript, as well as more resources related to this week's episode. Book Recommendation of the Week: Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787, by Christopher Collier (or borrow at archive.org) Online Recommendation of the Week: Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, by James Madison: https://archive.org/details/notesofdebatesin00unit Join American Revolution Podcast on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AmRevPodcast Ask your American Revolution Podcast questions on Quora: https://amrevpod.quora.com Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast: https://www.facebook.com/groups/132651894048271 Follow the podcast on Twitter @AmRevPodcast Join the podcast mail list: https://mailchi.mp/d3445a9cd244/american-revolution-podcast-by-michael-troy  ARP T-shirts and other merch: http://tee.pub/lic/AmRevPodcast Support this podcast on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/AmRevPodcast or via PayPal http://paypal.me/AmRevPodcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

     SEGMENT 1 Time 6:03am cst WE ARE LIVE on The King 1010 WXKG, Our Flagship Syndication Station in Atlanta Georgia, all week from 7am-10am! 6:03am cst.  Welcome to the Mike Church Show on www.crusadechannel.com  Call the show  844-5CRUSADE   Did you miss yesterday's LIVE Mike Church Show? Worry not, you can listen to all previously aired shows on CRUSADEchannel.com for just $15 a month! Plus get all of Mike Parrott's Parrott Talk Show, Brother André Marie's Reconquest, Fiorella de Maria's Mid-Day Show, The Barrett Brief Weekend Edition and much much more! Subscribe now and your first month is FREE! 15m                           19m Impeachment Clause I'm not surprised by what I read this morning b/c I have read it before. Show of hands does anyone give a rats furry behind about any of this? When the men that we call Founding Fathers were ratifying the Constitution… I don't think there are any men in this country that could do what these men did back then. Constitution Convention  After James Madison's notes were published, it was in his will you could take the Federalist Papers that he wrote and all his notes, he said publish them but be prudent about it. When Hamilton died he left a note that upon his death, in his library he had a book w/ many volumes, he left a little note in another book that he thought his wife would find, but what else was in there was his notes he took. So we have all this evidence and stuff. So you can't say ‘we have no idea what the Founders thought at that time' because they left behind ample notes and ledgers on what they truly thought. The Federal Convention - they all took notes as they were putting together the Constitution. Madison took great notes using what we call shorthand now. The Impeachment Clause -  A tragic thing happened on the way to this, Senator Schumer decided he didn't want to have a trial for Mayorkas Impeachment. He created a new clause stating that the Impeachment power, the Senate must agree w/ the findings before a trial can be held. This is so egregious.  This Biden and his gang flipping off the average American. So basically Mayorkas got acquitted yesterday. No trial, no witnesses, no documents….NOTHING! Dereliction of Duty  For anyone to say the House didn't do XYZ, that is incorrect. This was SO bad, Mitch McConnell stood up against his friend Schumer on this. This is the most egregious by far in my opinion.  The only thing left to do here is to bust this thing up! No on disagreed w/ the charges brought up against Trump. How will they survive a challenge in states that are overrun by illegals? This does grave damage to any remaining good will that people may have had to OUR Congress. It begins w/ WE THE PEOPLE. I think as the hour goes on, I will walk you through the historical record on how this Impeachment Clause came about. STRAIGHT from our Founding Fathers. 28m NPR How does the NPR have a CEO? It isn't a company. So why does it have a CEO? A CEO implies business.  But this may be a sign of the times here. NPR - National Communist Radio isn't exactly a friend to you and I. The fact it can be driven from the battlefield may show us wokeness might be on its way out. 6:35am cst SEGMENT 2 41m                       52m AUDIO/VIDEO: Senator John Kennedy on Senate Floor - Moving to Adjourn on Impeachment Hearing - We find ourselves in the awkward position that Democrats put Republicans in by motioning to adjourn impeachment. I move we adjourn immediately until 12 noon on April 30th and I ask for the yay's and nay's.  He got a lot of nay's on this adjournment. QUESTION: What did they say no to yesterday? ANSWER: The Constitution  I'm going to walk you through WHY this is wrong and goes against the Constitu...

The National Constitution Center and the Federal Judicial Center present a three-part discussion exploring the evolution of judicial independence in America and its critical role in our democracy from the Founding to present day. This episode features a conversation with historians Mary Sarah Bilder of Boston College Law School and Jack Rakove of Stanford University, exploring the founders' intentions surrounding the establishment of the federal judiciary and the role of the courts during the nation's formative years. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   This program is presented in partnership with the Federal Judicial Center. Additional Resources National Constitution Center, "Article III," Interactive Constitution Jack Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution Mary Sarah Bilder, Madison's Hand: Revising the Constitutional Convention James Madison, Notes on the Federal Convention of 1787 Federalist 78 Marbury v. Madison (1803) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Alexander Bickle, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States Ed. Max Skjönsberg, Catharine Macaulay: Political Writings Wendell Bird, Criminal Dissent: Prosecutions under the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 Stay Connected and Learn More Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

Steven Crowder vs The Ben Father We've been living this but Crowder is just now realizing what the MSM beast is all about. They all hate Congressman Paul, that is how you can tell.  Who else dared cross Conservative Inc? Debra Medina - Glenn Beck single handedly sunk her. This is an easy one for us b/c of our experience and what we have seen. Crowder is making these videos w/ still shots of what The Ben Father wanted him to sign. They are trying to do to him what Ray Kroc did to the McDonald Brothers. The Founder - the movie TKD is talking about now. The McDonald Brothers died w/o being able to use their own name publicly?  They signed away the right to their own names. AUDIO/VIDEO: Steven Crowder - The Conservative media is at odds w/ what's best for you and this country. We thought we were genuinely taking it to big tech.  TKD tells story about friend who was asked to be w/ Daily Wire and the Ben Father -  Denise McAllister - she was hounded and blacklisted b/c the Ben Father. She hasn't become Catholic yet but she is right there. She saw Ben Shapiro cloth himself w/ LGBTQ and marriage stuff. She refused to edit her stuff and was immediately dismissed.  HEADLINE: Writer who became famous when Meghan McCain tweeted 'You were at my wedding Denise' in response to criticism is FIRED from the Federalist after making homophobic comments towards HuffPost writer Yashar Ali by Stephanie Haney  LOOR TV I've reached out to them before and haven't heard back from them. HEADLINE: Right-Wing Pundits Ben Shapiro And Steven Crowder Clash Over $50 Million Media Deal by Carlie Porterfield  There are so few people in the world even know a film was made that actually showed the reasons and what was discussed and why of this thing called The Federal Convention. Judge Napolitano is the only FOX person that said anything about it. This is how it works.

This Saturday, Sept. 17, is Constitution Day. It was on this day in 1787 that delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed America's Constitution. And while the First Amendment was not ratified until 1791, discussions over the role of free speech and expression in a democratic society were alive long before then. Pepperdine University professor and author Gordon Lloyd joins the show this week to explore how the American conception of free speech came to be, from the colonial era to the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Drawing from over 40 years of research, Lloyd discusses examples of free speech and expression during the founding, ranging from 1641, when the Massachusetts Body of Liberties — the earliest known protection of free speech in the colonies — was published; to 1776, when free speech aided the decision to declare independence from Great Britain; to the late 1780s, when federalist and anti-federalist publications sparked, in Lloyd's words, “the greatest pamphlet war the world has ever seen.” Show notes: The Bill of Rights Online Exhibit on AmericanFounding.org “The Essential Bill of Rights: Original Arguments and Fundamental Documents” edited by Gordon Lloyd and Margie Lloyd The Federalist Papers by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton and edited by George W. Carey and James McClellan “The Essential Antifederalists” edited by William B. Allen and Gordon Lloyd “Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787” by James Madison and edited by Gordon Lloyd “Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media” by Jacob Mchangama www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

In this episode of The American Idea, Jeff is joined by Dr. Gordon Lloyd, Dockson Emeritus Professor of Public Policy at Pepperdine University and Senior Fellow at Ashbrook, and Dr. Chris Burkett, Associate Professor of Political Science at Ashland University and Director of the Ashbrook Scholar Program, for a lively conversation on the dramatic story and the legacy of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.The leading expert on the Constitutional Convention, Gordon has spent the past forty years studying and writing on this essential part of the American story. He is the editor of several of Ashbrook's Core Document volumes for teachers, including the American Founding and the Bill of Rights volumes, and our printing of Madison's Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. He is also the author of four highly regarded and widely-used online exhibits on the Founding, which are hosted exclusively on Ashbrook's new website TheAmericanFounding.org.Host: Jeff SikkengaExecutive Producer: Greg McBrayerProducer: Jeremy Gypton, Tyler MacQueen

Did you know that more than 40,000 Alaskans have signed a petition calling for the Convention of States to place restrictions on the Federal Government ?Or how about that Alaska was one of the first states to pass a resolution calling for the Convention ?Is there a tie in to what is going on with the Federal Convention of States and the current effort to call for an Alaska State Constitutional Convention ? Most certainly.My guest today on "I'm Glad you Said That" is Keith Heim who is the State Director for the Convention of States.CLICK HERE to download the podcast and listen now to our conversation.Although Alaska has joined the ranks of states that have said we need to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress, there is still work to be done.Tune in to find out what that is. Support the show

Did you know that more than 40,000 Alaskans have signed a petition calling for the Convention of States to place restrictions on the Federal Government ?Or how about that Alaska was one of the first states to pass a resolution calling for the Convention ?Is there a tie in to what is going on with the Federal Convention of States and the current effort to call for an Alaska State Constitutional Convention ? Most certainly.My guest today on "I'm Glad you Said That" is Keith Heim who is the State Director for the Convention of States.Although Alaska has joined the ranks of states that have said we need to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress, there is still work to be done.Tune in to find out what that is. Support the show

1788 ratification. Transmitted to the Congress of the Confederation, then sitting in New York City, it was within the power of Congress to expedite or block ratification of the proposed Constitution. The new frame of government that the Philadelphia Convention presented was technically only a revision of the Articles of Confederation. After several days of debate, Congress voted to transmit the document to the thirteen states for ratification according to the process outlined in its Article VII. Each state legislature was to call elections for a "Federal Convention" to ratify the new Constitution, rather than consider ratification itself; a departure from the constitutional practice of the time, designed to expand the franchise in order to more clearly embrace "the people". The frame of government itself was to go into force among the States so acting upon the approval of nine (i.e. two-thirds of the 13) states; also a departure from constitutional practice, as the Articles of Confederation could be amended only by unanimous vote of all the states. Three members of the Convention—Madison, Gorham, and King—were also Members of Congress. They proceeded at once to New York, where Congress was in session, to placate the expected opposition. Aware of their vanishing authority, Congress, on September 28, after some debate, resolved unanimously to submit the Constitution to the States for action, "in conformity to the resolves of the Convention", but with no recommendation either for or against its adoption. Two parties soon developed, one in opposition, the Anti-Federalists, and one in support, the Federalists, of the Constitution; and the Constitution was debated, criticized, and expounded upon clause by clause. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, under the name of Publius, wrote a series of commentaries, now known as The Federalist Papers, in support of ratification in the state of New York, at that time a hotbed of anti-Federalism. These commentaries on the Constitution, written during the struggle for ratification, have been frequently cited by the Supreme Court as an authoritative contemporary interpretation of the meaning of its provisions. The dispute over additional powers for the central government was close, and in some states, ratification was affected only after a bitter struggle in the state convention itself. On June 21, 1788, the constitution had been ratified by the minimum of nine states required under Article VII. Towards the end of July, and with eleven states then having ratified, the process of organizing the new government began. The Continental Congress, which still functioned at irregular intervals, passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, to put the new Constitution into operation with the eleven states that had then ratified it. The federal government began operations under the new form of government on March 4, 1789. However, the initial meeting of each chamber of Congress had to be adjourned due to lack of a quorum. George Washington was inaugurated as the nation's first president 8 weeks later, on April 30. The final two states both ratified the Constitution subsequently: North Carolina on November 21, 1789 and Rhode Island on May 29, 1790. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

When reading Thomas Jefferson's correspondence, one often sees examples of his belief that the less government, the better. In this week's episode, President Thomas Jefferson discusses the writing of the Constitution and comments on The Journal of the Federal Convention by James Madison. Jefferson wrote, "it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation." You can order Clay's new book at Amazon, Target, Barnes and Noble, or by contacting your independent bookstore. The Language of Cottonwoods is out now through Koehler Books. Mentioned on this episode: Lindsay Chervinsky: Why “The Framers Never Intended” is Garbage, 1787: The Grand Convention by Clinton Rossiter, Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787 by Christopher Collier, Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787 by Catherine Drinker Bowen, Wikipedia: Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Find this episode, along with recommended reading, on the blog. Support the show by joining the 1776 Club or by donating to the Thomas Jefferson Hour, Inc. You can learn more about Clay's cultural tours and retreats at jeffersonhour.com/tours. Check out our new merch. You can find Clay's publications on our website, along with a list of his favorite books on Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and other topics. Thomas Jefferson is interpreted by Clay S. Jenkinson.

America is a country formed by God to carry on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The truth is: we are not voting for a president over the next four years. We are voting for America, whether we want to admit it or not. Woman (to Benjamin Franklin): “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”Benjamin Franklin: "A Republic, if you can keep it.”- McHenry, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Why You Are Voting for America https://redstate.com/lenny_mcallister/2020/10/18/why-you-are-voting-for-america-this-november-n262724 Difference between Marxism and Communism https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/difference-between-marxism-and-communism/  

The complete audio is available for purchase at Audible.com: https://adbl.co/2TzPktA The Federalist Papers By Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison Narrated by Ron Altman, Jennifer Fournier and John Burlinson This collection of articles on constitutional government was written by three of the most significant figures in the establishment of the United States as sovereign nation. Alexander Hamilton, one of the most influential of the Founding Fathers, was the author of 51 of the 85 articles. James Madison, who later served as the fourth president, contributed 29 articles. The remaining five articles were written by John Jay, who was active in a number of public positions, including chief justice, various cabinet posts under Washington and governor of New York. The original title was The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787. Thomas Jefferson described the collection as "the best commentary on the principles of government which was ever written."

What can social scientists tell us about the world? How do psychology and history enrich economics? In this episode of the Governance Podcast, Jon Elster sits down with Mark Pennington to discuss the essential tasks and limitations of social science. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast on iTunes and Spotify today and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us on facebook or twitter (@csgskcl). The Guest Jon Elster is the Robert K. Merton Professor of the Social Sciences at Columbia University. Before coming to Columbia, he taught in Paris, Oslo and Chicago. His publications include Ulysses and the Sirens (1979), Sour Grapes (1983), Making Sense of Marx (1985), The Cement of Society (1989), Solomonic Judgements (1989), Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (1989), Local Justice (1992) and Political Psychology (1993). His research interests include the theory of rational choice, the theory of distributive justice and the history of social thought (Marx and Tocqueville). He is currently working on a comparative study of constitution-making processes from the Federal Convention to the present and on a study of retroactive justice in countries that have recently emerged from authoritarian or totalitarian rule. Research interests include Theory of Rational Choice and the Theory of Distributive Justice. Skip Ahead 0:57: You're giving a talk at our Centre called ‘Emotions in History.' Can you explain the argument? 3:54: A lot of your work in the past has been engaged with rational choice models or economic models applied to various social phenomena in one form or another. You're now mentioning the role of psychology. What role should psychology play in relation to the kind of rationality-oriented work you've done in the past? 6:04: So you're saying that common sense rationality can play a role in understanding political institutions or economic institutions, or individual behaviour within them? 7:38: You say that about some of the Chicago-school understandings of institutions which imply that the institutions that are chosen are efficient in some sense—because if they weren't, rational agents would change them. Then it's hard to account for any sort of institutional change because equilibrium is built into the model. 8:50: If we don't explain the origin of institutions through a rational choice model, or at least if that model has quite serious limitations, is there any way in which a model that focuses on the psychological dimension or the emotional dimension provides a better explanation? 10:38: Would your view of institutions be more along the kind of model that recognizes that institutions are often the products of accidents that arise from conjunctions of all kinds of eventualities that really don't necessarily have more universal implications? 11:32: What can we say—or can we say anything—about whether certain kinds of institutions have beneficial properties relative to other kinds of institutions? 13:54: If we go back to this role of emotion: if emotion is an important factor in shaping institutions, the way they're formed and perhaps even the way they persist, that strikes me to imply that… people, because of emotion, create certain institutional structures that could be inefficient or malfunction in various ways… 16:49: What I was wondering was whether you were working with a model where emotional choice influences the way in which institutions are originally created, but then within that set of rules, is that the level at which a more rational choice type model kicks in? Or is it emotions all the way down? 18:26: I want to come to some of what you've written on the role of prediction within social science… but what I take from what you've just said there about the importance of specific cases and not generalizing too much is that you would be against the idea that even if we recognize the role of emotions in forming institutions, we can have a notion of institutional design to deal with the effects of emotional decision making … 21:52: Would it be fair to say that we might not know necessarily what are good decisions – certainly not in some optimizing sense, but can we say about what might be bad decisions? 23:23: So the next question I wanted to ask you is, given the role of indeterminacy, can you say a bit more about what you think are the excessive ambitions of contemporary social science? This is a theme that you've developed in your recent work: a lot of social science is about prediction… much of what you're saying is pushing back against that. 26:50: If prediction is limited, can we nevertheless have a model of social science which is based on understanding in very context-specific circumstances? 28:38: I think that one of the interesting things to think about regarding uncertainty is that there are different views within political economy about this. As I understand, Keynes' view was that uncertainty was very much with us and that the role of statecraft is to manage that uncertainty in a creative way… 30:25: Can we speak a little more about the importance of history? One of the pieces that some of our students read in one of our courses on political economy has some criticisms that you made of the analytic narrative model in political economy—and that's often an attempt to use rational choice type models to understand particular historical episodes. And the argument you made there, as I understand it, is that they are sort of retrofit models. People are picking the history to fit the rational choice type explanation. 34:46: So that sounds very much to be part of what I take of what you're saying here, which is that there needs to be a lot more humility from various analysts about what they claim for their particular models, given the nature of the subject matter. 36:28: One of the authors we're studying at our research centre is Elinor Ostrom and her account of common pool resource management. She is famous for challenging some of the implications that came from one simple model of rational choice: the idea that there is a commons problem—that whenever you don't have ownership rights of some kind, you have a tragedy of the commons. 40:23: Earlier, you were reflecting on areas where you think you've been wrong over what's been a very distinguished career… 42:41: One of the areas where you've applied this notion is giving micro-foundations to Marxist-style explanations. You're one of the influencers behind the analytical Marxist movement. Did that turn out to be a fruitful research paradigm or not? 43:48: In what sense does the early part of Marx remain with us? What's the residual power of the insight? 46:28: Are there any other areas you'd like to talk about where you think what you were writing about in the past wasn't right? 47:40: What are you working on at the moment?

Today's episode of Documents in Detail focused on excerpts from James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 - the Constitutional Convention. James Madison was the only delegate to attend every day of the convention, and to take notes of all the proceedings, to include summaries of speeches and vote tallies throughout the proceedings. The Debates, published after his death, provide scholars, students, and those interested in American constitutional government an insider's view of the process by which the Constitution was considered, debated, and eventually signed, and then released to the states for ratification. An authoritative, contemporary edition of the Debates, edited and prefaced by Professor Gordon Lloyd, is available electronically and in print from Amazon. Access the full program archive here. iTunes Podcast Stitcher Podcast RSS The post Documents in Detail: Madison's Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 appeared first on Teaching American History.

Today's episode of Documents in Detail focused on excerpts from James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 - the Constitutional Convention. James Madison was the only delegate to attend every day of the convention, and to take notes of all the proceedings, to include summaries of speeches and vote tallies throughout the proceedings. The Debates, published after his death, provide scholars, students, and those interested in American constitutional government an insider's view of the process by which the Constitution was considered, debated, and eventually signed, and then released to the states for ratification. An authoritative, contemporary edition of the Debates, edited and prefaced by Professor Gordon Lloyd, is available electronically and in print from Amazon. Access the full program archive here. iTunes Podcast Stitcher Podcast RSS The post Documents in Detail: Madison’s Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 appeared first on Teaching American History.

Here’s a counterintuitive thought: maybe Congress in particular, and politics in general, has too little conflict, not too much. That’s James Wallner’s argument, and it’s more persuasive than you might think. Wallner is a political scientist who became a top Republican Senate aide, working as legislative director for Senators Jeff Sessions and Pat Toomey, as well as executive director of the Senate Steering Committee under Toomey and Lee. He’s now a senior fellow at the R Street Institute, and the author of “The Death of Deliberation: Partisanship and Polarization in the United States Senate.” Wallner is immersed in congressional history and procedure, and one of his conclusions after years of both study and experience is that the leadership in both parties are using the rules to stymie disagreement and suppress chaos — and well-intentioned though this might be, it’s making everything worse. Congress, Wallner believes, is an institution designed to surface conflict so that positions can be made clear, compromises can be tested, and a way forward can be found. That’s not happening now, and the results are disastrous. The Republican Party is particularly bad on this score, he says. “They pretend like they all agree on everything...But if you never deal with your problems, what do you think happens? A break-up! And that's literally what you're seeing right now.” The first few times I hard Wallner’s arguments, I was skeptical. In some ways, I’m still skeptical, as you’ll hear in this conversation. But I’m also convinced he’s onto something important.  Books: The Professor's House by Willa Cather Democracy and Leadership by Irving Babbitt Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last night, following the Jihad attack in Nice, France, Newt Gingrich stirred up a firestorm when he told Sean Hannity that because western civilization is in a war, “we should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported.” He also said “modern Muslims who have given up Sharia, glad to have them as citizens.” It is vitally important to draw clear constitutional, legal, historical, philosophical, and prudent policy lines.  In this special edition, Daniel notes that while there are very problematic and unconstitutional aspects to Newt’s solution as it relates to U.S. citizens, the former speaker’s diagnosis of the problem and his solution as it relates to future immigration is spot on.  There is a degree of constitutional illiteracy that is apparent both in Gingrich’s statement and in the words of his critics.  It is against our Constitution and values to carte blanche take away First Amendment rights from U.S. citizens or deport them for simply harboring a supremacist ideology.  At the same time, it is completely constitutional and rooted in our history and tradition not to willingly import those who subscribe to a political system incompatible with our values and dangerous to our survival.      As it relates to Islamic supremacists who have already obtained U.S. citizenship but have not broken any laws, Daniel explores true constitutional and prudent policies that will save western civilization and are indeed rooted in our history and tradition without violating the Bill of Rights. Important quotes: “Every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there can be room for no complaint.”~ Gouverneur Morris, at the Constitutional Convention in 1787[i] "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source." ~ Chief Justice Marshall 1812 [ii]   Importing the Values of the Middle East The Senate’s final act before recess? More immigration from the Middle East! 7 Constitutional Steps to Protect the Homeland Against Islamic Jihad Muslim reformist, Dr. Zhudi Jasser’s open letter to the media on ignoring true moderate Muslims   [i] Gouverneur Morris, “Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787,” Elliot’s Debates, vol. V, as republished on the Teaching American History website, http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol5/0809_1787/. Morris’s importance as a founder is best captured by Madison’s claim that the actual text of the Constitution “fairly belongs to the pen of Mr. Morris.” Max Farrand, “The Framing Of The Constitution Of The United States,” (Kindle Location 1744).  Kindle Edition.  [ii] The Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 136 (1812). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/presidential-academy/Session+7+Lloyd.mp3 Focus Who was elected to the Committee of Detail and what has been their position so far with respect to the republican and federal issues? How does the Committee on Detail Report differ from the original and amended Virginia Plans and what significant recommendations did it make? Who was elected to the Slave Trade Committee and what had they said about slavery up to that point? How did the slavery provisions undergo changes during the deliberations?   Readings James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: August6, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20,21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. The post Session 7: The Constitutional Convention pt3 – The Committee of Detail Report and the Close of the Convention appeared first on Teaching American History.

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/presidential-academy/Session+6+Lloyd.mp3 Focus What accounts for the persistence of the New Jersey Plan supporters despite their defeat earlier? What are the arguments against the "legality" and "practicality" of the Amended Virginia Plan? When and how did the Connecticut Compromise emerge as a viable alternative? How did the "partly national, partly federal" concept enter the discussion? Why did Madison argue that the issue facing the delegates was not small states vs. large states but the slavery question? What is the significance of who was elected to the Gerry Committee? Who changed their minds and why during this month long discussion over representation? Who favored and who opposed the Connecticut Compromise? What else, besides the representation issue, was discussed during this part of the Convention?   Readings James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: June 26,29,30, July 2,5, and 16 The post Session 6: The Constitutional Convention pt2 – The Connecticut Compromise appeared first on Teaching American History.

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/presidential-academy/Session+5+Lloyd.mp3 Focus Of what significance were the rules adopted by the Convention? In what respects did the Virginia Plan represent a new constitution rather than a mere revision of the Articles? What were delegates' initial reactions and questions concerning the Virginia Plan? What parts of the Plan were rejected or amended? What did the delegates mean when they spoke of a national government as opposed to a federal government? What different principles animate the New Jersey and Virginia Plans and the Hamilton Proposal? Why were they even introduced? What are the arguments for representation of the states, as opposed to the people, in the federal government? Consider the discussions of the executive power, bicameralism, and the role of the judiciary in the context of "republican principles." What do "republican principles" say about the sources of power, the powers, and the structure of the federal government? Is Madison’s extended republic argument a departure from republican principles?   Readings Lloyd and Lloyd, The Essential Bill of Rights, James Madison, "Vices of the Political System of the United States," 246-253 James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: May 29,31, June 6, 11,13,15, and 18 The post Session 5: The Constitutional Convention, pt1 – The Alternative Plans appeared first on Teaching American History.