POPULARITY
4 episodes with founding era
4 episodes with founding era
2 episodes with founding era
3 episodes with founding era
2 episodes with founding era
2 episodes with founding era
2 episodes with founding era
2 episodes with founding era
2 episodes with founding era
On the fifty-ninth episode of the Constitutionalist, Ben and Matthew discuss Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 7 of Alexis De Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" on the omnipotence of the majority. They discuss Tocqueville's warnings of the detrimental effects of democracy on the citizen. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.
On the fifty-eighth episode, Shane, Matthew, and Ben are joined by William B. Allen, Professor Emeritus of Political Philosophy at Michigan State University, to discuss Montesquieu's political philosophy and its influence on the American Founding and eighteenth-century British politics. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.
Today Dr. Scott Spillman joins in to talk about how historians have conceptualized slavery and its role in the development of the United States. Get ready for a history of the history of slavery.About our guest:Scott Spillman is an American historian and the author of the book Making Sense of Slavery: America's Long Reckoning, from the Founding Era to Today (2025). His essays and reviews have appeared in The Point, Liberties, The New Yorker, The New Republic, n+1, the Chronicle Review, and the Los Angeles Review of Books, and he has published academic articles in Reviews in American History, History of Education Quarterly, and North Carolina Historical Review.Scott has a PhD in history from Stanford University, and before that he studied history, English, and political philosophy at the University of North Carolina (and Duke University) as a Robertson Scholar. Originally from Atlanta, he now lives in Denver with his partner and their twin daughters. He also spends part of his time in Leadville, where he serves as chair of the city's historic preservation commission. When he is not reading and writing, he enjoys running in the mountains.
On the fifty-seventh episode of the Constitutionalist, Shane and Matthew discuss Volume 1, Chapter 2 of Alexis De Tocqueville's "Democracy in America." We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.
On the fifty-sixth episode of the Constitutionalist, Shane, Ben, and Matthew discuss Federalist 37, and Madison's teachings on political and epistemological limits. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.
Purchase Professor Rasmussen's book here.We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org.The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.
This week, we're doing a deep dive into the history surrounding Americans under 21 buying guns. That's why we've got gun-rights lawyer Alan Beck on the show. He's currently representing a client who is fighting Hawaii's age restrictions. In the wake of the Eleventh Circuit upholding Florida's gun sales ban for those under 21 by pointing to how contract law limited the same age group's ability to buy guns, he researched the question. He argues the evidence contradicts the Eleventh Circuit's holding. He said rulings from the Founding Era suggest those under 21 couldn't enter into contracts for things that weren't necessities, but that was actually a pretty broad exception. He said most guns would have been considered necessities because they were needed to hunt, perform mandated militia service, and provide for general security. Beck also gave a working-lawyers view of the Supreme Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence and where it's headed. He described the details of his latest case at the High Court and what the cert application process is like. Special Guest: Alan Beck.
On the fifty-fourth episode of the Constitutionalist, Shane, Ben, and Matthew discuss the arguments of Martin Diamond and Herbert Storing in favor of preserving the Electoral College, presented to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee in July 1977. The readings may be accessed here: Martin Diamond: http://www.electoralcollegehistory.com/electoral/docs/diamond.pdf Herbert Storing (Chapter 21 in this volume): https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/-toward-a-more-perfect-union_154408483501.pdf?x85095 We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.
On the fifty-second episode of the Constitutionalist, Shane, Ben, and Matthew are joined by Jordan Cash, Assistant Professor at the James Madison College at Michigan State University, to discuss Texas's declaration of independence from Mexico, and its annexation by the United States. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.
In recent years, from school board meetings to the halls of Congress, Americans have engaged in fierce debates about how slavery and its legacies ought to be taught, researched, and narrated. But since the earliest days of the Republic, political leaders, abolitionists, judges, scholars, and ordinary citizens have all struggled to explain and understand the peculiar institution. In Making Sense of Slavery, historian Scott Spillman shows that the study of slavery was a vital catalyst for the broader development of American intellectual life and politics. In contexts ranging from the plantation fields to the university classroom, Americans interpreted slavery and its afterlives through many lenses, shaping the trajectory of disciplines from economics to sociology, from psychology to history. Spillman delves deeply into the archives, and into the pathbreaking work of scholars such as W. E. B. Du Bois and Annette Gordon-Reed, to trace how generations of Americans have wrestled with the paradox of slavery in a country founded on principles of liberty and equality. As the debate over the place of slavery in our history rages on, Making Sense of Slavery shows that what is truly central to American history is this very debate itself. BUY THE BOOK
On the fifty-first episode of the Constitutionalist, Shane Leary and Matthew Reising discuss James Madison's Note on Property for the National Gazette, published March 27, 1792 We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.
To commemorate the fiftieth episode of The Constitutionalist, Benjamin Kleinerman, Shane Leary, and Matthew Reising discuss the Constitution of 1787. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.
On the forty-ninth episode of The Constitutionalist, Benjamin Kleinerman, Shane Leary, and Matthew Reising discuss James Madison's "Notes on Ancient and Modern Confederacies," compiled in 1786, and his early thinking regarding confederacies, union, and the necessity of a new Constitution. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.
Professor Jonathan Gienapp discusses his latest book Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique. Jonathan is also the author of The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era.
Episode 132 of the Texas History Lessons Podcast explores the influences of the Founding Era and the Founding Fathers. How many George Washington's fought for Texas? More than I expected. If you are enjoying Texas History Lessons, consider buying me a cup of coffee by clicking here! Help make Texas History Lessons by supporting it on Patreon. And a special thanks to everyone that already does. Website: texashistorylessons.com email: texashistorylessons@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Is the president above the law? Is the Electoral College democratic? In this episode, historian Jonathan Gienapp critiques the mainstream use of originalism, arguing that it often neglects crucial historical context, overlooking the complexities of original public understanding. The conversation dives into recent court cases, highlighting tensions between historical interpretation and contemporary judicial practices. This is clearly illustrated in Gienapp's discussion of the Electoral College—a uniquely American invention. He explains the historical roots of the Electoral College, the Framers' intentions, and the criticisms it faces today. He also sheds light on how the Electoral College emerged as a compromise among less desirable options and the historical context surrounding its establishment, including issues of accountability and regional interests. The conversation also touches on ongoing debates about potential reforms, public sentiment toward a national popular vote, and the challenges of amending the Constitution in today's contentious political landscape. Join us for an enlightening discussion that bridges history with contemporary constitutional debates.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Jonathan Gienapp >>> Stanford Law School Page(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction and the Flaws of OriginalismHosts Pam Karlan and Rich Ford discuss the key issues with modern originalism, focusing on how originalists often overlook the historical context necessary to truly capture the Constitution's original meaning with historian Jonathan Gienapp. Gienapp critiques the flexibility of originalist interpretations, especially when applied to complex constitutional concepts like freedom of speech and executive power.(00:04:33) Chapter 2: Public Meaning vs. Original IntentRich Ford explores the tension between public meaning and original intent in originalist theory. Gienapp explains how, despite attempts to distinguish them, the two often overlap in practice. The discussion highlights the inconsistency in how originalists pick and choose historical evidence to support their interpretations.(00:07:47) Chapter 3: Judicial Interpretation in Practice: Rahimi and Trump CasesPam Karlan brings up recent court cases, including United States v. Rahimi and Trump v. United States, where originalist judges either struggled with historical evidence or avoided it altogether. Gienapp notes the irony of originalists relying on minimal historical analysis when it contradicts their desired outcomes.(00:12:04) Chapter 4: The Framers' Vision of the PresidencyJonathan Gienapp discusses the historical foundations of the American presidency, emphasizing the founding generation's rejection of monarchy and the importance of presidential accountability. He highlights the debate at the Constitutional Convention regarding the balance between a strong executive and ensuring that executive power remains accountable to the people.(00:17:06) Chapter 5: Originalism and Constitutional InterpretationJonathan Gienapp delves into the complexities of originalism as a judicial philosophy. He explains the tension between the rhetoric of originalism and its inconsistent application in Supreme Court decisions. He argues for either a more serious commitment to originalism or a recognition of constitutional pluralism, where history is used alongside other interpretative methods.(00:21:39) Chapter 6: The Origins and Challenges of the Electoral CollegeExploration of the creation of the Electoral College, discussing how it emerged not as a perfect solution but as a compromise to address competing concerns about legislative selection, popular votes, and regional interests. Gienapp examines past and present efforts to reform the Electoral College and explains why it persists despite criticism.
Join the Sons of the Revolution in the State of New York, Inc. to celebrate the signing of the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787, featuring a lecture on the formation and implementation of the United States Constitution by Tom Hand, author of An American Triumph: America's Founding Era through the Lives of Ben Franklin, George Washington, and John Adams, an honorable mention for the 2024 Fraunces Tavern Museum Book Award. Hand is also the creator of the website Americana Corner that shares informative stories of the momentous events, significant documents and influential leaders that helped create and shape our country.* This lecture was recorded on Monday, September 16, 2024. *The views of the speakers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Sons of the Revolution℠ in the State of New York, Inc. or its Fraunces Tavern® Museum.
126 Days In Philada: A Story of the Constitutional Convention by Russell J. RuckerWelcome to the convention! With your credentials, dive into our secret meetings to experience the Constitutional Convention in an entertaining yet informative way. Through engaging first-person dialogues, I've enhanced and condensed the speeches, capturing the essence of our founders' personalities without repetitive records. Although my main character is fictional, he and his family serve as witnesses, adding depth to the narrative. Omitting details about his origin maintains the seriousness of the story. No arguments are altered, ensuring historical accuracy, even down to the weather. Join us as the delegates gather in Philadelphia for a captivating exploration of challenging issues and times!Russell Rucker is a historian specializing in the Founding Era. He is a devoted constitutionalist who has served in numerous organizations as well as in government. For him, it's been a serious study of the Founders, their time, and the documents they created.https://www.amazon.com/126-Days-Philada-Constitutional-Convention/dp/B0D7ZPM2CJ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=14TEY3SWFRC58&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.a5IoykjMifxpC0HLXRJZb6T-ztTCfRMPfPbxqFr0LLYcxivhO09SqTRgX8R1q19c5Ss6KiI1g4jb5g_n5GBIaw.sd984c8BO4mPGzt1kjFF1EO4woEKFeKhwh5ggCD8y5Q&dib_tag=se&keywords=russell+j+rucker&qid=1719934218&sprefix=russell+j+ruc%2Caps%2C402&sr=8-1https://www.readersmagnet.com/product/126-days-in-philada-a-story-of-the-constitutional-convention-paperback/https://www.russelljrucker.com/http://www.bluefunkbroadcasting.com/root/twia/8824rjrrm.mp3
In Rahimi, the Supreme Court recently handed down its first application of the Bruen test for Second Amendment cases. With the Court passing on new Second Amendment cases and remanding several in its final conference of the term, its opinion in Rahimi will be the thing most lower courts look to for guidance during at least the near future. That's why we had pro-gun scholar David Kopel on the show two weeks ago to give his interpretation of what the opinion means for future gun cases. It's also why we have Bruen critic and Pepperdine University law professor Jake Charles on the show this week to give his take. We think it's important to give you guys insight from several different perspectives on important developments like this. That way, you're best informed about what's going on and can make up your own mind. Like Kopel, Charles's writing seemed to have a direct impact on the Rahimi ruling itself. Charles has been critical of the Bruen test's reliance on analogizing historical laws to modern regulations since the Court handed it down back in 2022. One of his primary complaints is that the lack of a certain regulation for a societal issue faced during the Founding Era implies that regulation is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Some of the justices, including Amy Coney Barrett, appeared to agree with that critique in Rahimi. Charles also agreed with Justice Clarence Thomas on how the majority seemed to be rejecting the Bruen test--at least to some degree. But he wasn't sure how much of a seachange the ruling would create in the lower courts. And he argued the Court will probably have to take up more Second Amendment cases to answer many of the questions Rahimi left unanswered. Click this link for your free trial from our sponsor The Dispatch: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utmsource=newsletter&utmmedium=email&utm_campaign=reload0624 Special Guest: Jake Charles.
To mark Independence Day this week, this classic replay episode of the ABA Banking Journal explores the role of banking and finance in the American Revolution and the founding era. John Steele Gordon is an acclaimed economic historian whose books include Hamilton's Blessing, The Great Game and An Empire of Wealth; he is also the ABA Banking Journal's “From the Vault” columnist. In this episode, Gordon discusses: How not having any chartered banks prior to 1782 put the United States at a disadvantage during the Revolution. Conversely, how the Bank of England was a “secret weapon” for Britain during the war. The role of patriotic financiers like Robert Morris in achieving U.S. victory. The debates over a central bank in the post-revolutionary period and how they contributed to the development of the Constitution.
Many people who arrive at the halftime of life or even end of a career start asking the question, “What's next?” For Tom Hand that question was answered by developing his passion for America's Founding Era with a foundation that masterfully tells the American Story through videos, podcasts, books and a flourishing grant program. It's a wonderful way to give back and continue living life with significance and purpose. As we celebrate America's Independence Day this year, we look at the history of our country with the sacrifices so many gave for our freedoms. We also are inspired by Tom's message to live every day with significance. Tom Hand created Americana Corner in 2020 to share informative stories of the momentous events, significant documents and influential leaders that helped create and shape our country. Through compelling articles and captivating videos, Tom hopes to rekindle a spirit of patriotism in his fellow Americans and remind them of our nation's incredible past and why our founding era still matters today. You can reach Tom at: https://www.AmericanaCorner.com Get “An American Triumph” book here: https://www.americanacorner.com/american-triumph Get our weekly articles & downloads here: https://GoalsForYourLife.com
The Last Best Hope?: Understanding America from the Outside In
At the heart of the "promise" of the American Revolution and the new republic's claim to be the last, best hope of earth, is the assertion in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal". How did Black Americans react to the Declaration? How did they seek to shape the character of the new Republic? And what was the relationship between the Black struggle for freedom and equality and the American Revolution? To examine this once-hidden history of Black Americans in the founding era, Adam is joined by Professor James Basker, the President of the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History and the Richard Gilder Professor of Literary History at Barnard College. Jim is the editor, with Nicole Seary, of a remarkable new collection published by the Library of America called “Black Writers of the Founding Era” which contains texts – most previously unpublished – by more than 120 Black Americans.Readings in this episode were performed by Chelsi Campbell and Darius Jackson. Producer: Emily Williams. Presenter: Adam Smith. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
A.J. Jacobs, author of The Year of Living Constitutionally: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Constitution's Original Meaning, in conversation with NCC President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen, author of the new book The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America. Listen to their discussion on what it means to live constitutionally today. Resources: A.J. Jacobs, The Year of Living Constitutionally: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Constitution's Original Meaning (2024) "Colonial America" fashion, Brittanica Jonathan Gienapp, The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era (2018) Jud Campbell, “What Did the First Amendment Originally Mean?,” University of Richmond (2018) Texas v. Johnson (1989) NCC's We the People podcast, "The Modern History of Originalism," (August 2023) NCC's We the People podcast, "What the Supreme Court's Opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen Means for the Second Amendment," (August 2022) "How a college term paper led to a constitutional amendment," Constitution Daily blog, (May 7, 2024) NCC's Constitution Drafting Project Walter Isaacson, Benjamin Franklin: A Life, (2004) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at programs@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate
This week, we're discussing a hotly debated topic: the gun rights of illegal immigrants. A federal judge's recent ruling that the law disarming a defendant who is in the country unlawfully, but who doesn't have any violent convictions, violates the Second Amendment has drawn a lot of attention. It has been one of our most trafficked stories at The Reload this year. The same is true for the dueling analysis pieces we published examining the ruling's legal theory and where the Supreme Court might come down on the issue. Given the discussion surrounding all of this, it seemed like a good idea to take a deeper dive into the topic. That's why we asked gun-rights lawyer Matt Larosiere, who wrote one of those analysis pieces for us, to come on the show. He gave us a fuller explanation of why he believes the Second Amendment protects nearly all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status. He argued the modern gun prohibition based on immigration status shouldn't be able to withstand the Supreme Court's Bruen test because the Founders didn't view citizenship the way we do today and the Second Amendment's language is better read to protect nearly anyone in the country. He said reading the amendment to exclude those who aren't part of the political community doesn't work because the average American wasn't allowed to vote or participate in other key political functions during the Founding Era. Yet they did have their gun rights protected. He also argued that denying gun rights to immigrants in the country unlawfully, which is only a misdemeanor, necessitates adopting a legal standard that would put everyone else's gun rights at risk. Still, Larosiere acknowledged the recent ruling is an outlier and the Supreme Court is unlikely to take up a similar case anytime soon. But he argued gun-rights proponents should embrace the ruling and the logic that led to it. Special Guest: Matt Larosiere.
"That idea of planting seeds for future generations came from the Tusculan Disputations. There's something especially empowering about Cicero. And it's very striking that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and so many in the Founding Era viewed this manual about overcoming grief as the definition for achieving happiness. And I think it's because it's a philosophy of self-mastery, self-improvement, and self-empowerment.I was moved to organize the book according to 12 virtues by noting the incredible synchronicity that both Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson made lists of 12 or 13 virtues for achieving happiness. And then, of course, I wanted to tell the stories through people because that's the best way to relate to and attempt to practice self-mastery and see how people achieved it in their own lives."Jeffrey Rosen is President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, where he hosts We the People, a weekly podcast of constitutional debate. He is also a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School and a contributing editor at The Atlantic. Rosen is a graduate of Harvard College, Oxford University, and Yale Law School. He is the author of seven previous books, including the New York Times bestseller Conversations with RBG: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life, Love, Liberty, and Law. His essays and commentaries have appeared in The New York Times Magazine; on NPR; in The New Republic, where he was the legal affairs editor; and in The New Yorker, where he has been a staff writer. His latest book is The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America.https://constitutioncenter.org/about/board-of-trustees/jeffrey-rosenwww.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Pursuit-of-Happiness/Jeffrey-Rosen/9781668002476https://constitutioncenter.org/news-debate/podcastswww.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgIG www.instagram.com/creativeprocesspodcast
What is the true meaning of the pursuit of happiness? What can we learn from the Founding Fathers about achieving harmony, balance, tranquility, self-mastery, and pursuing the public good?Jeffrey Rosen is President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, where he hosts We the People, a weekly podcast of constitutional debate. He is also a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School and a contributing editor at The Atlantic. Rosen is a graduate of Harvard College, Oxford University, and Yale Law School. He is the author of seven previous books, including the New York Times bestseller Conversations with RBG: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life, Love, Liberty, and Law. His essays and commentaries have appeared in The New York Times Magazine; on NPR; in The New Republic, where he was the legal affairs editor; and in The New Yorker, where he has been a staff writer. His latest book is The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America."That idea of planting seeds for future generations came from the Tusculan Disputations. There's something especially empowering about Cicero. And it's very striking that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and so many in the Founding Era viewed this manual about overcoming grief as the definition for achieving happiness. And I think it's because it's a philosophy of self-mastery, self-improvement, and self-empowerment.I was moved to organize the book according to 12 virtues by noting the incredible synchronicity that both Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson made lists of 12 or 13 virtues for achieving happiness. And then, of course, I wanted to tell the stories through people because that's the best way to relate to and attempt to practice self-mastery and see how people achieved it in their own lives."https://constitutioncenter.org/about/board-of-trustees/jeffrey-rosenwww.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Pursuit-of-Happiness/Jeffrey-Rosen/9781668002476https://constitutioncenter.org/news-debate/podcastswww.creativeprocess.info www.oneplanetpodcast.org IG www.instagram.com/creativeprocesspodcast
"That idea of planting seeds for future generations came from the Tusculan Disputations. There's something especially empowering about Cicero. And it's very striking that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and so many in the Founding Era viewed this manual about overcoming grief as the definition for achieving happiness. And I think it's because it's a philosophy of self-mastery, self-improvement, and self-empowerment.I was moved to organize the book according to 12 virtues by noting the incredible synchronicity that both Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson made lists of 12 or 13 virtues for achieving happiness. And then, of course, I wanted to tell the stories through people because that's the best way to relate to and attempt to practice self-mastery and see how people achieved it in their own lives."Jeffrey Rosen is President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, where he hosts We the People, a weekly podcast of constitutional debate. He is also a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School and a contributing editor at The Atlantic. Rosen is a graduate of Harvard College, Oxford University, and Yale Law School. He is the author of seven previous books, including the New York Times bestseller Conversations with RBG: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life, Love, Liberty, and Law. His essays and commentaries have appeared in The New York Times Magazine; on NPR; in The New Republic, where he was the legal affairs editor; and in The New Yorker, where he has been a staff writer. His latest book is The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America.https://constitutioncenter.org/about/board-of-trustees/jeffrey-rosenwww.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Pursuit-of-Happiness/Jeffrey-Rosen/9781668002476https://constitutioncenter.org/news-debate/podcastswww.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgIG www.instagram.com/creativeprocesspodcast
What is the true meaning of the pursuit of happiness? What can we learn from the Founding Fathers about achieving harmony, balance, tranquility, self-mastery, and pursuing the public good?Jeffrey Rosen is President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, where he hosts We the People, a weekly podcast of constitutional debate. He is also a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School and a contributing editor at The Atlantic. Rosen is a graduate of Harvard College, Oxford University, and Yale Law School. He is the author of seven previous books, including the New York Times bestseller Conversations with RBG: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life, Love, Liberty, and Law. His essays and commentaries have appeared in The New York Times Magazine; on NPR; in The New Republic, where he was the legal affairs editor; and in The New Yorker, where he has been a staff writer. His latest book is The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America."That idea of planting seeds for future generations came from the Tusculan Disputations. There's something especially empowering about Cicero. And it's very striking that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and so many in the Founding Era viewed this manual about overcoming grief as the definition for achieving happiness. And I think it's because it's a philosophy of self-mastery, self-improvement, and self-empowerment.I was moved to organize the book according to 12 virtues by noting the incredible synchronicity that both Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson made lists of 12 or 13 virtues for achieving happiness. And then, of course, I wanted to tell the stories through people because that's the best way to relate to and attempt to practice self-mastery and see how people achieved it in their own lives."https://constitutioncenter.org/about/board-of-trustees/jeffrey-rosenwww.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Pursuit-of-Happiness/Jeffrey-Rosen/9781668002476https://constitutioncenter.org/news-debate/podcastswww.creativeprocess.info www.oneplanetpodcast.org IG www.instagram.com/creativeprocesspodcast
What is the true meaning of the pursuit of happiness? What can we learn from the Founding Fathers about achieving harmony, balance, tranquility, self-mastery, and pursuing the public good?Jeffrey Rosen is President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, where he hosts We the People, a weekly podcast of constitutional debate. He is also a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School and a contributing editor at The Atlantic. Rosen is a graduate of Harvard College, Oxford University, and Yale Law School. He is the author of seven previous books, including the New York Times bestseller Conversations with RBG: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life, Love, Liberty, and Law. His essays and commentaries have appeared in The New York Times Magazine; on NPR; in The New Republic, where he was the legal affairs editor; and in The New Yorker, where he has been a staff writer. His latest book is The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America."Being moved to write the sonnets was an unexpected gift that I was given. I certainly didn't expect that unusual practice, but I found myself moved to sum up the wisdom in concise and distilled form just by taking notes on the daily reading that I'd done each morning after watching the sunrise. And I was surprised to learn after starting the project that many people who read this wisdom during the Founding Era were also moved to write sonnets, including Phillis Wheatley, the great poet, Mercy Otis Warren, Alexander Hamilton, and John Quincy Adams, who would read the Tusculan Disputations in the original and read Cicero in the original in the White House for consolation, write sonnets, and watch the sunrise and walk along the Potomac."https://constitutioncenter.org/about/board-of-trustees/jeffrey-rosenwww.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Pursuit-of-Happiness/Jeffrey-Rosen/9781668002476https://constitutioncenter.org/news-debate/podcastswww.creativeprocess.info www.oneplanetpodcast.org IG www.instagram.com/creativeprocesspodcast
"Being moved to write the sonnets was an unexpected gift that I was given. I certainly didn't expect that unusual practice, but I found myself moved to sum up the wisdom in concise and distilled form just by taking notes on the daily reading that I'd done each morning after watching the sunrise. And I was surprised to learn after starting the project that many people who read this wisdom during the Founding Era were also moved to write sonnets, including Phillis Wheatley, the great poet, Mercy Otis Warren, Alexander Hamilton, and John Quincy Adams, who would read the Tusculan Disputations in the original and read Cicero in the original in the White House for consolation, write sonnets, and watch the sunrise and walk along the Potomac."Jeffrey Rosen is President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, where he hosts We the People, a weekly podcast of constitutional debate. He is also a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School and a contributing editor at The Atlantic. Rosen is a graduate of Harvard College, Oxford University, and Yale Law School. He is the author of seven previous books, including the New York Times bestseller Conversations with RBG: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life, Love, Liberty, and Law. His essays and commentaries have appeared in The New York Times Magazine; on NPR; in The New Republic, where he was the legal affairs editor; and in The New Yorker, where he has been a staff writer. His latest book is The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America.https://constitutioncenter.org/about/board-of-trustees/jeffrey-rosenwww.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Pursuit-of-Happiness/Jeffrey-Rosen/9781668002476https://constitutioncenter.org/news-debate/podcastswww.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgIG www.instagram.com/creativeprocesspodcast
March is Women's History Month, and as we are fond of reminding everyone, women's history is American history, and there's no better way to focus attention on that than by talking about some of our favorite "forgotten women" of our Founding Era. Join the Rebeccas as they discuss women notably absent from most of our history textbooks, like Deborah Read Franklin, as well as the brilliant enslaved poet Phillis Wheatley, the gifted playwright and essayist Mercy Otis Warren, and the first woman to fight in the infantry of the American Army, Debora Sampson, among other incredible women of this age. Comments or Questions? Or have an idea for future episodes - #pitchtothepod? Email us tourguidetellall@gmail.com Support Tour Guide Tell All: • Want to send a one off donation to support the podcast team? We have a venmo @tourguide-tellall • Check out our STORE for Tour Guide Tell All podcast paraphernalia from tote bags to stickers - https://tour-guide-tell-all.myshopify.com/ • Become a Patron for bonus episodes and early release: https://www.patreon.com/tourguidetellall You're Listening To: Rebecca Fachner and Rebecca Grawl The Person Responsible for it Sounding Good: Dan King Technical & Admin Work Done During Toddler Naptime: Canden Arciniega Intro/Outro Music: Well-Seasoned from Audio Hero
When the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she lamented over her husband. And when the mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased Yahweh. - 2 Samuel 11:26-27 This Episode's Links and Timestamps: 00:24 – 2 Samuel 11 04:53 – Thoughts on the Reading 38:03 - At long last, a photo of Mormon founder Joseph Smith emerges – Peggy Fletcher Stack, The Salt Lake Tribune 51:22 - Mormon Church Admits Founder Joseph Smith Had Up To 40 Wives – Sam Sanders, NPR 1:01:48 - I guess Calvin University professors need to hear this, but yes, Christ is supreme. – Joel Abbott, NTB 1:05:28 - The ONE thing you need to know about House Speaker Mike Johnson – BlazeTV Staff 1:18:34 - American Constitutions: Natural Law and Constitution-Making in the Founding Era – John Dinan, Public Discourse --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/garrett-ashley-mullet/message
Guest host Jefferson Smith of the Democracy Nerd Podcast sits in for Thom Hartmann today and speaks with Dr. Eli Merritt, MD, political historian at Vanderbilt University who specializes in the Founding Era of the United States. He is the author of the recently released Disunion Among Ourselves: The Perilous Politics of the American Revolution.Article: "Why Juneteenth Matters Far More Today Than the Fourth of July" by Eli Merritt.Substack: "American Commonwealth" by Eli Merritt.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Professor Beau Breslin of Skidmore College returns to the Thomas Jefferson Hour to talk about important passages that were edited out of key American documents of the Founding Era, including the famous anti-slavery passage of the Declaration of Independence. How would America have been different if Jefferson's attack on the slave trade had been included in the birth certificate of America. Clay and Beau also discuss the congratulatory letter to President-elect John Adams that Jefferson wrote but Madison persuaded him not to send. John Dickinson tried to include in the original Articles of Confederation a passage guaranteeing women religious freedom. Why was it removed? 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 merch. You can find Clay's books on our website, along with a list of his favorite books on Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and other topics. Thomas Jefferson is interpreted and portrayed by Clay S. Jenkinson.
Edward Pozzuoli is a successful businessman, mortgage broker, banker, and the Previous Owner of my favorite Italian restaurant, Tavolino Della Notte. He's also a musician, music promoter, and a real estate developer. Edward has traveled far and wide through a very diversified journey. Born and raised in Brooklyn, NY, Ed is a graduate of Brooklyn College. He's happily married to his lovely wife, Pat. They have three beautiful children together. Connect with Edward: Email: xmasking@aol.com ____________________ Jerome Huyler, PhD is a former Assistant Professor at Seton Hall University. He earned his PhD in political science from the New School University and his BA from Brooklyn College, where he majored in philosophy. He is the highly acclaimed author of “Locke in America: The Moral Philosophy of the Founding Era” and “Everything You Have: The Case Against Welfare”. Dr. Jerome discusses his strong musical history and shares how my good friend and prior guest Ed Pozzuoli introduced us. Two old friends from Brooklyn introducing yet another Brooklyn boy…me! Follow Dr. Jerome: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jerome-huyler-phd-95b5b62b/ Website: https://www.jeromehuyler.com ____________________ Follow Carl: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/toeverypageaturning/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CarlBuccellatoAuthor LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/carl-buccellato-60234139/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVB3YH1iQxK4IL4ya5j4-Jg Website: https://toeverypageaturning.com/
How did the American Founders read the Bible? What wisdom did they find there? How did their literary sensibilities interact with their political ones in reading the Bible? And how does this history stay with us today? To unpack all this, Ari spoke with Professor at the American University in Washington D.C., and author of “Reading The Bible With The Founding Fathers”, Daniel Dreisbach. They talked the Book of Deuteronomy in the Founding Era; political order in the Bible; the Bible on the fate of nations; television as a modern American lingua franca; the sermon as public intellectual genre; the first prayer in the history of Congress; George Washington's favorite Biblical verse; Biblical law and the Constitution; and much more! Good Faith Effort is a production of Bnai Zion and SoulShop.
Dr. Champion discusses the movement by a faction of Americans to diminish free speech. The talk includes the Founding Era understanding of free speech, the American legacy of free speech over time, how Americans feel about free speech today, and how the battle for & against free speech is playing out in America's 21st century [...]
The story of the Constitution of the United States began long before the American Revolutionary War. This document was influenced by centuries old English law, and the final product was the result of months of debate, arguing, and compromises from representatives of 12 states, including its essential recognition of slavery, leading to further debates and conflict after the document was signed. Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution remains a fundamental part of U.S. politics. We ask ourselves: Do we move forward, or must we return to our roots? How can we remember the origins of the Constitution while we live in a society that would have been unimaginable when it was written? Jonathan Gienapp is an assistant professor of History at Stanford University. He specializes in Revolutionary and early republican America, and he is the author of The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era. See more information on our website, WritLarge.fm. Follow us on Twitter @WritLargePod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
The story of the Constitution of the United States began long before the American Revolutionary War. This document was influenced by centuries old English law, and the final product was the result of months of debate, arguing, and compromises from representatives of 12 states, including its essential recognition of slavery, leading to further debates and conflict after the document was signed. Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution remains a fundamental part of U.S. politics. We ask ourselves: Do we move forward, or must we return to our roots? How can we remember the origins of the Constitution while we live in a society that would have been unimaginable when it was written? Jonathan Gienapp is an assistant professor of History at Stanford University. He specializes in Revolutionary and early republican America, and he is the author of The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era. See more information on our website, WritLarge.fm. Follow us on Twitter @WritLargePod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science
The story of the Constitution of the United States began long before the American Revolutionary War. This document was influenced by centuries old English law, and the final product was the result of months of debate, arguing, and compromises from representatives of 12 states, including its essential recognition of slavery, leading to further debates and conflict after the document was signed. Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution remains a fundamental part of U.S. politics. We ask ourselves: Do we move forward, or must we return to our roots? How can we remember the origins of the Constitution while we live in a society that would have been unimaginable when it was written? Jonathan Gienapp is an assistant professor of History at Stanford University. He specializes in Revolutionary and early republican America, and he is the author of The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era. See more information on our website, WritLarge.fm. Follow us on Twitter @WritLargePod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The story of the Constitution of the United States began long before the American Revolutionary War. This document was influenced by centuries old English law, and the final product was the result of months of debate, arguing, and compromises from representatives of 12 states, including its essential recognition of slavery, leading to further debates and conflict after the document was signed. Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution remains a fundamental part of U.S. politics. We ask ourselves: Do we move forward, or must we return to our roots? How can we remember the origins of the Constitution while we live in a society that would have been unimaginable when it was written? Jonathan Gienapp is an assistant professor of History at Stanford University. He specializes in Revolutionary and early republican America, and he is the author of The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era. See more information on our website, WritLarge.fm. Follow us on Twitter @WritLargePod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies
The story of the Constitution of the United States began long before the American Revolutionary War. This document was influenced by centuries old English law, and the final product was the result of months of debate, arguing, and compromises from representatives of 12 states, including its essential recognition of slavery, leading to further debates and conflict after the document was signed. Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution remains a fundamental part of U.S. politics. We ask ourselves: Do we move forward, or must we return to our roots? How can we remember the origins of the Constitution while we live in a society that would have been unimaginable when it was written? Jonathan Gienapp is an assistant professor of History at Stanford University. He specializes in Revolutionary and early republican America, and he is the author of The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era. See more information on our website, WritLarge.fm. Follow us on Twitter @WritLargePod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This week on “The Learning Curve,” Cara and Gerard talk with Dr. Jack Rakove, Coe Professor of History and American Studies and Professor of Political Science Emeritus at Stanford University, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. Professor Rakove reviews the biography of James Madison, often called […]
This week on “The Learning Curve,” Cara and Gerard talk with Dr. Jack Rakove, Coe Professor of History and American Studies and Professor of Political Science Emeritus at Stanford University, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. Professor Rakove reviews the biography of James Madison, often called the “Father of the... Source
This week on “The Learning Curve,” Cara and Gerard talk with Dr. Jack Rakove, Coe Professor of History and American Studies and Professor of Political Science Emeritus at Stanford University, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. Professor Rakove reviews the biography of James Madison, often called the “Father of the... Source
Jerome Huyler, PhD is a former Assistant Professor at Seton Hall University. He earned his PhD in political science from the New School University and his BA from Brooklyn College, where he majored in philosophy. He is the highly acclaimed author of “Locke in America: The Moral Philosophy of the Founding Era” and “Everything You Have: The Case Against Welfare”. Dr. Jerome discusses his strong musical history and shares how my good friend and prior guest Ed Pozzuoli introduced us. Two old friends from Brooklyn introducing yet another Brooklyn boy…me! Follow Dr. Jerome: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jerome-huyler-phd-95b5b62b/ Website: https://www.jeromehuyler.com/ Follow Carl: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/toeverypageaturning/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CarlBuccellatoAuthor LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/carl-buccellato-60234139/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVB3YH1iQxK4IL4ya5j4-Jg Website: https://toeverypageaturning.com/ Produced by: https://socialchameleon.us/
On the ninth podcast I have Professor Jonathan Gienapp on to talk about his book The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era. We get into all the contingencies that went into how America's form of constitutionalism emerged, and why our current common conceptions of the Constitution's ontological categories might be misguided. You can by Professor Gienapp's book here https://www.amazon.com/Second-Creation-American-Constitution-Founding/dp/0674185048 You can learn more about Professor Gienapp here https://history.stanford.edu/people/jonathan-gienapp As always you can find me on twitter at https://twitter.com/SpitzleyLuke. Support the pod at https://anchor.fm/lawsdimensions/support --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lawsdimensions/support
On this episode, we talk with longtime writer, journalist and professor Robert Strauss about his new book, "John Marshall: The Final Founder." Strauss argues that America's fourth chief justice, John Marshall, deserves to be on a short list with Benjamin Franklin and George Washington as the nation's most important founders. Strauss explains how Marshall made the Federal court system worthwhile, and how the Founding Era wasn't over until Marshall's imprint was felt everywhere. Strauss also uses Marshall's life to explore how history is passed down, and how we can consume it to make our nation stronger. Strauss says Marshall played important roles in many of America's key moments in its first half-century. His life, Strauss says, is the vehicle by which we can understand how America solidified itself as a nation.He is available on social media at twitter.com/rsstraussSupport our show at patreon.com/axelbankhistory**A portion of every contribution is given to a charity for children's literacy**"Axelbank Reports History and Today" can be found on social media at twitter.com/axelbankhistoryinstagram.com/axelbankhistoryfacebook.com/axelbankhistory
Dispatches: The Podcast of the Journal of the American Revolution
This week our guest is author and JAR Contributor Eric Sterner. John Rutledge played a critical role in America’s Founding Era...in more ways than one. For more information visit www.allthingsliberty.com.
The story of the Constitution of the United States began long before the American Revolutionary War. This document was influenced by centuries old English law, and the final product was the result of months of debate, arguing, and compromises from representatives of 12 states, including its essential recognition of slavery, leading to further debates and conflict after the document was signed. Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution remains a fundamental part of U.S. politics. We ask ourselves: Do we move forward, or must we return to our roots? How can we remember the origins of the Constitution while we live in a society that would have been unimaginable when it was written? Jonathan Gienapp is an assistant professor of History at Stanford University. He specializes in Revolutionary and early republican America, and he is the author of The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era. See more information on our website, WritLarge.fm. Follow us on Twitter @WritLargePod.
Carolyn Eastman brings us into one young physician's encounter with the New York City yellow fever epidemics of the 1790s. Link to Episode Transcript: https://rebrand.ly/cuu277x (https://rebrand.ly/cuu277x) Thoughts? Email us at idavid@oah.org Participants: Carolyn Eastman, Christopher Brick This episode was produced by Ikerighi "IK" David
http://quintapress.webmate.me/PDF_Books/John_Cotton/Laws_of_New_England_1641_v1.pdf (An Abstract of the Laws of New England, 1641. John Cotton) https://www.dropbox.com/s/sjo01kapxecvhf2/The%20New%20England%20Pulpit%20And%20The%20American%20Revolution%20copy.pdf?dl=0 (The New England Pulpit And The American Revolution) https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/sandoz-political-sermons-of-the-american-founding-era-vol-1-1730-1788--5 (Political Sermons of the Founding Era)
Discussing self-evident truths and the tension of views that often leads to them with Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis.Welcome to the sixth episode of Self-Evident, a podcast about first principles, hosted on Substack along with the Self-Evident Newsletter. In this episode, I was pleased to host my first guest on the podcast, Josh Lewis of Saving Elephants fame. You can listen to the episode by clicking the play button above or listen on Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. I have also included a transcript of the discussion below. You can also subscribe and get future episodes as well as the newsletter in your inbox:And, please, share this podcast episode, add any thoughts you might have in the comments section, and be sure to connect with me on Facebook and Twitter. Episode TranscriptMe: Hello folks, welcome to the Self-Evident podcast. Today's episode is going to be something a little different. For the first time ever, I'm going to have a guest on the podcast. My good friend Josh Lewis is here with us. He is the host of the Saving Elephants Podcast; he also writes on the Saving Elephants Blog, and he's also contributed to the Liberty Hawk from time to time. So, good to have you here, Josh. Josh Lewis: It's great to be here. Hey, I feel very honored. I'm the first-time guest on the podcast. Me: Well, you know I've been on your podcast what, three times? So, I felt like whenever I got around to deciding to have guests, you had to be the first guest. So, I'm pretty excited. Josh Lewis: We might call it two and a quarter since the third time you were on, you were on there with three others. Me: I guess that's true, that's true. I mean, if you want to bring it down to two and a quarter, then so be it. (laughter) Me: So, we're going to try something with my guests, and I'm going to use Josh as my Guinea pig here a little bit. My podcast's name is Self-Evident. Most people would recognize that as coming from the Declaration of Independence when it says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” So, even though I talk a lot about the news of the day, I talk a lot about, you know, the political issues in the headlines, this podcast is ultimately about trying to get back to first principles and discovering what is self-evidently true about limited government and about the entire experiment of American governance. So, to start out this conversation, Josh. When you think about what self-evident means or what could be considered self-evident truths or even just what first principles might be, what's the first thing that comes to mind? Josh Lewis: First thing that comes to mind is exactly what you read, 'cause it's the most famous phrase perhaps in all of American literature, if you will, as we hold these truths to be self-evident. Now, that being said, it being the first thing that comes to mind, I am a chronic overthinker, and sometimes you know I think through this is like well is that self-evident 'cause there's a whole heck of a lot of people it doesn't seem to be self-evident, you know, in their world. Let me start off by saying this: I believe the statement is true, right? I absolutely believe we are created equal that we are endowed with certain rights. I think that the big three, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, is a good way to summarize it. Is it self-evident? When I think of self-evident, I think of something like 2 + 2 = 4 or the famous “I think therefore I am.” You know, it's hard for me to doubt my own existence because there has to be a non-doubting that they exist. And again, maybe I'm overthinking this, and if I am, please let me know, but I guess that's where I'm trying to bridge the gap of how much of these truths that we hold as Americans are truly self-evident or what allows us to base our purpose as a nation on these truths. Me: You know, and it's something that I've always wrestled with as well, 'cause I mean, my first love is history and then I kind of branched out from there and even though, you know, I agree with you, I totally agree with Jefferson's statement, but for these things being self-evident, it's kind of interesting that in a lot of ways, that moment in time was a radical departure from the norm in history. The idea that people have rights and that, you know, the government isn't just there to allow those who are in power to rule, you know? So, how do we reconcile that reality? Can these truths be self-evident if they haven't been the norm in human society? Or, was Jefferson and the founding generation rediscovering something that had been lost along the way? Josh Lewis: I think the question you just asked is what I would call conservatism. And I have no succinct answer to it. I really don't. And Justin, I think I'm not telling you anything you don't know here. I think between the two of us, you would be more Jeffersonian than I am. I think he was an incredible thinker, eloquent writer. I think he hit on some very valuable truths that's worth debating [and] discussing today. How do you reconcile that is hard. And, it's hard because I think sometimes the temptation from a classical liberal, say, framework, and I support classical liberalism, but I think sometimes the temptation is to try to say, well, this is something that's formulaic, right? This is something that is not only discernible and understandable to all people at all times, and it's completely reasonable, but it's something that we can document in a manner that's just from A-Z. We understand this thing completely. And I tend to be way more skeptical of that. Somehow, in the United States, I wouldn't necessarily say just through accident, but probably through a combination of accident and providential grace, we stumbled upon what Jefferson refers to as self-evident truths. This idea of equality. I don't mean that as the Left means it, of equal outcomes. But the idea that there's something about human nature that we are no greater or less than one another just by the raw material of what we are as humans, that from that we can derive all sorts of notions of duties and rights. And what is the purpose and the justice of a just society, of civil society? This is in my mind quite a group effort that really stretches over thousands of years in Western civilization, and I'm uncomfortable saying there's any one thinker or any one document that had it all right, but it was a very laborious, difficult trial by error that, to be honest with you, we still don't have completely right. We're still trying to figure out how to do this, and I think part of the problem is here, and this is a matter I suppose we would agree, we are a fallen creature. We're imperfectible, and we're trying to figure out how to fit the square peg in a round hole of how do we establish, you know, perfect justice, perfect truth on this Earth, and I don't know that we'll ever get there, but I think the struggle in that direction is what allows for these truths to be born out. Me: Not to segue too quickly away from the topic that we started with, but you mentioned, you know, I'm definitely more Jeffersonian. You, not quite as much. Which of the founders would you say you associate with the most? My guess would be Adams or Hamilton? Josh Lewis: (laughter) Yeah, yeah, you picked the big two I think I would throw in, I'm probably a trifecta: Adams, Hamilton, and Madison. I love Hamilton. Of the three, to be completely honest with you, If I put it on my purist conservative lens, Hamilton is probably the odd fit there. But he's just sort of dark enough and realistic enough that it kind of fits my kind of pessimistic nature at times, like sometimes you kind of need, you know, the wise guys in charge, sort of running the show. But you're right. It's more Adams and the Madisonian model I would look to. Me: Yeah, the HBO miniseries John Adams is one of my favorites, not only because it really does a good job of showing who Adams really was, but they did such a good job of finding actors to represent all of the different Founding Fathers in ways that I really, really enjoy. Josh Lewis: Yeah, and Adams, I think, was a terrible president. Me: Yeah. Josh Lewis: He did some good things and was an amazing thinker, and I think I've read somewhere he wrote more than all of the other founders maybe combined, or at least pretty close to it. Me: Well, I think Adams' problem as a president was he thought his job was to govern in deference to so many other forces, especially Congress. Josh Lewis: Uh-huh. Me: I think, I mean, especially the Alien and Sedition Acts comes to mind because he wrote many, many times that he felt like they were wrong. But he felt like it wasn't his place as President to veto a bill that was so supported by a majority of Congress. So, I think, if anything, Adams was part of the Presidency finding its place. Josh Lewis: Yeah, and I would go one step further and, again, I'm a huge fan of Adams, [but] I don't think he had the temperament to be president. I, you know, if you look at Washington or Jefferson, they had a sort of stately mannerism about them, whereas Adams kept, I'm blanking on the name, the Hamilton book. It will come to me in a second. Ron Chernow. There we go. The historian Ron Chernow that wrote the definitive biography of Hamilton in a lot of ways, refers to Adams as a man who has an encyclopedic memory for slights. I thought that was just hilarious that he could not hardly forget when someone had wronged him or harmed him in some way. Me: Well, I think you could almost say that most everything that Adams accomplished that was very good, he had Franklin whispering in his ear at some point, tempering down his short man syndrome. Josh Lewis: Well, Franklin was known for his eccentricities also. Me: (laughter) Oh yeah, yeah, just different kinds of eccentricity. Well, I guess back to the original question. I think there today are a lot of conservatives that view the founding as a genesis, that the Constitution, the Declaration, that's where all of the things that we believe in begin. And then they kind of look at politics as a scramble to try to get back to that near-perfect moment. But then you have on the other side of the equation, people on the Left who look at it as, you know, this murky beginning, the first amphibian crawling from the muck, and we have to build on it but looking back to it doesn't really, it's not really beneficial a whole lot. I think you probably agree with me that neither of those ways of looking at the founding is probably correct or healthy. So, what's your view? Where is the cross-section between those views? Josh Lewis: Yeah, I often say that conservatism is, well, conservatism is a lot of things, but one of the things that it is is the ability to hold ideas In tension. Not contradiction but in tension. And, I think both of those two views certainly have truth to it. And, I think if you hold either of those two views, you can look at the historical record and find, you know, let's take the first one, for instance. Conservatives, I think, will rightly say we need more limited government if we could just get back on the path of how the Founders had originally set this up. In terms of statecraft, say, in terms of this sort of notion of a citizen legislature that we're getting back to first principles, that we really took a wrong turn, you know, we could pick any moment history, but oftentimes conservatives will pick FDR, or maybe the neocons will say LBJ, where the feds were getting a little too involved in our lives. And that has brought some good things with it, federal intervention, but it also brought a lot of problems and complexities to our society. And so too, I would also agree with the progressive view that you can trace a sort of a barbarism, if you will, from most of human history, on up through the enlightenment period, on up through the United States. And there's a sense of progress. There's a sense of industrialization. There's a sense of the civilization, in effect Western, what we think of today. And I really think the truth is somewhere in between those two. I don't think humans truly progress in the same [way], that we're not actually made out of better stuff than, say, our ancestors, but that civilization itself does have a progressing influence, say, maybe working within generations. I don't know if I'm answering your question or not. Am I getting a little far afield of it? Me: Oh no, I guess the best way to ask the question is, right now, we kind of have a 1776 versus 1619 moment where the founding is almost held up by some conservatives as this penultimate moment in human history. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with that because I do believe that the founders were wise men. I believe they were raised up by God for the purpose that they accomplished. But a lot of people who call themselves conservative don't have an understanding of their philosophical heritage beyond the founding. Josh Lewis: Right. Me: You and I have talked before about how, you know, you kind of trace your roots to Burke. I kind of trace my roots to Locke, but we find agreement in the founding moment and what came out of it. And then we can even go further back. I mean, a lot [of what we're] even talking [about], we're approaching upon themes that go all the way back to Plato. You know, what is a just society? And a lot of people on the right, right now, don't have that sense. They don't. And they've gotten so lost in the weeds. They don't even really understand what the underlying principles of the founding were in some cases. And so, we have this 1776 project which I believe could have had a lot of beneficial things, but because it was built by all these different voices and forces that don't really have that intellectual grounding, Biden and others were able to dismiss it, fairly easily. But then on the other hand of the coin you have this 1619 project that is essentially arguing that the original founding was when slaves were first brought to the country and that the 1776 founding was not as pure as some people would consider it to be, because they neither lived up to those principles before, during, or afterwards. And so, I guess people like me and you that don't agree with either of these dueling arguments necessarily, where do we find ourselves within that dynamic? How do we project what we believe and how do we, you know, assert that there are self-evident truths, what those self-evident truths are, and how do we champion them? Josh Lewis: There's a lot there. Me: I know, there is. Josh Lewis: I think the 1776 project, and I agree with the premise, but I think it suffers from the same problem that almost everything on the Right today suffers from, which is much of it is just reactionary. Which, weirdly, is the problem, I think, much of the Left suffers from, other than I disagree with much of the Left, is that it's also reactionary against whatever the Right's doing. You know, occasionally you read a book like Frank Meyer, for instance, who you, Justin, pointed me to and thank you for that. Me: No worries. Josh Lewis: Or Russell Kirk where they'll try to distill down, well, what are these core principles that you will recognize? There's a lot within the conservative world, that there's a lot of disagreement or tension held in there, but what exactly is the common themes that keep us together? And it occurs to me, one of the things that show up often is sort of a revere of the Founding Era and the Founding Fathers in those ideas. Now that can take on a lot of different flavors, and you're absolutely right. I think there's something very problematic, not only wrong but something very dangerous or problematic where if what we're doing is sort of, what is the phrase of Parks and Rec Ron, oh, good grief, my mind is blanking on who is the main character from Parks and Rec Ron... Me: Oh, Ron Swanson. Josh Lewis: Thank you. Me: OK. Josh Lewis: I don't know why I'm blanking on that. Me: No worries. Josh Lewis: Where that phrase he says, and you'll see this sometimes on memes on Twitter, “History began in 1776, everything before that was a mistake.” I think that's sort of how oftentimes bumper sticker conservatism presents itself these days, [is] this is the golden era we start with, where in reality I think if we just reflect about it for a moment, something had to happen before 1776 to even get us to that point. I mean, if you know just anything about the Founders, they were drawing on a wealth of Western civilization literature to get there, and quite frankly, drawing from people like Rousseau and some other Enlightenment thinkers, I was like, well, they mostly got stuff wrong, but they were able to benefit from even some of those wrong teaching sometimes. So, I think, and maybe this is kind of repeating what I was saying earlier, I think it's necessary to hold thing's in tension. 1619 is truth. Or, at least there's elements of truth to it, and I think we're very wrong, or it's very problematic if we start our view that 1776 is all there is to say about America and that we deny the fact there was anything wrong. Or maybe better put, oftentimes what they'll do is, we'll say, 1776 was kind of, in some metaphysical sense, perfect. And then we acknowledge the problem of slavery, but with something that happens afterwards rather than these things existed simultaneously. Now what I would say as a conservative, I think we need to be careful of is, while there is room to critique the Founding and while there is room in a certain sense to say improve upon that model, in reality, what conservatives are trying to do is saying these are timeless principles the Founders were elevating to the conversation. This is not sort of the starting point, and that from here, we develop new principles, or we come up with new values or new virtues that were previously undiscovered. Now that's not the same as saying things like abolishing slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was a huge step forward for the country, but that wasn't a new principle. That was the application of an old principle that the Founders just failed to realize. And I think for me, oftentimes, that's what as a conservative it means to say the 1776 project is the more correct view, is that this is where we took a leap forward. This is where we happened upon, again, accidentally or providentially, possibly a combination of the two, what I would say are still today not only true principles, but are no less true today than they were in 1776, and they will be no less true hundreds of years from now. And that what we as Americans can do is to continue to try to build upon those principles. Me: OK, now, I'm going to ask a loaded question because I know you're more on one side of the coin, and I'm more than on the other. Are self-evident truths more to be found in prescription or reason? Josh Lewis: (laughs) Prescription, but again it's a tension, right? It has to be a little of each. You know, it's interesting these days because I think sometimes there's a certain quarter of the Right, the name that's coming to mind is Ben Shapiro. You know, he's famous for his catchphrase, “Facts don't care about your feelings.” And the Left does this too. I mean, they practically worship science sometimes, in the way they speak, but there's almost this competition between the Left and the Right that, “We have the facts, you guys are the ones who are mistaken, we're the reasonable people, right? We're the ones who lead by reason, by facts, by science. Not just a squishy sort of internal stick your finger in the wind. Here is where we want things to go.” Me: Uh-huh. Josh Lewis: What's weird is if you go back to the enlightenment period, it was really, you know, the old, the Burkean model, say, was not anti-reason. Now from a certain lens, I think you can read Burke as if he's almost anti-reason. He was certainly very skeptical of our ability to apply reason. What he was was very, I say, he was very cautious about how far does reason get us. And prescription, which is really a really hard concept for me to define. I've never found, like, a succinct way of saying this, but it's almost a more, say, evolutionary process. I don't mean that in the secular Darwinian sense necessarily, but sort of Burke wanted to craft a scenario where, via the stream of virtue, say, that we hold to these principles and that we allow for the trust that providentially we can stumble upon the truth. But that if we try to do it from a purely rational framework that it is, in a sense, denying our fallibility as humans. Now, neither of these are completely true, right? In a completely exhaustive sense, I would not say that reason has no place. It absolutely has a place. I mean, why would the good Lord endow us with reason if he doesn't intend for us to use it to, you know, to butcher a familiar quote. But I guess if I'm having to hold these things in tension, I would come out more on the side of prescription. Me: Oh, and I, and even though we're on different sides of the coin, we're not very far from each other because we both agree on that principle of tension. Josh Lewis: We share the same coin. Some people want to throw the whole coin away. Me: Right, exactly. In fact, I've long talked about how one of the big differences between the American Revolution and the French Revolution was, even though the American founding created something new, they did so based on solid foundations found throughout history, from the Greeks from the Romans from all the different Enlightenment thinkers, and they actually built a lot on English common law, even though they were leaving England. Whereas the French Revolution, they kind of tried to do something entirely new without taking into consideration the realities of human nature, and it didn't turn out...as good as it could have, we'll say that much. Josh Lewis: I was gonna add to it, my hesitancy with, say, reason, with the other side of the coin, while I am very much pro-reason and I think that it's right, is sometimes the Left can take reason and run with it. Because the danger you can have with reason is you can assume that reason gets you as far as you need to, and therefore you can chuck everything behind that's come before you. In other words, you step outside this notion that we're fallible humans. Sometimes what the Left will do is they actually elevate those who are younger and less experienced because they're not tainted by the traditions of our broken, terrible, awful culture that we're just all trying to get out of. Now, I know you well enough just to know you don't subscribe to that idea at all. I'm not in any way accusing you of that. What I'm suggesting is that this is where I hold that kind of tension, as I recognize that while it is truthful that going too far down that road can play into sort of a Leftist framework. Me: Yeah, and we actually have talked about this before about how certain segments of libertarianism have so thoroughly abandoned the mooring notions of tradition that they've actually morphed to the Left, even though they might not realize it. Josh Lewis: Yeah. Me: And, I think that, you know, we've talked a lot about how one of the difficulties of the Republican Party, of the conservative movement, is that after the Soviet Union fell, anti-communism was no longer holding together these two notions in tension and that a lot of libertarians and a lot of more traditionalist type conservatives have gone their own separate ways. And now, they're no longer holding each other together in healthy ways. Josh Lewis: Yeah. Me: So, I think it's important for people like me, people like you to demonstrate, you know, hey, we might have different flavors to how we think, you might lean different ways, but we're in this project together, and it needs to be more that way. You know that I'm a huge advocate of fusionism, so... Josh Lewis: Yeah. Me: So, I guess going back to our discussion of, you know, self-evident truths [and] what they are, do you see Burke as kind of your genesis of political philosophy? Do you go beyond Burke, further back? Do you recognize that there's more there, but you just haven't delved into it? What's, kind of, your thoughts there? Josh Lewis: That one. (laughing) Yeah, I haven't exactly read everything Plato's written, hardly anything. I would, you know, I have strayed away from using the phrase, I used to say this all the time, that Burke was the “father of modern conservatism.” Usually, when we say modern, we think of 1950s onward, I actually mean the last several centuries. Yuval Levin, he has more conservative intellectual know-how in his little finger than I do in my entire body. He straight up says that Burke is not the father of conservatism, that Burke would actually object to this phrase, and I think that it's probably a more healthy way to look at it, that this is something that these are truths that Burke did not develop. All he was doing was articulating something that was already there. Now, I personally often will call myself, say, a Burkean-Kirkian conservative. Russell Kirk, being because that's sort of the American variety, say of this. While I'll still acknowledge, I think that conservatism is incomplete with just those two individuals. What I often mean by that is that Edmund Burke, for me, articulated and wrote down these principles and pulled together these truths of the past in a way that, prior to [him], say, you couldn't get just in one individual. And I don't mean that the truth is contained within Burke, say, but he did so better than anyone else I know of who came before him. And so that's kind of what I mean by Burke would be my founder, in a sense. I certainly hope that the more I delve into this, the broader I can...I'm actually currently reading through a lot of Leo Strauss's works, though sometimes he was critical of Burke. It's difficult, Strauss was German, and Burke was English, so I kind of made a joke: It's like the difference between reading Dietrich Bonhoffer [and] CS Lewis. You know, Lewis, with Lewis and Burke, you feel like you're in a [room] smoking a cigar and in front of a warm fire in [the] English countryside. With Bon Hoffer and Strauss, it's very German. It's exhausting. It's very matter of fact. But in reading him and reading Strauss, it's like this is a, I don't know if I'm gonna be able to capture this or not, but this is a completely different stream of thought that in some way feeds into the same river that we're all kind of swimming in, and that's, and I'm not, I am a Burkean, you know, I'm not Straussian. But I hold my Straussian brothers, say, in very high regard. I, you know, when it's in a certain sense, I would say Lockean classical liberalism could be viewed as part of the same stream, and so, just, it's hard to describe these things 'cause they're in tension. And it is kind of our starting point where we put a stake in the ground, say, you know, I don't have the ability to comprehend all of reality, but here is something, some text, some individual, some founder that I can recognize that helps me navigate this thing so that I can swim in this greater ocean. Me: You know, I agree, actually. Right now, I am taking a political philosophy class, and I'm having to read through Plato's Republic. Very difficult considering it was translated from Greek and it's thousands of years old. And there's a lot of things within Plato's Republic that initially, I recoil at. I'm like, whoa, you know, some people even argue that Plato gave philosophical permission thousands of years later for totalitarianism, for even communism, and things like that, but my professor kind of said something that put things a little more in context for me. He, and it kind of is related to your idea of a river and things flowing into that river. He said, you know, if you look at history as a string movement, or, you know, as a symphony, and at different periods of history, there are going to be crescendos that help guide the movement. Because people are connected to their times, not everything that they say is going to be 100% of value, but they help nudge us in a better direction. And he said Plato was a good place to start because he was essentially the earliest political philosopher and his whole goal was to...how do we create a just society? What is justice? How do we find that? And then the people that followed him took up that question. And I guess as I look at all of this and as I've learned more about this, I'm growing concerned that there are certain efforts, temporary efforts that look back at these things that we might call crescendos, and instead of taking what is of value from those moments, they want to discredit those moments entirely because of the negative things that accompanied it. And I guess that's my big problem with the tension between the 1776 project and the 1619 project is, it takes this great injustice, slavery, something that has existed from the foundations of humanity, something that was written about in our earliest documents in history as, “well this is normal, this has been around for a while.” And then they try to discredit something that was new and tried to make things better and ultimately allowed for us to move beyond slavery, you know. And so, they're essentially saying, oh, slavery discredits the American Founding, 1619 is the real founding in these things. And to me, it's like, well, how do we proceed forward in trying to find justice, trying to find freedom, trying to find the best way to govern a society, if we can no longer look backwards and find what's good because it's all discredited by what we consider as discrediting and terrible and bad? Josh Lewis: Yeah, and so much of what you're saying, it touches on, say, I'll invoke his name again, a Burkean model, say, of change, right? It's, what is the value of the past? Is it something we build upon? Is it all wrong? Like, how do we progress as a species? And I think there's a certain faith, say, and I mean that in a very literal sense, a certain faith, on a progressive path or a Leftist notion of reality that humanity is always advancing, and that therefore we're actually furthering that process the more we can, even if it's in a civil sense, deconstruct what came before us. Whereas a conservative has a very, very different view of that. It's not whitewashing the past, it's not even, you know, I'll even go further than that [with the] 1619 project. Because, what you said is absolutely true, and it is a common critique, say of the Right toward the Left, in the United States anyways, to point out rightly that slavery existed, and every civilization that we know of and every period of time that we know of, really the only question was whether or not one civilization or nation or people were stronger than the other. And that, it's incomplete to just tell the story that this happens in the United States because the real story is it was Western civilization, largely the Anglophile, the English-speaking people that eliminated this horrible blight on humanity. And that is true. But there are also other things that are true about it, which is there are different versions and flavors and severity of slavery. I'm not saying that some slavery is OK and others [aren't], but I do think it's also incumbent upon us to recognize that sometimes things are more evil or barbaric, that in the United States, in particular, we have, more so than other parts of the world and other times, slavery can be a problem between races, right? White versus black to the point that in the South there was that slavery was equipped and fueled by this idea of racism, but there's actually something superior about those of us who are white versus those who are black. There's a difference in the sort of barbarism and tasks that come with slavery pre or post cotton gin. You know, or when slaves were allowed to be brought to the continent versus when the, fortunately, the founders at least had the foresight, say, well, let's at least stop any more from coming here and have the very wrong idea that eventually this will just go away, right? Eventually, we're going to kind of evolve our way out of this, and unfortunately [they] couldn't foresee inventions like Eli Whitney and the cotton gin, which just kept it going. Anyway, the point being, I think there's a temptation on both sides. One is to paint the picture as all dark, all black in the past, and that we're constantly progressing forward, but the other is too literally white-wash, and I realize I'm using terms like black and white-wash, I don't mean that in a racial sense, to make the past look better than it actually was, and to kind of swallow it up in this “all people have done wrong things at all times and hey, look at us. We actually got this one right.” And that is true and worth celebrating. But I think it's also true that there's a particular uniquely American ugliness to slavery that it's hard to see how we progress beyond this if we're unwilling to acknowledge that, and I think sometimes it's honestly a conversation the Right is very uncomfortable having. Me: Yeah. I mean, in fact, I've actually had interesting conversations in the past about whether eliminating the slave trade without eliminating slavery possibly compounded the problem because, now it made slaves a greater commodity, and the South had to create a rationalization for allowing generational slavery. And it allowed it to be more connected into race and a lower sense of humanity. You know, 'cause if you go before the Revolutionary War, you know, you go into the traditions of slavery in Roman and Greek society, and a slave was just a certain level of class that you could rise from. You know, and that is one of the problems in America is that we made it generational. We made it so that you cannot rise from this. And the effects of that have lingered to the present day. And, of course, you know, then there's the whole discussion of, OK, how do we bring things back into balance without pushing it out of balance further the other way? Josh Lewis: Well, and it's interesting you say that because I think, you and I, if we were setting in a, say, coffee shop in 1776, we're having this conversation, right, and we've just declared independence with Great Britain. Or, maybe afterwards, we've won the war. We're trying to figure [this] out. We don't hold any political power, but we're having this conversation [about] where should we go from here? And we both acknowledge that slavery is wrong. It would also seem like a radical opinion to suggest a course that we now know killed 600,000 Americans to eventually put this back together, and that is not in any way to say slavery was OK or that we ought not to with an equal breath of revering the Founders, hold some of those responsible who were unwilling to take a stronger stance in trying to abolish slavery. But I think that's part of the problem, is when you have a distorted view of history, either from making things look too good or too bad, it makes it difficult to truly appreciate what were the actual facts on the ground. What were they trying to do? Because I think you can see a lot of instances in which even the Founders that held slaves were trying to find ways to set it up so that eventually this could eventually just fade. They didn't want hundreds of thousands of dead Americans, which, sadly, is what it ultimately took. They just wanted this to sort of peaceably, eventually, kind of make its way out. And I'm sure there were some Founders that would have been fine it for the rest of their lives, you know, slavery existed just as it did. But I think that's kind of where it's a complicated story, and I think we try to simplify it to our peril. Me: Yeah, wrestling with difficult facts is difficult. Josh Lewis: Yeah. Me: I've often posed the question, and there's not an easy answer: Could the North have beat the South pre-Industrial Revolution? Josh Lewis: Well, that is interesting, 'cause in the election of 1800, there was actually some talk in the North of seceding from the Union, which is weirdly hilarious when you think about our history. It might have been an interesting question, could the South have kept the North in? ' Me: ‘Cause, I mean, you know, if more Founders had put their foot down on the slave issue and forced the conflict to a head. How could that have turned out? I mean, there's no easy [answer] to that, but it's an interesting thing to think about. In a lot of ways, by the time we got around to Abraham Lincoln, by the time we got to that point in American history, the North had progressed so much more than the South, and it allowed us to have that outcome, and who knows if that outcome would have been as beneficial moving forward if that conflict had begun at any point in history before that. I don't know. Josh Lewis: It is an interesting question. I mean, the traditional response that's given as to why, say, the Constitution is written the way it is, why it contains some overt, very offensive racist ideas within it is because that is what was necessary, or at least believed to be necessary, in order to form the Union. Is that true? I don't know. I mean, I'm sure there's enough constitutional historians out there who could probably definitively answer that question. But it's an interesting thought experiment. What would have transpired had the Union never formed? Would we have had two separate countries? And if so, does that mean slavery ultimately was never going to be abolished in the South? None of this, of course, answers the question [of] whether or not what those individuals did was right. It's just, it's interesting to think. It's amazing how difficult it actually was to rid the world of something that, in reality slavery still exists, just not like it once did, but to rid the world of something that today, it's just...you would be hard-pressed to find someone who thought that was OK, that there was a time we actually enslaved people in this country. That's just such a revolting, abhorrent thought to us. And yet, how much it cost in blood and treasure to get to the point we are today. Me: Yeah. So, I guess my final question that we can discuss a little bit before wrapping things up, going back to the tension between the 1776 and the 1619 ideas: [are] the truths, is the path forward to be found in finding the tension between 1776 and 1619 or is it to be found just in understanding 1776 as it actually happened? You know, for better or worse, the Founders had to choose their priorities, you know, and they don't come out and address it within the musical, Hamilton, but it's there because Hamilton is close friends with an avowed abolitionist, and he seems to be an ally of abolition for a good portion of the play, but then, the musical, sorry, gotta be correct, it's a musical, not a play, but then near the end, you know, I can't remember at what point off the top of my head, but someone tries to remind Hamilton of that, of his support of that abolitionist who died and wasn't able to see his vision [come true] and Hamilton kind of just brushes it aside and says, we have other things to focus on right now, you know? So, I guess that's my question is, is the path forward finding a place where both the 1619 project and the idea of the 1776 project should be allowed to, you know, go and then find the tension between those two different things, or is it just more about properly understanding what happened in 1776, what happened in 1787, you know, what happened in the founding period? Josh Lewis: Well, and again, I'd say it's maybe a little of both. You know what I was saying earlier is, as a conservative, I would say that 1776, the value of that is that is we stumbled upon or providentially were provided some principles that we can still uphold to this day. Principles that ultimately allowed us to, you know, got us to the point of the Emancipation Proclamation. I think the value of 1619 is more an awareness of the darkness of our past. I don't think that these things are held in tension in the sense that there, somehow in between them, is the correct course of action. And part of which, I'm being a little hesitant, because part of what you're getting at is, or at least what I'm hearing, is kind of this notion of prudence and trade-off. And, this is again, a conservative, not necessarily a progressive vision, and that, I think it was Thomas Sowell that said, “The Left looks for solutions, the Right looks for trade-offs.” Now from a certain perspective, neither of those are right or wrong positions. They're just different. But I think there is missing in this era this kind of, the wisdom and the courage that is necessary to understand the moment we're in and where to go from there. And in giving you such a highbrow answer, such a pie in the sky answer, I know that I'm not being very specific. Although granted, this question wasn't extremely specific either, but I think this is something that you know harkening back to Burke, and this isn't a direct quote, but just sort of a combination of some things that are written was kind of this notion that what was needed in their moment. You think about that Burke was around this era, right? Around the American Revolution, the French Revolution. In a certain degree, these were new revolutionary moments, and I think most statesmen recognized, here is something that has never happened before. And I think, and I'm not trying to elevate the moment we live in, but I think you'll know what I mean when I say there's a certain sense in the air that we're in this ground shifting moment. Not the same as the American Revolution, say, but the sort of post-World War Two, post-Cold War, maybe post-fusionism moment of where do we go from here. And history is extremely valuable, but unfortunately, it's also extremely limited because we're not going to be able to find in the pages of history the solution for our exact moment. We might get partway there. What's really needed is prudence and wisdom. And the unfortunate understanding that we're going to get this wrong. Not all the time, not exhaustively, but we're not going to have the correct answer all the time, just as those Founders didn't know how do we actually abolish slavery, those who wanted to. And I'm not saying Hamilton was justifiable, say, in sort of saying it's not that big a deal, but you have to pick your priorities, and you have to recognize that in so doing, there are tradeoffs, and they can be very painful sometimes. Me: Yeah. I would add that a big part of moving forward is having the difficult conversations, breaching the difficult topics the way that we have done today. And you're right. Sometimes these discussions can be painful. Both me and you look at the founding generation, you know, as great wise men, we have put them on the pedestal and arguably, you know, for good reason. But it's important to recognize their humanity, to grapple with their difficult decisions, and possibly to discuss when we might need to make small corrections. You know, you look at the founding generation. They were making corrections to the Constitution within 10 or 20 years because they were trying to improve upon what they had created. But I think it's important to do that within the vision of what the overall goal is. Did you have any final points or anything you'd like to talk about here at the end of this wonderful, wonderful episode? Josh Lewis: I have never known how to answer that question, to be honest. So not necessarily, not necessarily. I'll just say again, I am thrilled and very honored I would be your first guest on the show, and I hope it was a good experience for you such that you will have other guests on. Me: Perfect, well, hopefully, we'll have you again. You know, before too much longer because I've always really liked our conversations. I think that the tension of our viewpoints really leads to excellent places. Get full access to Self-Evident at selfevident.substack.com/subscribe
BECOME APART OF THE COMMUNITY with the Sustainable Culture Lab:Website: scl.communityInstagram: @scl_communityTwitter: @scl_community...SUBSCRIBE TO THEWORD NEWSLETTERTheWord Newsletter Subscription...SUPPORT SCL RADIOSCL Radio Simplecast Channel
High drama at the high court. Grandstanding at Senate hearings. Distrust on all sides. Nominations made by presidents and ignored or voted down by the Senate or withdrawn due to scandal, calumny or nominee intellectual nullity or professional capacity issues. The personal character of nominees assailed. Questions asked of nominees; detailed answers politely refused. Cries of illegitimacy and calls for reform. All of this and more is on offer in Ilya Shapiro's 2020 book, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court (Gateway, 2020) Everyone who cares about the law and the history and the future of the United States should read this book. It offers something to every sort of reader. First, it is a serious work of scholarship that examines such questions as: Is the Court, as progressives claim, really in some sort of crisis and merely a tool of a cabal involving the rather unlikely combination of corporate America and the supposedly evil religious right? Or, as many on the right argue, has the legislative branch, for expediency's sake and in a cowardly and self-serving fashion, abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, thereby ceding far too much power to both the administrative state and the courts? Shapiro parses these questions with authority, weighing the pros and cons of the various reform measures of recent years with shrewdness, fairness and wit. Second, for general readers it is an entertaining yet substantive tour of the American political and legal landscape since the Founding Era and abounds in fascinating facts (e.g., when the first public Senate hearings on a Supreme Court nominee were held, the first time such a nominee testified in person before the Senate, the first time such hearings were televised). We learn about everything from the famous “Midnight Judges” to the fiascos of the nomination of Harriet Miers and those of Haysworth and Carswell. The book provides succinct profiles of such people that present them as distinct individuals and not as punchlines. The book is perfectly timed given that it was published just before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Senate hearings on the confirmation of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett. This is the book to turn to in coming years for solid analysis as the left pushes for “reform” of not only the Supreme Court but the entire federal judiciary—which Shapiro also discusses in depth. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
High drama at the high court. Grandstanding at Senate hearings. Distrust on all sides. Nominations made by presidents and ignored or voted down by the Senate or withdrawn due to scandal, calumny or nominee intellectual nullity or professional capacity issues. The personal character of nominees assailed. Questions asked of nominees; detailed answers politely refused. Cries of illegitimacy and calls for reform. All of this and more is on offer in Ilya Shapiro’s 2020 book, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court (Gateway, 2020) Everyone who cares about the law and the history and the future of the United States should read this book. It offers something to every sort of reader. First, it is a serious work of scholarship that examines such questions as: Is the Court, as progressives claim, really in some sort of crisis and merely a tool of a cabal involving the rather unlikely combination of corporate America and the supposedly evil religious right? Or, as many on the right argue, has the legislative branch, for expediency’s sake and in a cowardly and self-serving fashion, abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, thereby ceding far too much power to both the administrative state and the courts? Shapiro parses these questions with authority, weighing the pros and cons of the various reform measures of recent years with shrewdness, fairness and wit. Second, for general readers it is an entertaining yet substantive tour of the American political and legal landscape since the Founding Era and abounds in fascinating facts (e.g., when the first public Senate hearings on a Supreme Court nominee were held, the first time such a nominee testified in person before the Senate, the first time such hearings were televised). We learn about everything from the famous “Midnight Judges” to the fiascos of the nomination of Harriet Miers and those of Haysworth and Carswell. The book provides succinct profiles of such people that present them as distinct individuals and not as punchlines. The book is perfectly timed given that it was published just before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Senate hearings on the confirmation of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett. This is the book to turn to in coming years for solid analysis as the left pushes for “reform” of not only the Supreme Court but the entire federal judiciary—which Shapiro also discusses in depth. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
High drama at the high court. Grandstanding at Senate hearings. Distrust on all sides. Nominations made by presidents and ignored or voted down by the Senate or withdrawn due to scandal, calumny or nominee intellectual nullity or professional capacity issues. The personal character of nominees assailed. Questions asked of nominees; detailed answers politely refused. Cries of illegitimacy and calls for reform. All of this and more is on offer in Ilya Shapiro’s 2020 book, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court (Gateway, 2020) Everyone who cares about the law and the history and the future of the United States should read this book. It offers something to every sort of reader. First, it is a serious work of scholarship that examines such questions as: Is the Court, as progressives claim, really in some sort of crisis and merely a tool of a cabal involving the rather unlikely combination of corporate America and the supposedly evil religious right? Or, as many on the right argue, has the legislative branch, for expediency’s sake and in a cowardly and self-serving fashion, abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, thereby ceding far too much power to both the administrative state and the courts? Shapiro parses these questions with authority, weighing the pros and cons of the various reform measures of recent years with shrewdness, fairness and wit. Second, for general readers it is an entertaining yet substantive tour of the American political and legal landscape since the Founding Era and abounds in fascinating facts (e.g., when the first public Senate hearings on a Supreme Court nominee were held, the first time such a nominee testified in person before the Senate, the first time such hearings were televised). We learn about everything from the famous “Midnight Judges” to the fiascos of the nomination of Harriet Miers and those of Haysworth and Carswell. The book provides succinct profiles of such people that present them as distinct individuals and not as punchlines. The book is perfectly timed given that it was published just before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Senate hearings on the confirmation of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett. This is the book to turn to in coming years for solid analysis as the left pushes for “reform” of not only the Supreme Court but the entire federal judiciary—which Shapiro also discusses in depth. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
High drama at the high court. Grandstanding at Senate hearings. Distrust on all sides. Nominations made by presidents and ignored or voted down by the Senate or withdrawn due to scandal, calumny or nominee intellectual nullity or professional capacity issues. The personal character of nominees assailed. Questions asked of nominees; detailed answers politely refused. Cries of illegitimacy and calls for reform. All of this and more is on offer in Ilya Shapiro’s 2020 book, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court (Gateway, 2020) Everyone who cares about the law and the history and the future of the United States should read this book. It offers something to every sort of reader. First, it is a serious work of scholarship that examines such questions as: Is the Court, as progressives claim, really in some sort of crisis and merely a tool of a cabal involving the rather unlikely combination of corporate America and the supposedly evil religious right? Or, as many on the right argue, has the legislative branch, for expediency’s sake and in a cowardly and self-serving fashion, abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, thereby ceding far too much power to both the administrative state and the courts? Shapiro parses these questions with authority, weighing the pros and cons of the various reform measures of recent years with shrewdness, fairness and wit. Second, for general readers it is an entertaining yet substantive tour of the American political and legal landscape since the Founding Era and abounds in fascinating facts (e.g., when the first public Senate hearings on a Supreme Court nominee were held, the first time such a nominee testified in person before the Senate, the first time such hearings were televised). We learn about everything from the famous “Midnight Judges” to the fiascos of the nomination of Harriet Miers and those of Haysworth and Carswell. The book provides succinct profiles of such people that present them as distinct individuals and not as punchlines. The book is perfectly timed given that it was published just before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Senate hearings on the confirmation of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett. This is the book to turn to in coming years for solid analysis as the left pushes for “reform” of not only the Supreme Court but the entire federal judiciary—which Shapiro also discusses in depth. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
High drama at the high court. Grandstanding at Senate hearings. Distrust on all sides. Nominations made by presidents and ignored or voted down by the Senate or withdrawn due to scandal, calumny or nominee intellectual nullity or professional capacity issues. The personal character of nominees assailed. Questions asked of nominees; detailed answers politely refused. Cries of illegitimacy and calls for reform. All of this and more is on offer in Ilya Shapiro’s 2020 book, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court (Gateway, 2020) Everyone who cares about the law and the history and the future of the United States should read this book. It offers something to every sort of reader. First, it is a serious work of scholarship that examines such questions as: Is the Court, as progressives claim, really in some sort of crisis and merely a tool of a cabal involving the rather unlikely combination of corporate America and the supposedly evil religious right? Or, as many on the right argue, has the legislative branch, for expediency’s sake and in a cowardly and self-serving fashion, abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, thereby ceding far too much power to both the administrative state and the courts? Shapiro parses these questions with authority, weighing the pros and cons of the various reform measures of recent years with shrewdness, fairness and wit. Second, for general readers it is an entertaining yet substantive tour of the American political and legal landscape since the Founding Era and abounds in fascinating facts (e.g., when the first public Senate hearings on a Supreme Court nominee were held, the first time such a nominee testified in person before the Senate, the first time such hearings were televised). We learn about everything from the famous “Midnight Judges” to the fiascos of the nomination of Harriet Miers and those of Haysworth and Carswell. The book provides succinct profiles of such people that present them as distinct individuals and not as punchlines. The book is perfectly timed given that it was published just before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Senate hearings on the confirmation of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett. This is the book to turn to in coming years for solid analysis as the left pushes for “reform” of not only the Supreme Court but the entire federal judiciary—which Shapiro also discusses in depth. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
High drama at the high court. Grandstanding at Senate hearings. Distrust on all sides. Nominations made by presidents and ignored or voted down by the Senate or withdrawn due to scandal, calumny or nominee intellectual nullity or professional capacity issues. The personal character of nominees assailed. Questions asked of nominees; detailed answers politely refused. Cries of illegitimacy and calls for reform. All of this and more is on offer in Ilya Shapiro’s 2020 book, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court (Gateway, 2020) Everyone who cares about the law and the history and the future of the United States should read this book. It offers something to every sort of reader. First, it is a serious work of scholarship that examines such questions as: Is the Court, as progressives claim, really in some sort of crisis and merely a tool of a cabal involving the rather unlikely combination of corporate America and the supposedly evil religious right? Or, as many on the right argue, has the legislative branch, for expediency’s sake and in a cowardly and self-serving fashion, abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, thereby ceding far too much power to both the administrative state and the courts? Shapiro parses these questions with authority, weighing the pros and cons of the various reform measures of recent years with shrewdness, fairness and wit. Second, for general readers it is an entertaining yet substantive tour of the American political and legal landscape since the Founding Era and abounds in fascinating facts (e.g., when the first public Senate hearings on a Supreme Court nominee were held, the first time such a nominee testified in person before the Senate, the first time such hearings were televised). We learn about everything from the famous “Midnight Judges” to the fiascos of the nomination of Harriet Miers and those of Haysworth and Carswell. The book provides succinct profiles of such people that present them as distinct individuals and not as punchlines. The book is perfectly timed given that it was published just before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Senate hearings on the confirmation of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett. This is the book to turn to in coming years for solid analysis as the left pushes for “reform” of not only the Supreme Court but the entire federal judiciary—which Shapiro also discusses in depth. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Seldom has our free press faced so great a threat, and yet, the tension between presidents and journalists is as old as the republic itself. George Washington, upon seeing an unflattering caricature of himself in a local newspaper “got into one of those passions when he cannot command himself,” according to then-Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Every president since has been tested by the American media. Since the Founding Era, almost everything about access and expectation, literacy and technology has changed, but in THE PRESIDENTS VS. THE PRESS (Dutton), acclaimed scholar and Lincoln Prize winner Harold Holzer chronicles the eternal battle between the core institutions that define the republic, revealing that the essence of this confrontation is built into the fabric of the nation. About the Author: Harold Holzer is the recipient of the 2015 Gilder-Lehrman Lincoln Prize. One of the country's leading authorities on Abraham Lincoln and the political culture of the Civil War era, Holzer was appointed chairman of the US Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission by President Bill Clinton and awarded the National Humanities Medal by President George W. Bush. He currently serves as the director of the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College, City University of New York. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/steve-richards/support
David Barton is the Founder of WallBuilders, a national pro-family organization that presents America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious, and constitutional heritage. WallBuilders is a name taken from the Old Testament writings of Nehemiah, who led a grassroots movement to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and restore its strength and honor. In the same way, WallBuilders seeks to energize the grassroots today to become involved in strengthening their communities, states, and nation. David is the author of numerous best-selling books, with the subjects being drawn largely from his massive library of tens of thousands of original writings from the Founding Era. He also addresses well over 400 groups each year. His exhaustive research has rendered him an expert in historical and constitutional issues and he serves as a consultant to state and federal legislators, has participated in several cases at the Supreme Court, was involved in the development of the History/Social Studies standards for states such as Texas and California, and has helped produce history textbooks now used in schools across the nation. A national news organization has described him as “America's historian,” and Time Magazine called him “a hero to millions – including some powerful politicians.” In fact, Newsmax named him as one of America's top 100 most influential evangelicals, and Time Magazine named him as one of America's 25. David has received numerous national and international awards, including Who's Who in Education, DAR's Medal of Honor, and the George Washington Honor Medal from the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge. His work in media has merited several Angel Awards, Telly Awards, and the Dove Foundation Seal of Approval. David and his wife Cheryl reside in Aledo, Texas, they have three grown, married children (Damaris, Timothy, and Stephen), and four grandchildren. Listen to today's show...
David Barton is the Founder of WallBuilders, a national pro- family organization that presents America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage. A national news organization has described him as “America's historian,” and Time Magazine called him “a hero to millions – including some powerful politicians.” In fact, Newsmax named him as one of America's top 100 most influential evangelicals, and Time Magazine named him as one of America's 25. David is the author of numerous best-selling books, with the subjects being drawn largely from his massive library of tens of thousands of original writings from the Founding Era. His books and writings have been used in Supreme Court cases and have influenced hundreds of American leaders. On Brave Men David helps us find our place in the narrative of freedom in every nation in the world. This is a thought provoking and candid conversation with a world-changer.
A stunning revision of our founding document's evolving history that forces us to confront anew the question that animated the founders so long ago: What is our Constitution? Americans widely believe that the United States Constitution was created when it was drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788. But in a shrewd rereading of the founding era, Jonathan Gienapp upends this long-held assumption, recovering the unknown story of American constitutional creation in the decade after its adoption—a story with explosive implications for current debates over constitutional originalism and interpretation.When the Constitution first appeared, it was shrouded in uncertainty. Not only was its meaning unclear, but so too was its essential nature. Was the American Constitution a written text, or something else? Was it a legal text? Was it finished or unfinished? What rules would guide its interpretation? Who would adjudicate competing readings? As political leaders put the Constitution to work, none of these questions had answers. Through vigorous debates they confronted the document's uncertainty, and—over time—how these leaders imagined the Constitution radically changed. They had begun trying to fix, or resolve, an imperfect document, but they ended up fixing, or cementing, a very particular notion of the Constitution as a distinctively textual and historical artifact circumscribed in space and time. This means that some of the Constitution's most definitive characteristics, ones which are often treated as innate, were only added later and were thus contingent and optional.-Jonathan Gienapp is an Assistant Professor of History at Stanford University. A scholar of early American political culture, he has written several articles on early constitutional history and modern constitutional theory and interpretation that speak to current political concerns. He is the author of The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era.
In this final episode of the Virginians miniseries, Jay and Luke discuss George Mason, the godfather of Virginia republicanism. Mason was instrumental in writing the Virginia Constitution in 1776. He was the primary author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, upon which James Madison relied heavily for writing the Bill of Rights. Yet though Mason was a constructive participant at the Constitutional Convention, he eventually opposed the Constitution in strident and bitter terms because he thought it a bad deal for Virginia. Mason thus represents the competing instincts of the Founding Era — embodying a broadminded nationalism but also parochial prejudices.
Dr. Jerome Huyler is a former assistant professor at Seton Hall University (NJ) and the author of Locke In America: The Moral Philosophy of the Founding Era, Everything You Have: The Case Against Welfare and "Only In America: The Goodness That Greatness Begot." He is that rare combination of educated scholar and devoted, down-to-earth patriot. Dr. Huyler is the exclusive admin and contributor to the FB group, The American Declaration. His website address is https://www.jeromehuyler.com. His twitter handle is huylerje.
We take a look back at the Revolutionary War on Long Island, courtesy of the Brentwood Public Library and the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. Peter Ward, the library's local history librarian, served as host. The Institute funded it; Peter Carmona, librarian trainee, recorded it. Historians Joanne Grasso of NYIT and Peter Bales of Queensboro Community College were the experts on the panel along with Chris Kretz, who mixed the whole thing down into bite sized pieces for your enjoyment. Further Research Revisiting the Founding Era Local History Room Dr. Peter Bales A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the 21st Century (2017) Dr. Joanne Grasso George Washington's 1790 Grand Tour of Long Island (2018) The American Revolution on Long Island (2016) Histories of Long Island (via WorldCat) British Prison Ships (podcast from the Bklyn Historical Society) Brentwood Public Library Average Brentwood Teens Podcast Brentwood Historical Society
In his book, The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era (Harvard University Press, 2018), Jonathan Gienapp revisits the Founding Era to retell the story of America's favorite document. Looking at the Constitution's creation, Gienapp makes a compelling case for why we should reconceptualize just what this document meant to early Americans. By examining the debates which gripped Congress immediately following the ratification of the Constitution, and throughout the 1790s, Gienapp illustrates how the very meaning of the Constitution, both as an idea and a text, was forged through partisan politics. If most Americans think of the Constitution as a fixed document, Gienapp shows how “fixing” the Constitution turned it into a “fixed” document. The Second gives us a new starting point for how to interpret the constitutional politics of the Early Republic, and the enduring image of the Constitution to our own day. Jonathan Gienapp is an assistant professor in History at Stanford University. He is a scholar of the Revolutionary Era and Early Republic. He's principally interested in these period's political culture, constitutionalism, and intellectual history. Derek Litvak is a Ph.D. student in the department of history at the University of Maryland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In his book, The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era (Harvard University Press, 2018), Jonathan Gienapp revisits the Founding Era to retell the story of America’s favorite document. Looking at the Constitution’s creation, Gienapp makes a compelling case for why we should reconceptualize just what this document meant to early Americans. By examining the debates which gripped Congress immediately following the ratification of the Constitution, and throughout the 1790s, Gienapp illustrates how the very meaning of the Constitution, both as an idea and a text, was forged through partisan politics. If most Americans think of the Constitution as a fixed document, Gienapp shows how “fixing” the Constitution turned it into a “fixed” document. The Second gives us a new starting point for how to interpret the constitutional politics of the Early Republic, and the enduring image of the Constitution to our own day. Jonathan Gienapp is an assistant professor in History at Stanford University. He is a scholar of the Revolutionary Era and Early Republic. He’s principally interested in these period’s political culture, constitutionalism, and intellectual history. Derek Litvak is a Ph.D. student in the department of history at the University of Maryland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In his book, The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era (Harvard University Press, 2018), Jonathan Gienapp revisits the Founding Era to retell the story of America’s favorite document. Looking at the Constitution’s creation, Gienapp makes a compelling case for why we should reconceptualize just what this document meant to early Americans. By examining the debates which gripped Congress immediately following the ratification of the Constitution, and throughout the 1790s, Gienapp illustrates how the very meaning of the Constitution, both as an idea and a text, was forged through partisan politics. If most Americans think of the Constitution as a fixed document, Gienapp shows how “fixing” the Constitution turned it into a “fixed” document. The Second gives us a new starting point for how to interpret the constitutional politics of the Early Republic, and the enduring image of the Constitution to our own day. Jonathan Gienapp is an assistant professor in History at Stanford University. He is a scholar of the Revolutionary Era and Early Republic. He’s principally interested in these period’s political culture, constitutionalism, and intellectual history. Derek Litvak is a Ph.D. student in the department of history at the University of Maryland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In his book, The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era (Harvard University Press, 2018), Jonathan Gienapp revisits the Founding Era to retell the story of America’s favorite document. Looking at the Constitution’s creation, Gienapp makes a compelling case for why we should reconceptualize just what this document meant to early Americans. By examining the debates which gripped Congress immediately following the ratification of the Constitution, and throughout the 1790s, Gienapp illustrates how the very meaning of the Constitution, both as an idea and a text, was forged through partisan politics. If most Americans think of the Constitution as a fixed document, Gienapp shows how “fixing” the Constitution turned it into a “fixed” document. The Second gives us a new starting point for how to interpret the constitutional politics of the Early Republic, and the enduring image of the Constitution to our own day. Jonathan Gienapp is an assistant professor in History at Stanford University. He is a scholar of the Revolutionary Era and Early Republic. He’s principally interested in these period’s political culture, constitutionalism, and intellectual history. Derek Litvak is a Ph.D. student in the department of history at the University of Maryland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In his book, The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era (Harvard University Press, 2018), Jonathan Gienapp revisits the Founding Era to retell the story of America’s favorite document. Looking at the Constitution’s creation, Gienapp makes a compelling case for why we should reconceptualize just what this document meant to early Americans. By examining the debates which gripped Congress immediately following the ratification of the Constitution, and throughout the 1790s, Gienapp illustrates how the very meaning of the Constitution, both as an idea and a text, was forged through partisan politics. If most Americans think of the Constitution as a fixed document, Gienapp shows how “fixing” the Constitution turned it into a “fixed” document. The Second gives us a new starting point for how to interpret the constitutional politics of the Early Republic, and the enduring image of the Constitution to our own day. Jonathan Gienapp is an assistant professor in History at Stanford University. He is a scholar of the Revolutionary Era and Early Republic. He’s principally interested in these period’s political culture, constitutionalism, and intellectual history. Derek Litvak is a Ph.D. student in the department of history at the University of Maryland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In his book, The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era (Harvard University Press, 2018), Jonathan Gienapp revisits the Founding Era to retell the story of America’s favorite document. Looking at the Constitution’s creation, Gienapp makes a compelling case for why we should reconceptualize just what this document meant to early Americans. By examining the debates which gripped Congress immediately following the ratification of the Constitution, and throughout the 1790s, Gienapp illustrates how the very meaning of the Constitution, both as an idea and a text, was forged through partisan politics. If most Americans think of the Constitution as a fixed document, Gienapp shows how “fixing” the Constitution turned it into a “fixed” document. The Second gives us a new starting point for how to interpret the constitutional politics of the Early Republic, and the enduring image of the Constitution to our own day. Jonathan Gienapp is an assistant professor in History at Stanford University. He is a scholar of the Revolutionary Era and Early Republic. He’s principally interested in these period’s political culture, constitutionalism, and intellectual history. Derek Litvak is a Ph.D. student in the department of history at the University of Maryland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In his book, The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era (Harvard University Press, 2018), Jonathan Gienapp revisits the Founding Era to retell the story of America’s favorite document. Looking at the Constitution’s creation, Gienapp makes a compelling case for why we should reconceptualize just what this document meant to early Americans. By examining the debates which gripped Congress immediately following the ratification of the Constitution, and throughout the 1790s, Gienapp illustrates how the very meaning of the Constitution, both as an idea and a text, was forged through partisan politics. If most Americans think of the Constitution as a fixed document, Gienapp shows how “fixing” the Constitution turned it into a “fixed” document. The Second gives us a new starting point for how to interpret the constitutional politics of the Early Republic, and the enduring image of the Constitution to our own day. Jonathan Gienapp is an assistant professor in History at Stanford University. He is a scholar of the Revolutionary Era and Early Republic. He’s principally interested in these period’s political culture, constitutionalism, and intellectual history. Derek Litvak is a Ph.D. student in the department of history at the University of Maryland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Michael S. Law has focused much of his life's research on the Founding Era and the Founders of the US. Michael has a bachelor's in political science from Boise State University and a master's degree in political science from American Public University emphasizing US history and government. Michael continues to personally study from the writings of the Founders and their history, remaining focused on the Founding principles. Michael applies his political expertise locally, including involvement in local government through serving on his local school board until 2016. Michael has been heard on numerous Fox Radio Network stations as a political analyst. Michael has been married for twenty-five years to his wife, Kaori, and has three children. WEBSITE Visit https://michaellawauthor.com/
Opening Monologues. Panic in DC. Desperate Democrats pull vicious, last-minute stunt on SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. All the hallmarks of a set-up. But are they bluffing? Will Christine Blasey Ford actually show up to testify? Looking unlikely. President Trump holds impromptu presser. Let's Vote Already. Meanwhile, preliminary notes on Trump's order for immediate "declassification" of long-requested FBI & DOJ materials. Democrats Nervous Breakdown. Deep State already plotting delays. The perils of Unelected Power in America. Plus, Thomas Jefferson on the "depravity" of the media in the Founding Era. It never ends. With Listener Calls & Music via Eddie Cochran, Muse and Rita Ora. [Matt Dunn guest-hosting the Steffan Tubbs Show]See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The U.S. Constitution is the oldest written constitution still in use today. A single document that lays out a framework for how our country is governed, the Constitution is fairly simple, short, and flexible. But when it was proposed, it was considered a radical design for a government. We talk with a historian about the dissent that nearly prevented ratification of this new constitution in 1788.
TriPod: New Orleans at 300 returns with a new tripod xtra. Laine Kaplan-Levenson sat down with John Barbry of the Tunica Biloxi nation, to discuss the history of the tribe and its contributions to New Orleans and Louisiana. The Tunica Biloxi land is in Marksville, Louisiana, about three hours outside New Orleans. The conversation begins when the Tunica Biloxi made contact Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto. John D. Barbry is the director of development & programming, Language & Culture Revitalization Program for the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana. He is one of the authors of the new book from the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana: The Tunica Biloxi Tribe: Its Culture and People . Barbry spoke at the Historic New Orleans Collection last month, as part of programming for their exhibition, “New Orleans, the Founding Era.” The exhibition is on view through May 27, 2018, at 533 Royal Street . TriPod is a production of WWNO in collaboration with the Historic New Orleans Collection
TriPod: New Orleans at 300 returns with a tripod Xtra produced by Laine Kaplan-Levenson. In this tripod xtra, we hear an abridged talk given by Dr. Erin Greenwald, curator of the Historic New Orleans Collection's 'The Founding Era' exhibit. Greenwald traces New Orleans' African roots -- from their kidnapping in Africa, through the middle passage, to the seminal role Africans played in the founding of our city. Dr. Erin M. Greenwald is the Curator of Programs at the New Orleans Museum of Art. Her talk was part of programming for the exhibition, New Orleans, the Founding Era, curated by Dr. Greenwald, for The Historic New Orleans Collection. The exhibition is on view through May 27, 2018, at 533 Royal Street . Carte particulière du Royaume de Juda [Detailed map of the kingdom of Ouidah] from Voyage du chevalier des Marchais en Guinée, isles voisines, et à Cayenne, fait en 1725, 1726, et 1727, vol. 2 Amsterdam, 1731 Credit Jean Baptiste Labat / The Historic New Orleans Collection, 2015
In today’s episode, we head over to the Historic New Orleans Collection in the French Quarter, and explore their newest exhibit, titled, New Orleans, the Founding Era. The exhibit is part of the tricentennial of New Orleans celebration and is a great way to envision what the city was like at the very beginning. It brings together a vast array of rare artifacts from the Historic New Orleans Collections holdings, and from institutions across Europe and North America to tell the stories of the city’s early days. To help us explore the exhibit, I am joined by the exhibition curator, Erin M. Greenwald. Erin is currently the Curator of Programs at the New Orleans Museum of Art, but was previously the Senior Curator and Historian at the Historic New Orleans Collection. She was the lead curator in putting New Orleans, the Founding Era together and shares her stories and insights about what you'll see when you visit the exhibit. The Historic New Orleans Collection The Historic New Orleans Collection is open Tuesday-Saturday year round, and offers both permanent and rotating exhibits. There is no admission charge to the view the exhibits. There is a small charge of $5 for non-members if you would like to tour the Williams Residence. Located at 533 Royal Street, it is a nice destination when you want to escape the heat and the crowds. Be sure to let them know you heard about the museum from Beyond Bourbon Street! The Historic New Orleans Collection is also a wonderful resource - I use it frequently when researching topics for the podcast. If you have a particular interest about New Orleans and want to learn more, try the research desk! Additional Resources You can follow the Historic New Orleans Collection on Instagram (@visit_thnoc) They also publish a quarterly magazine with historical essays and information about exhibits. You can download free copies of the current and past issues at their website. Related Episodes Today's show was the 3rd one we've done we done with the Historic New Orleans Collection team. Here are the others: 34 – Guidebooks to Sin, with Pamela Arceneaux - the guidebooks are the blue books that listed the names and details about the prostitutes who worked in the Storyville District of New Orleans 35 – Madams, Music and Musicians of Storyville - this discussion was about a now-closed exhibit that explored the Storyville District. While the exhibit is gone, this episode will give you a glimpse into that infamous red light part of New Orleans. If you want to learn more about the founding of New Orleans, I strongly recommend you check out my discussion with author Richard Campanella, in episode #53 - Bienville's Dilemma and the Founding of New Orleans. Thank You Thanks to Erin Greenwald for talking with us about the exhibit. Erin is extremely busy with both the exhibit and her role as the the Curator of Programs at the New Orleans Museum of Art, not to mention being a mom. (Erin - I hope the performance of James and the Giant Peach was splendid!) Thanks to the team at the Historic New Orleans Collection for inviting me to the sneak preview of New Orleans, the Founding Era, and for reaching out about the interview. A special thanks to Lauren Noel and Eli Haddow for pulling everything together! Want to Make Your Trip to New Orleans the Best Ever? Of course you do! If you’re planning a trip to New Orleans and want to cut through all the research we’re here to help. We offer a personalized travel consult. Here’s how it works: You complete a brief questionnaire to help us get to know you and the experience you want to have in New Orleans. Next, we set up a 20-30 minute phone or video call. During the call, we get to know you a little better. We can clarify any questions and bounce a few ideas off of you to make sure we ‘re on the right track. Finally, we prepare and deliver a pdf document with our recommendations for your trip. Depending on your needs the report will contain specific places to stay, eat and drink. It will also offer suggestions on things to do and see, all based on your budget and interests. Sound good? Just go to beyondbourbonst.com/travel for all the details and a link to order the service. Subscribe to the Podcast If you enjoy the show, please subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, Google Play Music or wherever you get your podcasts. If you do enjoy listening, please share Beyond Bourbon Street with someone who shares our love of New Orleans. Join Us on Facebook We have a free Facebook group where you can ask questions, share your New Orleans experiences and engage with others who love all things New Orleans! Join us by going to beyondbourbonst.com/facebook Contact Us Got an idea for an episode, have some feedback or just want to say hi? Leave us a message at 504-475-7632 or send an email to mark@beyondbourbonst.com Thanks for listening! Mark
Sheldon Richman can be found on Twitter @Sheldon Richman, readers can find his articles at the Libertarian Institute, and his books at Amazon.Beard, Charles. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, 1913.Hyneman & Lutz (eds.) American Political Writing during the Founding Era, 1760-1805, Two Volumes. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. 1983.Morgan, Edmund. The Birth of the Republic, 1763-1789. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1956.Richman, Sheldon. America’s Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited. Griffin & Lash, 2016.Wood, Gordon. The Idea of America: Reflections on the Birth of the United States. New York: The Penguin Press. 2011. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
According to the New York Times, the 2016 election “highlighted a growing rural-urban split (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/upshot/this-election-highlighted-a-growing-rural-urban-split.html) .” So, on this episode of BackStory, Brian, Ed and Nathan look at what happens when urban and rural Americans collide. They’ll tell the story of one coastal couple’s proposal to make part of the Great Plains a vast nature preserve and how it wasn’t received too kindly by the residents of those states. They’ll look at how attitudes towards small town voters shaped American politics in the 1920s. Finally, they’ll explore the urban/rural divide during the Founding Era, when city slicker Alexander Hamilton challenged Thomas Jefferson’s vision of a country composed of humble yeoman farmers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://megaphone.fm/adchoices
According to the New York Times, the 2016 election “highlighted a growing rural-urban split (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/upshot/this-election-highlighted-a-growing-rural-urban-split.html) .” So, on this episode of BackStory, Brian, Ed and Nathan look at what happens when urban and rural Americans collide. They’ll tell the story of one coastal couple’s proposal to make part of the Great Plains a vast nature preserve and how it wasn’t received too kindly by the residents of those states. They’ll look at how attitudes towards small town voters shaped American politics in the 1920s. Finally, they’ll explore the urban/rural divide during the Founding Era, when city slicker Alexander Hamilton challenged Thomas Jefferson’s vision of a country composed of humble yeoman farmers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://megaphone.fm/adchoices
Timothy S. Huebner, the Irma O. Sternberg Professor of History at Rhodes College in Memphis, has written Liberty & Union: The Civil War Era and American Constitutionalism (University Press of Kansas, 2016), a one-volume history of the constitutional debates regarding slavery and sovereignty from the Declaration of Independence through the end of Reconstruction. Huebner brings together three strands of history: African American history, military history, and constitutional/political history. In doing so, he joins often disparate areas of inquiry in an account of the unresolved questions from the Founding Era: 1) what would become of slavery? and 2) what was the nature of the Union and how was sovereignty divided between the states and federal government? Huebner reviews the competing theories and political events that repeatedly stoked debate and conflict over how slavery would be handled in a federated constitutional republic. Huebner makes original contributions to the debates about the Civil Wars origins and outcomes by integrating the political and military contributions of African Americans, especially norther free blacks of the antebellum period and blacks from North and South who sought freedom and fought in the war. Additionally, Huebner denotes how the conduct of the war revealed the political and constitutional views of military and civilian commanders on both sides. Huebner concludes that the Civil War and Reconstruction provided definitive answers to the questions of slavery and sovereignty: slavery was extinguished and the sovereignty of the people (rather than the states) had been vindicated. This is a work intended for general readers and professional historians. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Timothy S. Huebner, the Irma O. Sternberg Professor of History at Rhodes College in Memphis, has written Liberty & Union: The Civil War Era and American Constitutionalism (University Press of Kansas, 2016), a one-volume history of the constitutional debates regarding slavery and sovereignty from the Declaration of Independence through the end of Reconstruction. Huebner brings together three strands of history: African American history, military history, and constitutional/political history. In doing so, he joins often disparate areas of inquiry in an account of the unresolved questions from the Founding Era: 1) what would become of slavery? and 2) what was the nature of the Union and how was sovereignty divided between the states and federal government? Huebner reviews the competing theories and political events that repeatedly stoked debate and conflict over how slavery would be handled in a federated constitutional republic. Huebner makes original contributions to the debates about the Civil Wars origins and outcomes by integrating the political and military contributions of African Americans, especially norther free blacks of the antebellum period and blacks from North and South who sought freedom and fought in the war. Additionally, Huebner denotes how the conduct of the war revealed the political and constitutional views of military and civilian commanders on both sides. Huebner concludes that the Civil War and Reconstruction provided definitive answers to the questions of slavery and sovereignty: slavery was extinguished and the sovereignty of the people (rather than the states) had been vindicated. This is a work intended for general readers and professional historians. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Timothy S. Huebner, the Irma O. Sternberg Professor of History at Rhodes College in Memphis, has written Liberty & Union: The Civil War Era and American Constitutionalism (University Press of Kansas, 2016), a one-volume history of the constitutional debates regarding slavery and sovereignty from the Declaration of Independence through the end of Reconstruction. Huebner brings together three strands of history: African American history, military history, and constitutional/political history. In doing so, he joins often disparate areas of inquiry in an account of the unresolved questions from the Founding Era: 1) what would become of slavery? and 2) what was the nature of the Union and how was sovereignty divided between the states and federal government? Huebner reviews the competing theories and political events that repeatedly stoked debate and conflict over how slavery would be handled in a federated constitutional republic. Huebner makes original contributions to the debates about the Civil Wars origins and outcomes by integrating the political and military contributions of African Americans, especially norther free blacks of the antebellum period and blacks from North and South who sought freedom and fought in the war. Additionally, Huebner denotes how the conduct of the war revealed the political and constitutional views of military and civilian commanders on both sides. Huebner concludes that the Civil War and Reconstruction provided definitive answers to the questions of slavery and sovereignty: slavery was extinguished and the sovereignty of the people (rather than the states) had been vindicated. This is a work intended for general readers and professional historians. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Timothy S. Huebner, the Irma O. Sternberg Professor of History at Rhodes College in Memphis, has written Liberty & Union: The Civil War Era and American Constitutionalism (University Press of Kansas, 2016), a one-volume history of the constitutional debates regarding slavery and sovereignty from the Declaration of Independence through the end of Reconstruction. Huebner brings together three strands of history: African American history, military history, and constitutional/political history. In doing so, he joins often disparate areas of inquiry in an account of the unresolved questions from the Founding Era: 1) what would become of slavery? and 2) what was the nature of the Union and how was sovereignty divided between the states and federal government? Huebner reviews the competing theories and political events that repeatedly stoked debate and conflict over how slavery would be handled in a federated constitutional republic. Huebner makes original contributions to the debates about the Civil Wars origins and outcomes by integrating the political and military contributions of African Americans, especially norther free blacks of the antebellum period and blacks from North and South who sought freedom and fought in the war. Additionally, Huebner denotes how the conduct of the war revealed the political and constitutional views of military and civilian commanders on both sides. Huebner concludes that the Civil War and Reconstruction provided definitive answers to the questions of slavery and sovereignty: slavery was extinguished and the sovereignty of the people (rather than the states) had been vindicated. This is a work intended for general readers and professional historians. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Timothy S. Huebner, the Irma O. Sternberg Professor of History at Rhodes College in Memphis, has written Liberty & Union: The Civil War Era and American Constitutionalism (University Press of Kansas, 2016), a one-volume history of the constitutional debates regarding slavery and sovereignty from the Declaration of Independence through the end of Reconstruction. Huebner brings together three strands of history: African American history, military history, and constitutional/political history. In doing so, he joins often disparate areas of inquiry in an account of the unresolved questions from the Founding Era: 1) what would become of slavery? and 2) what was the nature of the Union and how was sovereignty divided between the states and federal government? Huebner reviews the competing theories and political events that repeatedly stoked debate and conflict over how slavery would be handled in a federated constitutional republic. Huebner makes original contributions to the debates about the Civil Wars origins and outcomes by integrating the political and military contributions of African Americans, especially norther free blacks of the antebellum period and blacks from North and South who sought freedom and fought in the war. Additionally, Huebner denotes how the conduct of the war revealed the political and constitutional views of military and civilian commanders on both sides. Huebner concludes that the Civil War and Reconstruction provided definitive answers to the questions of slavery and sovereignty: slavery was extinguished and the sovereignty of the people (rather than the states) had been vindicated. This is a work intended for general readers and professional historians. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Timothy S. Huebner, the Irma O. Sternberg Professor of History at Rhodes College in Memphis, has written Liberty & Union: The Civil War Era and American Constitutionalism (University Press of Kansas, 2016), a one-volume history of the constitutional debates regarding slavery and sovereignty from the Declaration of Independence through the end of Reconstruction. Huebner brings together three strands of history: African American history, military history, and constitutional/political history. In doing so, he joins often disparate areas of inquiry in an account of the unresolved questions from the Founding Era: 1) what would become of slavery? and 2) what was the nature of the Union and how was sovereignty divided between the states and federal government? Huebner reviews the competing theories and political events that repeatedly stoked debate and conflict over how slavery would be handled in a federated constitutional republic. Huebner makes original contributions to the debates about the Civil Wars origins and outcomes by integrating the political and military contributions of African Americans, especially norther free blacks of the antebellum period and blacks from North and South who sought freedom and fought in the war. Additionally, Huebner denotes how the conduct of the war revealed the political and constitutional views of military and civilian commanders on both sides. Huebner concludes that the Civil War and Reconstruction provided definitive answers to the questions of slavery and sovereignty: slavery was extinguished and the sovereignty of the people (rather than the states) had been vindicated. This is a work intended for general readers and professional historians. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies
Trump's in power, What will the economy look like in 4 years. Wll you have a job? DR. Jerome Huyler will answer this question based upon the Moral Philosophy of John Locke. Jerome Huyler(P.h.D) is an assistant professor at Seton Hall University. He earned his PhD in political science from the New School University in 1992 and his bachelor’s degree from Brooklyn College, where he majored in philosophy. Dr. Huyler’s doctoral dissertation was edited for publication as Locke in America: The Moral Philosophy of the Founding Era (University Press of Kansas, 1995,2001). He also authoredEverything You Have: The Case Against Welfare(1980). Jerome has delivered talks at Columbia University, New York University, St. John’s University, Baruch College, and the University of Connecticut, among others. This show sponsored byStudentsForABetterFuture.Com
Libertarians and conservatives held high hopes for a return to limited, constitutional government and fiscal responsibility with the arrival of the Tea Party movement in 2008 and 2009. Today, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are making credible runs for the White House. What happened? Was the commitment to Founding Era principles weakly held, after all? Join us on March 10th at 4 p.m. for a discussion about what, exactly, happened to the Tea Party.Ask your questions to the panel using the hashtag #CatoConnects. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Sol Price School of Public Policy and the Fred W. Smith National Library for the Study of George Washington for the annual George Washington Leadership Lecture. Established through a generous gift by Maribeth Borthwick '73, who also serves as the Vice Regent for California of the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, this lecture series explores the Washington's lifelong accomplishments, providing a better understanding of him as a man, as well as his remarkable leadership, professional achievements and lasting legacy. Speakers: Dr. Douglas Bradburn Founding Director, Washington Library at Mount Vernon George Sanchez Professor of American Studies and Ethnicity and History Vice Dean for Diversity and Strategic Initiatives, USC Dornsife Moderator: David Sloane Professor, USC Price Immigration has long been a topic of political controversy in the United States. Right now, presidential candidates are taking positions, left and right, focused on defining this elusive topic, and developing "solutions" to what seems an intractable problem. George Washington served as President when the United States first grappled with immigration and naturalization politics. Although the specifics have changed, the challenges of balancing inclusiveness, economic growth, social justice, and national security were just as problematic in his time as they are today. The evening begins with a short presentation framing the problem of immigration in the Founding Era, and Washington's particular perspective by the Founding Director of the Washington Library, Dr. Douglas Bradburn. Then Professor George Sanchez, one of the nation's foremost historians, discusses the history and current controversies around immigration. After his talk, they sit down with Professor David Sloane for a conversation about some of the issues raised in the talks.
Please join the host of Stand For Truth Radio Susan Knowles as she welcomes DAVID BARTON to the show. We will be discussing David's latest book, "The Jefferson Lies."David Barton is the Founder and President of WallBuilders, a national pro-family organization that presents America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage.WallBuilders is a name taken from the Old Testament writings of Nehemiah, who led a grassroots movement to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and restore its strength and honor. In the same way, WallBuilders seeks to energize the grassroots today to become involved in strengthening their communities, states, and nation.David is the author of numerous best-selling books, with the subjects being drawn largely from his massive library of tens of thousands of original writings from the Founding Era. He also addresses well over 400 groups each year.His exhaustive research has rendered him an expert in historical and constitutional issues and he serves as a consultant to state and federal legislators, has participated in several cases at the Supreme Court, was involved in the development of the History/Social Studies standards for states such as Texas and California, and has helped produce history textbooks now used in schools across the nation.A national news organization has described him as "America's historian," and Time Magazine called him "a hero to millions - including some powerful politicians. In fact, Time Magazine named him as one of America's 25 most influential evangelicals.
The United States was a grand compromise, one created out of common views of rights and government power. Professor Rob McDonald of West Point discusses what that means. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
The Founding Era was a violent one, and yet the Framers of the Constitution took great pains to constrain the government's war power. Christopher A. Preble discusses modern rejoinders to the fear of an executive branch empowered to make war. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
With the 2012 presidential election now behind us, the unique American presidential election system is fresh in the mind of the public. Some dismiss the Electoral College as outdated, arguing that the system should be replaced by direct popular vote. -- Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College? author Tara Ross provides an overview of the history of the Electoral College from the Founding Era to the present, defending the College as an institution and explaining how it protects our republic and promotes liberty. This second edition includes a section discussing the National Popular Vote legislative effort. -- Derek Muller, Associate Professor at Pepperdine University School of Law, interviews Ms. Ross about her book.
We promised that we'd go back, and now we have. And you can come with us. We'll hear more about the detective work involved in the restoration of James Madison's mansion. We'll also find out how archaeologists are unearthing (literally) hundreds of years of constitutional history at Montpelier, from the Founding Era to Jim Crow. C'mon - let's get diggin'.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
