The History Book Club discussion

C-Span Classroom Video - Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights:

http://www.c-spanclassroom.org/VideoD...

Video Clip Description
University of Maryland Professor John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime: the Bias Against Guns,” explains why he believes gun bans are ineffective.

Discussion Questions
What is the United States Bill of Rights? What is the Second Amendment?

What is a gun ban? According to Dr. Lott, what has happened in cities when gun bans go into effect? To what does he attribute that rise? Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Explain your answer.

Syndicated columnist Mark Shields discussed gun regulations. Click here to see a video clip of Mr. Shields. What is he advocating? Explain his argument.

Discuss both sides of the Second Amendment argument. What do you believe? Why?

Mark Shields - Opposing View on Gun Regulations:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/shields&a...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/0...

I this really belongs here versus Amendments:

You have got to love Franken!

Franken reads 4th Amendment to Justice Department official

http://minnesotaindependent.com/45495...

The US 4th Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

First Amendment:

Supreme Court debates legality of cross memorial
First Amendment concerns take back seat to land swap in questioning

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ch...

The above is a very interesting case that is being heard before the Supreme Court.

Here is an excerpt from the Chicago Tribune:

"A Supreme Court argument Wednesday over a cross within the Mojave National Preserve sparked a sharp dispute on whether it stands as a symbol of all fallen soldiers, including Jews and Muslims.

In a discussion whether the display within a public preserve violated the First Amendment ban on "establishment of religion," a Los Angeles lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union said a cross "is the predominant symbol of Christianity.

"It signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins," Peter Eliasberg told the justices. Because of its special religious significance, he said, it should not stand alone as a prominent symbol in a national park.

Justice Antonin Scalia sharply disagreed. "It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all the war dead," he said.

Elisasberg objected. "I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew," he said.

Scalia shot back, "I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that the cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that's an outrageous conclusion."

The exchange highlighted an hourlong debate over whether the Mojave cross is unconstitutional or if Congress has resolved the problem by transferring the land under the cross to the Veterans of Foreign Wars."

I absolutely cannot believe that someone decided to make an issue of a cross for the dead which has been an icon since 1934. There are crosses to honor military dead of all religions around the world. What do you think?

This is an interesting link: SCOTUS (discussed the above at length)

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/thursday...

The Supreme Court: Home to America's Highest Court

http://supremecourt.c-span.org/Video/...

Very well done.

This is quite a good presentation by Chief Justice Roberts in Queensland which was titled:

John G. Roberts: A History of the US Bill of Rights

For those of you who would like to hear a good discussion of the Constitution, Bill of Rights with some excerpts and references to the Federalists, the Anti Federalists and the Federalist Papers, I would strongly suggest that you watch this. There are various segments so you do not have to listen to it all at once but it is quite worthwhile and says a great deal about Chief Justice Roberts intellect, scholarship and brilliance.

http://fora.tv/2010/07/29/John_G_Robe...

Source: Fora TV

The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction
by Akhil Reed Amar

Synopsis
A leading scholar of constitutional law delivers an incisive and brilliant new account of the Bill of Rights and explodes conventional wisdom about our most basic charter of liberty. Akhil Reed Amar not only illuminates the text, structure, and history of the 1789 Bill but also argues that its present character owes more to antislavery activists of the Reconstruction era than to the Founding Fathers who created the Bill.

The Bill of Rights in the Modern State

by Geoffrey R. Stone

Synopsis:

Although the Bill of Rights has existed for two hundred years, the last half century has seen dramatic changes in its meaning and scope. The essays collected in this volume represent the full range of views and interpretations of what these first ten amendments to the U. S. Constitution mean today as guarantors of individual rights.

The contributors to this volume are among the most prominent constitutional scholars in the country. Most of the essays are grouped in pairs, each of which offers conflicting positions on current constitutional controversies, including property rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, levels of generality in constitutional interpreation, and unemumerated rights.

The contributors are: Bruce Ackerman, Mary E. Becker, Ronald Dworkin, Frank H. Easterbrook, Richard A. Epstein, Charles Fried, Mary Ann Glendon, Philip B. Kurland, Frank J. Michaelman, Michael W. McConnell, Richard A. Posner, Kathleen M. Sullivan, John Paul Stevens, David A. Strauss, and Cass R. Sunstein.

"A thoughtful and well coordinated set of exchanges between leading modern constitutional theorists about the most significant issues related to the Bill of Rights and the Welfare State. These issues are debated through penetrating essays by opposing theorists who get to the heart of these issues and provide significant answers to their debate opponents' points."—Thomas R. Van Dervort, Southeastern Political Review

mentioned above:
Bruce Ackerman (no photo)
Mary Becker (no photo)
Ronald Dworkin (no photo)
Frank Easterbrook
Richard A. Epstein
Charles Fried
Mary Ann Glendon (no photo)
Philip B. Kurland (no photo)
Michael W. McConnell (no photo)
Richard A. Posner
Kathleen M. Sullivan (no photo)
John Paul Stevens
David A. Strauss
Cass R. Sunstein

The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic

by Mark R. Levin

Synopsis:

For a century, the Statists have steadfastly constructed a federal Leviathan, distorting and evading our constitutional system in pursuit of an all-powerful, ubiquitous central government. The result is an ongoing and growing assault on individual liberty, state sovereignty, and the social compact. Levin argues that if we cherish our American heritage, it is time to embrace a constitutional revival.

The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and the delegates to each state’s ratification convention foresaw a time when—despite their best efforts to forestall it—the Federal government might breach the Constitution’s limits and begin oppressing the people. Agencies such as the IRS and EPA and programs such as Obamacare demonstrate that the Framers’ fear was prescient.

Therefore, the Framers provided two methods for amending the Constitution. The second was intended for our current circumstances—empowering the states to bypass Congress and call a convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution. Levin argues that we, the people, can avoid a perilous outcome by seeking recourse, using the method called for in the Constitution itself.

The Framers adopted ten constitutional amendments, called the Bill of Rights, that would preserve individual rights and state authority. Levin lays forth eleven specific prescriptions for restoring our founding principles, ones that are consistent with the Framers’ design. His proposals—such as term limits for members of Congress and Supreme Court justices and limits on federal taxing and spending—are pure common sense, ideas shared by many. They draw on the wisdom of the Founding Fathers—including James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and numerous lesser-known but crucially important men—in their content and in the method for applying them to the current state of the nation.

Now is the time for the American people to take the first step toward reclaiming what belongs to them. The task is daunting, but it is imperative if we are to be truly free.

The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction

by Akhil Reed Amar

Synopsis:

Amar's landmark work invites citizens to a deeper understanding of their Bill of Rights and will set the basic terms of debate about it for modern lawyers, jurists, and historians for years to come. In our continuing battles over freedom of religion and expression, arms bearing, privacy, and states rights, Amar concludes, we must hearken to both the Founding Fathers who created the Bill and their sons and daughters who reconstructed it.

An upcoming book:
Release date: May 5, 2015

The Bill of Rights: James Madison and the Politics of the People's Parchment Barrier

by Carol Berkin (no photo)

Synopsis:

The real story of how the Bill of Rights came to be: a concise, vivid history of political strategy, big egos, and partisan interest that set the terms of the ongoing contest between the federal government and the states.

Revered today for articulating America’s founding principles, the first ten amendments—the Bill of Rights—was in fact a political stratagem executed by James Madison to preserve the Constitution, the Federal government, and the latter’s authority over the states. In the skilled hands of award-winning historian Carol Berkin, the story of the Founders’ fight over the Bill of Rights comes alive in a gripping drama of partisan politics, acrimonious debate, and manipulated procedure. From this familiar story of a Congress at loggerheads, an important truth emerges.

In 1789, the young nation faced a great ideological divide around a question still unanswered today: should broad power and authority reside in the federal government or should it reside in state governments? The Bill of Rights, from protecting religious freedom and the people’s right to bear arms to reserving unenumerated rights to the states, was a political ploy first, and matter of principle second. How and why Madison came to devise this plan, the divisive debates it fostered in the Congress, and its ultimate success in defeating antifederalist counterplans to severely restrict the powers of the federal government is more engrossing than any of the myths that shroud our national beginnings.

The debate over the founding fathers’ original intent still continues through myriad Supreme Court decisions. By pulling back the curtain on the political, short-sighted, and self-interested intentions of the founding fathers in passing the Bill of Rights, Berkin reveals the inherent weakness in these arguments and what it means for our country today.

From Tyndale to Madison: How the Death of an English Martyr Led to the American Bill of Rights

by Michael Farris (no photo)

Synopsis:

From Tyndale to Madison is a sweeping literary work passionately tracing the epic history of religious liberty across three centuries, from the turbulent waning days of medieval Europe to colonial America and the birth pangs of a new nation. With literally a cast of thousands, the tapestry of world history is on display here. From the remarkable translation work of William Tyndale to the court intrigues of Henry VIII and Thomas More, the battle for the English Bible culminates in the venerable King James Version. Also detailed is the spread of the Reformation through the eyes of Martin Luther, John Knox, and John Calvin—in their own, often surprising words.

Readers witness the anguish of religious dissenters under the oppressive reign of Bloody Mary and the first sparks of liberty with the rise of Oliver Cromwell and the English Commonwealth. A little more than one hundred years later, across the sea, James Madison, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson fight to establish a bill of rights that will guarantee every American citizen the “free exercise” of their religion. Without sugarcoating either side of the story, author Michael Farris, an exemplary twenty-first-century statesman and constitutional lawyer who regularly defends religious freedom on Capitol Hill, shares eye-opening historical details regarding the sacrifices people made then to secure the inalienable rights we enjoy today.

“We must tell the story of the Christian persecutors, so that we can put to the test the claim that people who cared little about faith and religion were the heroes of liberty. The true heroes are not to be found among the salons of the Enlightenment philosophes, but in the cells in King’s Bench Prison and tied to the stake at Smithfield.”

Thanks Jerome.

The Bill of Rights: The Fight to Secure America's Liberties

by Carol Berkin (no photo)

Synopsis:

The real story of how the Bill of Rights came to be: a concise, vivid history of political strategy, big egos, and partisan interest that set the terms of the ongoing contest between the federal government and the states.

Revered today for articulating America’s founding principles, the first ten amendments—the Bill of Rights—was in fact a political stratagem executed by James Madison to preserve the Constitution, the Federal government, and the latter’s authority over the states. In the skilled hands of award-winning historian Carol Berkin, the story of the Founders’ fight over the Bill of Rights comes alive in a gripping drama of partisan politics, acrimonious debate, and manipulated procedure. From this familiar story of a Congress at loggerheads, an important truth emerges.

In 1789, the young nation faced a great ideological divide around a question still unanswered today: should broad power and authority reside in the federal government or should it reside in state governments? The Bill of Rights, from protecting religious freedom and the people’s right to bear arms to reserving unenumerated rights to the states, was a political ploy first, and matter of principle second. How and why Madison came to devise this plan, the divisive debates it fostered in the Congress, and its ultimate success in defeating antifederalist counterplans to severely restrict the powers of the federal government is more engrossing than any of the myths that shroud our national beginnings.

The debate over the founding fathers’ original intent still continues through myriad Supreme Court decisions. By pulling back the curtain on the political, short-sighted, and self-interested intentions of the founding fathers in passing the Bill of Rights, Berkin reveals the inherent weakness in these arguments and what it means for our country today.

Thanks Teri

An upcoming book:
Release date: January 1, 2018

The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights Became the Bill of Rights

by Gerard Magliocca (no photo)

Synopsis:

This is the untold story of the most celebrated part of the Constitution. Until the twentieth century, few Americans called the first ten constitutional amendments drafted by James Madison in 1789 and ratified by the states in 1791 the Bill of Rights. Even more surprising, when people finally started doing so between the Spanish-American War and World War II, the Bill of Rights was usually invoked to justify increasing rather than restricting the authority of the federal government. President Franklin D. Roosevelt played a key role in that development, first by using the Bill of Rights to justify the expansion of national regulation under the New Deal, and then by transforming the Bill of Rights into a patriotic rallying cry against Nazi Germany. It was only after the Cold War began that the Bill of Rights took on its modern form as the most powerful symbol of the limits on government power.

These are just some of the revelations about the Bill of Rights in Gerard Magliocca's The Heart of the Constitution. For example, we are accustomed to seeing the Bill of Rights at the end of the Constitution, but Madison wanted to put them in the middle of the document. Why was his plan rejected and what impact did that have on constitutional law? Today we also venerate the first ten amendments as the Bill of Rights, but many Supreme Court opinions say that only the first eight or first nine amendments. Why was that and why did that change?

The Bill of Rights that emerges from Magliocca's fresh historical examination is a living text that means something different for each generation and reflects the great ideas of the Constitution--individual freedom, democracy, states' rights, judicial review, and national power in time of crisis.

Thank you Jerome

Chief Justice Interview on the Constitution Chief Justice John Roberts talked about the U.S. Constitution at the Supreme Court.

He talked about his early interest in constitutional law, the role of the constitution in the operation of government, structure of the Constitution and its Amendments, and the process of judicial review.

The interview was part of a C-SPAN Classroom project designed to interest middle and high school students in the Constitution.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?193515-...

Source: C-Span and Youtube

Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty

by Randy E. Barnett (no photo)

Synopsis:

The U.S. Constitution found in school textbooks and under glass in Washington is not the one enforced today by the Supreme Court. In Restoring the Lost Constitution, Randy Barnett argues that since the nation's founding, but especially since the 1930s, the courts have been cutting holes in the original Constitution and its amendments to eliminate the parts that protect liberty from the power of government. From the Commerce Clause, to the Necessary and Proper Clause, to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, to the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has rendered each of these provisions toothless. In the process, the written Constitution has been lost.

Barnett establishes the original meaning of these lost clauses and offers a practical way to restore them to their central role in constraining government: adopting a "presumption of liberty" to give the benefit of the doubt to citizens when laws restrict their rightful exercises of liberty. He also provides a new, realistic and philosophically rigorous theory of constitutional legitimacy that justifies both interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning and, where that meaning is vague or open-ended, construing it so as to better protect the rights retained by the people.

As clearly argued as it is insightful and provocative, Restoring the Lost Constitution forcefully disputes the conventional wisdom, posing a powerful challenge to which others must now respond.

Here are some wonderful courses on Khan Academy in AP - US Government and Politics - Foundations of American Democracy.

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...

Source: Khan Academy

Interesting article although it might have some biases:

The Founding Fathers’ Power Grab
Was the Constitution designed to make the United States less democratic?
By MATTHEW C. SIMPSON
September 29, 2016

https://newrepublic.com/article/13731...

Source: The New Republic

Khan Academy tackles the Constitutional Convention: - this is pretty good


James Madison - age 32 in 1783

In this video, historian Joe Ellis and Aspen Institute President and CEO Walter Isaacson discuss the Constitutional Convention and the replacement of the Articles of Confederation, the Virginia Plan and national government vs. states rights. Created by Aspen Institute.

https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...

Source: Khan Academy, Youtube, Aspen Institute

More:
The Constitution and democracy - Ellis and Isaacson for Khan Academy - pretty good - they get into the discussion of a republic versus a democracy which is part of the Federalist 14 essay
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
The Constitution and the role of the President - Ellis and Isaacson - pretty good
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
The Constitution and slavery part 1 - - Ellis and Isaacson - pretty good - they discuss the Constitution and ideological divide around slavery in addition to the Three-Fifths compromise
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...

Note: I have decided to include all of these brief presentations by Ellis and Isaacson because they are very good and give some excellent background information either about the discussions at the Constitutional Conference itself or repercussions later on.

More (cont'd):
The Constitution and slavery part 2 - Ellis and Isaacson continue the discussion of the Constitution and slavery and what compromise meant at the Constitutional Convention and George Washington's involvement with slaves - pretty good
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
The Constitution and proportional representation - this one has relevance to Federalist 14 in terms of the states - Ellis and Isaacson talk about the following: In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates compromised on state representation by dividing the legislative branch between the Senate, in which every state has two representatives regardless of size, and the House of Representations, where representatives are apportioned to the states according to their population. For the purposes of apportionment, the delegates agreed to the now-infamous Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted each enslaved resident of the Southern states as three-fifths of a person - this one was excellent and describes extremely well what is wrong in Congress and other branches today - lack of humility - quite good when they discuss Ben Franklin's letter
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
The Constitution and "We, the People of the United States" - Joe Ellis and Walter Isaacson discuss the beginning of the Constitution and the term "We, the People of the United States" and what that means - relevant to Federalist 14 and the power of the people - very good
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights: Amendments 1-3
Ellis and Isaacson discuss the Constitution's Bill of Rights, Amendments 1-3 - Relevant to Federalist 14 in many ways because Madison is the author of the Bill of Rights which was a compromise to the Anti Federalists to get their votes to ratify the Constitution - 7 states ratified the constitution with suggested amendments - the amendments were not stipulations by recommendations (Madison wanted to make that point) - there were actually 124 suggested original state recommended amendments - many overlapped and repeated themselves - but Madison said in order to get the full cooperation of the states - remember Rhode Island had not certified, North Carolina was lingering, New York really signed against its will that we need to prove and show that we have listened to them. Madison writes them on his own time when he was then in the House of Representatives and is a codicil to the Constitution - very good
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights: Amendments 4, 5, 10
Ellis and Isaacson discuss the Constitution's Bill of Rights, Amendments 4, 5, and 10. - this is interesting because the 10th amendment was a catch all for everything not discussed in the Constitution about the rights of the states and its people - but this amendment has caused quite a bit of ire and confusion. - good
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
For Fun - there is a Practice Test:
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...--