i used state constitutional conventions, state constitutions. there were 155 different state constitutional conventions in our history. they provide a wealth of insight into what's constitutional convention conversations would've looked like in various times of american history. they are at the state level, nationalizing them would have been a little different but state constitutions and state constitutional conventions talk about the same things that federal constitution would've talked about. power, rights, liberties, all of these things like that. values, and so on! i took that as part of the data. constitutional amendments, supreme court cases. these were all part of the story that i drafted for each individual convention. as i write in the bottom here, my conventions the various chapters are in narrative form. they are storytelling. a talk about people who were alive at the time and would've been invited to the constitutional convention. what they stood for, and so on. without further ado let's get into it! the first constitutional conventi

so no constitution can take these rates away. these rights aren't from the constitution. they can't be taken away or violated by any government. whenever formed in this class immediately became the target of a lot of discussion within the virginia convention, right the old house of burgesses. and many, you know, these people were slaveholders the george mason was a slaveholder. and immediately people were concerned about what the effect of that language would be on slavery. on their property in enslaved people and so on so they extended debate over this question. and in the end the virginia convention amended. george mason's statement and added language that of which when they enter into a state of society they cannot be any compact deprive or divest their posterity. so at the virginian said was and say people are not entering into the society with us they remain apart in a state of nature. and are not part of this process. of constituting a government and society in virginia so this is this is a very explicitly discussed in the in the in the debates over this particular

constitution. and now it is such a pleasure to introduce our extremely distinguished panel of america's leading lincoln scholars to discuss lincoln's speeches and the american idea. michael birmingham holds the chancellor naomi b lynn distinguished chair and lichen studies at the university of illinois springfield. he's the author of several books on lincoln including and lincoln observed the inner world of abraham lincoln and the two volume american abraham lincoln a life as well as his new book, which he'll be discussing tonight. the black man's president abraham lincoln african americans and the pursuit of racial equality. noah. feldman is the felix frankfurter professor of law chair of the society of fellows and founding director of the julis rabinowitz program on jewish and israeli law at harvard university. he's the author of nine books including the three lives of james madison genius partisan president and his latest book which will be tonight the broken constitution lincoln's slavery and t

so i used state constitutional conventions state constitutions. there was a hundred and fifty five different state constitutional conventions in our history. they provide a wealth of insight into what constitutional convention conversations would have looked like at various times in american history. sure. they're at the state level and nationalizing them would have been a little different but then but state constitutions and state constitutional conventions talk about the same thing that of federal constitutional conventions would have talked about power rights liberties equality things like that values and so on so i took that as part of the data constitutional amendment supreme court cases. these were all part of the story that i that i crafted for each individual convention. and as i write in the bottom here my conventions the various chapters are in narrative form their storytelling i talk about people who were alive at the time and would have been invited to the constitutional convention what they stood for and so on. so without further ado,

shedding new light on the constitution and we'll talk more about the capital c small c constitution. that's part of the story, but it's no surprise. i don't think to anyone who knows you work that you were going to show us nothing something new about this constitution and at the same time, i think i didn't expect that. this next book would be so importantly illuminating actually the place of women and the place of gender in the development of the constitution in its early decades. i thought i'd just might start by asking where this book began for you now, i know and we've heard the archivists the united states allude to george washington, and i know that that's one place where you early on encountered eliza harry it but i want to ask you when you knew this was a book. right when you knew that you had really landed on something that would sustain you and sustain us in a book length work. yeah, is there such an interesting question about sort of at what moment? i i knew i think i think you know, i found i was working on my madison's handbook. i read the diary of george washington a lot

but the constitutional choices, constitutional contingencies. especially for students who pick up the text and expect a sort of erudite engaging with the text is enough. your here to say, despite the fact that you won't find it in the text. ideas about women, ideas about gender, are really present. tell us a little more about sort of what you hope we'll take away as readers of the constitution, as thinkers about early america, as folks who are, many of us from various quarters thinking about sort of founding moments. what is it you want to take away from this example, this model of eliza harriet, about the constitution itself? >> so i think for me this is the book's subtitle's called the dawn of the constitution. and i write about that this is an age of the constitution. this is a moment when i and other people have argue the constitution is developing as a new genre. linda colley has a wonderful book about this in the global space. the constitution, we think of it as a specific document. in this moment, it still carries the meaning of a system

constitution. and now it is such a pleasure to introduce our extremely distinguished panel of america's leading lincoln scholars to discuss lincoln's speeches and the american idea. michael birmingham holds the chancell and now it is my distinct up lincoln observed the in a world of abraham lincoln, and the two volume abraham lincoln, a life. as well as his new book which he will be discussing tonight, the black man's president abraham lincoln, african americans, and the pursuit of racial equality. noah feldman is the chair of society fellows and founding director of the jewelers illiterate program on jewish israeli law at harvard university. he's the author of nine books, including three lives of james madison, genius president, and the latest book which we will be discussing tonight. the broken constitution, lincoln, slavery in the re-founding of america. diana shaub is a professor you leila university. and a fellow at the university -- she is the author of several books, including what so proudl

i am a constitution person rather than a lincoln person, i came to this from the constitution itself. among us who work on the founding in 1787, for the most part, there may be one or two exceptions, commonly accepted the constitution was a compromise document where one of the central compromises was the compromise over slavery. we have the three fifth compromise, famously. the guarantee that the international slave trade remain for at least 20 years. we also have the fugitive slave cause. requiring the states that did not recognize slavery on their own to acknowledge and then recognize slavery in itself. that is the setting for the way the constitution functions from that time up until the civil war. there were moments when the constitutional compromised seemed near breaking but congress, for the most part, managed to re-inscribed that compromise with new reiterations. the missouri compromise being the most famous example of this. lincoln very much supported that structure of compromise throughout his political career. because we are mentioning speeches of lincoln, i will mention in

constitution. and we'll talk more about the capital c, small sea constitution that's part of the story. but it's no surprise, i don't think anyone who knows your work that you are gonna show us something new about this constitution. in at the same time, i think i didn't expect that this next book would be so important illuminating, actually the place of women in the place of gender in the development of the constitution. in its early decades. i thought i just might start by asking where this book began for you. now i know and we've heard the archivists in the united states allude to george washington and i know that that's one place where you early on encountered e.l.i.s.a. harriet. but i want to ask you when you knew this was a book. when you knew that you had a really landed on something that would sustain you and sustain us in a book like this. >> it's a nursing question about at one moment i knew i was working on my medicines handbook i read the diary of george washington a lot of times. i kept

i look at the constitution. it does not mention women and certainly the right of gay people to marry or for people of different races to marry is not deeply rooted in the nation's history. do you think that by extension that draft opinion could be used to take other rights away? >> it certainly could be in it sends a very strong signal to states that are already inclined to do that or stay lawmakers and governors have already indicated their interest in order to impose civil punishments, criminal punishments and begin stripping away rights that we have seen emerge over time. we have already seen this in texas with regard to the governor pushing forward for an executive order that would essentially punish parents who are providing affirmative care to their children who are trans. game marriage is at stake, the ability to adopt if you were gay is at stake, interracial marriage is at stake. it only takes one local county clerk to say i disagree. >> let me go to some of the other issues. i have long been a proponent

protected constitutional, right? and yet when senator schumer asked to repeatedly do you find that roe versus wade established and recognized a constitutional protection for a woman to make this most private decision? you wouldn't answer you wouldn't give a direct answer. on two supreme court cases griswold and brown now you have said just right there as we started this hearing that you believe there is a constitutional basis for this protection and for this right and yet when it came to roe versus wade, you would not. most of us are troubled by this 1985 memo said yesterday you would have an open mind when it came to this issue. i'm sorry to report that your memo seeking a job in the reagan administration does not evidence and open mind. in evidences a mind that sadly is is closed in some areas. yesterday when you were asked about one man, one vote. you clarified. it said those were my views then they're not my views now when senator cole asked you about the the power and authority of elected branches as opposed to

protected constitutional, right? and yet when senator schumer asked to repeatedly do you find that roe versus wade established and recognized a constitutional protection for a woman to make this most private decision? you wouldn't answer you wouldn't give a direct answer. on two supreme court cases griswold and brown now you have said just right there as we started this hearing that you believe there is a constitutional basis for this protection and for this right and yet when with the 1973 roe v. wade case and abortion being widely debated and discussed in their nation today, american history tv is looking back to see what the nine justices who are currently on the supreme court had to say about roe v. wade in their confirmation hearings. we begin with a justice samuel alito, the author of the new, leaked draft opinion, which seeks to overturn the roe case. his nomination hearing was heard in january 2006. >> you conceded the fact that we have free speech because it's explicit in our constitution, protected constitu

the constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which defenders of roe and casey now chiefly rely. the due process clause of the 14th amendment. the provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the constitution, end quote. now, there are several rights that fall into this category. rights like same sex marriage. the right to birth control. justice alito basically wrote a how-to guide to dismantling those rights, too, which is probably why he also peppered in this tepid assurance. we emphasize our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion, end quote. that's good. should we take him at his word? like some senators took gorsuch and cavanaugh at their word? tonight the vice president harris warned that roe might not be the only target for republicans. >> you know, some republican leaders they want to take us back to a time before roe v. wade,

you can do that through the process in the constitution and the state consequence constitution for a constitutional amendment. >> the american people have gotten out of the habit of looking to the constitution. we wait for lawsuits and hope we get the landmark decision we want. this has been going on since 1925 where the original scheme of the constitution that said everything else not enumerated goes to the states and the people. it's been overridden by the 14th amendment which prohibits the states from denying liberty to anybody. that first it was the first amendment in the 1940s, it was the 4th amendment, but not all the 4th amendment. the idea that evidence illegally seized must be exclude at trial. it was up to the states until 1961. and we are seeing over and over again the court is expanding through the -- the 20th century to expand. they don't have the ability to rule on every single issue in life, but that's what they are doing. steve: those who long advocated to put justices on the court who follow the constitution it wasn't because they wanted specific outcomes. but they w

there is nothing in the constitution that explicitly or impolice italy supports the notion of a constitutional right to abortion. as you indicated, that doesn't mean the states don't have to power to recognize and cree abortion rights, and the primary constitutional clause that had been relied on in roe was the due process clause of the 14th amendment, which applies that the state should not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. this has been interpreted by some as meaning there are some liberties you cannot be deprived of no matter what. what he did was mark carefully through explaining why abortion, given its long history of being a crime, does not qualify as a liberty in the american tradition that could be the basis for a constitutional right under so-called due process. >> mary, there are some liberals who have agreed in the past that roe was poorly decided and poorly reasoned, which doesn't mean they thought it should be overturned necessarily, but even the late justice ruth bader ginzrg said the crt went too far in the change that it ordered. y was it

but fetus is not mentioned in the constitution either the constitution does not say anything about when life starts. that is something the courts have to decide because it is not mentioned in the constitution. for the courts to absolve themselves of it and get away from it is wrong. three justices said row is set a law. roe is the law. it is settled. its was not for some of the othr side of said terrible decision wrong from the beginning and just terribly wrong. it was right said cap it out. it was right said barrett, it is right then and it is right now. i yield back the balance of my time for. >> tenement deals back. thank you, mr. chairman. professor goodwin, is a 20 week pregnancy, unborn child a human being under the constitution? >> under the constitution and the 13th amendment that recognizes born individuals as being citizens of the united states. >> no, no okay born. so is it your testimony that constitutionally prior to the term, born being exercise the unborn have no rights and they are not human beings? >> according to the constitution born individuals are citizens of the un

the opinion is exceptionally well reasoned, thorough, and grounded in the constitution. it also means that in states across our country, including in my home state of utah, hundreds of thousands of unborn children, children who could not be protected by state law due to restrictions placed on them by an invented nonexistent constitutional doctrine created out of whole cloth in roe and in casey now have some chance at being protected depending, of course, on which decision-makers in which states make which decisions regarding the protection of human life. as americans we must not and we can never forget what's at stake. if this majority decision stands, those who recognize the sanctity of human life like myself and like a majority of utahans will have much to celebrate, but we must also recognize that this is not the end of this chapter in american history. the efforts of the last half century have not been done just simply to overturn roe. you see, getting to this point, a point that the court has apparently reached, means that this discussion can finally begin. it's a d

that is not the world the constitution promises. the constitution places its trust and its people. the people make this country work. when an issue affects everyone, it belongs to the people. roe and casey have failed but the people if given a chance will succeed. this court should overrule roe and casey and uphold state law. >> general stuart, you focus on the right to abortion, prudence seems to focus on simony and privacy. does it make a difference on privacy or autonomy or more specifically on abortion? >> whichever one of those you are focusing on, particularly if you are focusing on a right to abortion, each of those stars to become a stent removed from what is provided in the constitution. the constitution does provide certain aspects of autonomy and the like. but going directly from general concepts of autonomy, privacy of valuing technique to a right is not how we traditionally in this court does. whichever one you look at, a right to abortion, abstract concepts. >> you said this involves the taking of a life. how does that -- your analysis? >> and marks out the unbelievab

is that excitable under constitutional law? -- executionable under constitutional law? that is the framework, the trimester. why was not not be workable if you pick a line, 20 seven weeks, third trimester, see interests increase. i do not understand why 27 is less workable than 24? >> the viability line is a principal, to change it there would have to be a that is more principled and workable and the line that the court has drawn actually -- >> as a matter of first principle. >> it makes sense because. >> it is not constitutionally required because we could decide to be more protective and say 27 weeks. >> you could but the viability line makes sense given that protection for liberty because it comes from the woman's liberty in resisting state control of her body. it does need to draw a line as it does in many other constitutional contexts. the viability line makes sense because it focuses on the ability to survive separately which is an appropriate legal line because it is viability and does not dive into philosophical questions of when life begins. >> mr. chief justic

marriage is not in the constitution. homosexuality is not in constitution. what we know is this court will take the next step. anybody who says they won't just not paying attention. this court is coming after same-sex marriage. this court is coming after brown v board. i mean, with all due respect, i think that's a nonstarter. the idea first of all clarence thomas wants to rule his own marriage is unconstitutional strikes me as implausible. second, loving is about more of a protection case which ruth bader ginsburg wanted roe in which was at a cost. if this decision ends up being a real decision, big if, it does philosophically threaten some other rights like day marriage. it does not -- as a practical matter, there is no movement to ban international marriage in this country . there's no movement to overturn gay marriage. >> ben shapiro this week on his podcast, the largest youtube podcast, whatever it may be, talked about the next thing they will do is go after gay marriage. if hilary and i are afraid of what this court will do next, i think that is rooted

the constitution opens a new political period for those struggles, so it definitely -- the constitution is not enshrining nationalization, but nationalization of natural resources is a way to solve an economic crisis that is ongoing. to pay for the social rights that are being enshrined in the constitution, it is definitely on the table and it is going to be parof the political struggle in the next decades probably. amy: what are the plans to galvanize support? this is going to be a referendum all over the country in september for this constitution and how much do you expect it will change? >> well, the thing is that since the beginning of the constitution convention, the right wing and the great losers of that election are having -- doing a dirty campaign of fake news and promoting rejection of the new constitution. even this morning it was written or even before we could see any of the articles, so they have a lot advantage in that sense. they have been doing it for a long time. and now social movement and civil society is mobilizing for an approval of the new constitution, and now we

constitution. no person shall be deprived of life. it's also mentioned on our birth certificate. and the declaration of independence. endowed by their creator with you be alienable rights. -- unalienable rights. democracy is hard it was intended to be hard. it's a privilege earned with the lives and limbs of others. it's easy to wait for five lawyers in black robes to look in the shadows of a penumbra and tell us what our rights are. it's hard to go into the ballot box or the floor of the legislature and debate it. but that's what we should do and not wait for unelected lawyers who live lives of virtual isolation to do it for us. bring it into the light out of the shadow, that's what self-governance is all about. senator, you are highly trained in constitutional law, so i'm going to take full advantage of that. the constitution does not mention privacy, marriage or contraception or self-defense. where do those rights come from. are they indeed rights? >> i think the best way to examine the concept

by reading into the constitution a right that exists nowhere in the constitution. wrongly decided cases wreaked havoc in public trust and government, the republican nature of the government on the public understanding of the constitution. they permitted the euphemistically described, quote, termination of 63 million american lives, more than 45 times the number of american lives lost in war since the founding, every war combined. let that sink in a minute. and what it says about how to respect human life. scores of millions of lives represent each and every one of them, unrepeatable genetic makeups, they represent the loss of americans of all races, physical and mental abilities, all political affiliations and professions with many targeted without race, sex or disability. termination is a loss of ideas of innovation and compassion, to erase all potential families and communities. those abortions represent the loss of infinite potential connection and abortion is a tragedy that scars our history. so when i read justice alito's draft opinion in dobbs versus jackson

does not agree, any longer that it should be protected under the federal constitution. so, our hope is that there will be some sort of a preliminary injunction or restraining order the close into effect as soon as the dobbs decision comes down, assuming that it will be the same majority opinion that strike down roe, so that we won't have abortion care that is seized immediately, which would otherwise be the case. and that our supreme court will, upon further evaluation, hopefully decide that we have protections under our own constitution. otherwise, we have a petition drive, and hopefully that will make the ballot, and we'll enshrining to our constitution, abortion rights. but, that won't happen until november. >> one of the scenarios that is envisioned if roe is overturned, is that states, perhaps those that are fighting this, will become like sanctuary states, where people can cross state lines to get abortions. josh, i'm wondering, are there legal risks for those people, if they cross over from a state that bans it, potentially to a state that allows it, and return t

let alone the constitution. what does 50 years of abortion protections mean if it doesn't carry any weight with justice alito and a majority on the supreme court? >> what it means, frankly, and it's very difficult for me to say this as someone who leads an organization that put the first african american supreme court justice on the court. and has won several cases like brown for support of education. using the court to advance society to help perfect our constitutional democracy. it disturbs me to say that the court has become deeply politicized and this opinion underscores that fact and makes it at this point beyond doubt, beyond -- that the court has been co-opted through political win and political pressure and power. and i think your opening, where we saw justices claim that this was precedent on precedent. that this was part of their duty to recognize -- to recognize that when there is settle precedent that justice is on the supreme court are bound to respect it. unless there is good reason to depart from

to amen the constitution? -- amend the constitution or do as this court appears reading to to in abortion case. >> to decide cases or controversy brought before the jurisdiction of the court of, they interpret ambiguities of the law. their role is to not decide what is fair or good policy. supreme court's role, role of the federal courts, is to interpret the law. to decide what it means to decide the cases in controversy over the meaning. mark: what if the constitution says, absolutely nothing about a particular topic? who decides then. >> the great question. because, there is a provision of constitution that deals with that. 10 amendment, say matters that are not made federal by the constitution, and matters that are not prohibited by the constitution with respect to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or reserves to the people. that is a very important future the 10th amendment. it reemphasizes what was already implicit in text of the original constitution, making state government and not fed