the candidates for james madison and james monroe and spoiler alert, madison ended up winning the election despite patrick henry's gerrymander and went on to introduce the bill of rights for the first congress.ss one can only imagine how differently us history might have gone patrick henry and successful at gerrymandering james madison out of the first congress. so that's most of what i have to say about the history of gerrymandering a large part of the book is spent on relating some of the most interesting stories of gerrymandering that occurred throughout that 18th, 19th and 20th century and in particular highlighting how this practice has intersected with an and influenced some of the major events in us history including the civil war, the career of presidents like abraham lincoln and andrew johnson and even the civil rights movement as well . but what i'd like to focus on for my remaining time here today is gerrymandering as it exists in the 21st century. because there has been a sea change in the technology, the data, the software, the computing power that can be deployed in service o

we can see this in james madison. 367 were james madison he singles out one state, south carolina for a program for their partisan gerrymander. it was found right in the state constitution. that's the rule that my friends on the other side are advocating r. they are saying you can have a partisan gerrymandering. host: procedural substance so not so much the matter of the test but pulling things from the history and say like the madison comments supports the procedural substance in mind. guest: we grounded in precedents, your honor, and tax and structure and history. -- text, and structure and history. guest: justice barrett was a civil procedures professor. the distinction is trying to say when it comes to procedural the supreme court supplies the constitution when it comes to substance, stick with the legislature. she said it's very complicated in other areas of the law and i'm praise it -- paraphrasing the idea you are blowing up a bunch of work and we will be in court over and over to try to define with that distinction is. i think she is one of the justices that might not be willi

we can see this in james madison's remarks. i refer the court to the third volume of elliott's debates, page 367, where james madison laments partisan gerrymandering and he singles out one state, south carolina, for their partisan gerrymander. and their partisan gerrymander was found right in the state constitution. that's the rule that my friends on the other side are advocating for. they are saying you can have a partisan gerrymander, but you have to put it in the state constitution. justice barrett: your argument, the procedural distinction is not so much the matter of the text you are pulling things from the history and saying james madison's comments supports this procedural substantive line. mr. thompson: we ground it in precedent, your honor, and text, and structure, and history. i'll take those one at a time if i may. the precedent would be smiley on the one hand seems to suggest that procedural limitations can be circumscribed on the legislature. and palm beach county as we read it, teaches that substantive limits cann

there are some quorum requirements but it's an interesting argument because people likema james madison and alexander hamilton are all offered a majority rule and if youst think about the filibusted it's the super majority thing where you need to 60 end in the old days you needed 67 for certain types of business so there's this kind of conflict between the concept of the majoritarianism where they should rule in those cases but clearly the founders intended for congress to establish their own rules. >> what is your position as editor-in-chief of the national constitution center? >> i read a blog on constitution day that we had for about ten years. wewe have about 100,000 and we talk a lot about history and its constitutional topics and i kind of wrangle the products in bayreuth for it and do other stuff and i'm involved in a lot of the digital work that we do. we are in extensive digital education we have live classes and podcasts and videos. >> here at the c-span we often turn to the national constitution center for its experts. scott is the editor-in-chief and joins us to talk about t

madison, alexander hamilton, they were all for majority rule and if you think about the filibuster, it's the super majority saying you need 60, in the old days, needed 67 to proceed on certain types of business, so there's a kind of conflict between the concept, majortorianism. >> what is your job? >> i have a cool job, work with the constitution every day and run a blog, constitution daily. we've in in some form 10 years and i've been editor of the blog 8 1/2 years since i joined and we talk about history and constitutional topics and i kind of wrangler, and i write for it and do other stuff and involved with a lot of the digital work that we do. we're an extensive digital educational organization and live classes that we do and podcasts and videos and a lot of fun stuff. >> here at c-span we often turn to the national constitution center for its experts and scott bomboy, who is the editor in chief at the ncc joins us to talk about the filibuster. we appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday, american history tv documents a

madison, lincoln's side in the civil war is the bad guys. and that's clearer, i think during reconstruction. so here's some that maybe you weren't taught how are the reconstruction? the 13th, 14th and 15th ratified. well the 13th amendment, of course, you know that banned slavery. congress, it it goes out to the states and it's ratified by three quarters of them. the defeated confederates accept that slavery is over, at least in name. but they try to restore it in practice with overtly laws that tie the formerly enslaved into service contracts, low wages and deny them any rights. congress passes civil rights acts to, wipe out that discrimination. and one of the things those acts say is that anyone born in the us is a citizen. but it's not clear that congress can actually do that. it goes against the dred decision. so the supreme court might it's unconstitutional. and also, if the former confederate states send their senators and representatives back to congress, they might take control and repeal civil rights act in a sort ironic twist. the

and federalist 46, written by virginia slave over james madison, explicitly says they will win. just like they did in the revolution. what would happen, he asks, and it came to force? 13 states against the national government. the states would win. now, amazingly that is exactly what happened. if you accept the federal claim to kentucky and the sorry. 13 states fought the national government. the first flag of the confederacy, by the way, 13 stars in the circle with red and white stripes in the background just like the back c raw flag of 1776. now, of course for the confederacy each star represents a slave state whereas with the betsy ross flag, oh wait, that's also 13 states that recognize leary. so the civil war is kind of a replay of the revolution. it is what madison predicted. except, he was wrong about the outcome and the national government one. and what that should tell you is that, from the perspective of ending america, three of whose first four presidents were slave owners from virginia including james madison, lincoln's side in the civil war is the back guys. and tha

but it's an interesting argument because people like james madison and alexander hamilton were all for the majority ruling and if you think about the filibuster it's the majority thing we need 60 and in the old days you need to 67 to proceed on certain types of business, so it is a kind of conflict between the concept of the majoritarianism where the majorityma should rule and in those cases but clearly the founders intended for congress to establish their own rules. >> nswhat is your position as editor-in-chief of the constitution? >> i get to work with the constitution every day. we have 500,000 and we talked about history and current constitutional topics and i kind of wrangle and do other stuff. i'm also involved in the digital work that we do. the digital education organizations that we have like a lot of classes we demand podcasts and a lot of fun

there's some quorum requirements but it's interesting argument because people like james madison, alexander hamilton, they were all for majority rule if you think about the filibuster it's the super majority saying you need 60 come in the old days you need 67 to proceed in certain typeson of business. this kind of conflict between the concept was called majoritarianism where the majority should rule, in most cases, but cleared the founders intended for congress to establish their own rules. >> what is your position as editor-in-chief of the national constitution center? >> i had a really cool job, and i get to work with the constitution everyday. and i run a blog called constitutional daily which we had a simple i think for about ten years. i'vend been the editor of that blog for the past they can have your sense of june. we have about 500,000 monthly readers and we talk a lot about history and some core constitutional topics. and a kind of wrangell or under the editor of products are right for it and to do other stuff. i'm also involved with a lot of digital work we do. we are an extensive

tyler also benefited from the president of william and mary, bishop james madison who was a cousin of the fourth president of the united states. bishop madison was a firm believer in the jeffersonian notion of strict government. he was an anti federalist himself. and really believed that it was his duty to impart these jeffersonian lessons on to the students who are under his direction. john tyler became a favorite of bishop madison. bishop madison actually asked young john tyler to read one of the graduation oration's on the day that he graduated in july of 1807. the other thing that comes out of tyler's relationship with his father at this time, and comes out of his relationship with bishop madison, and william and mary, is that by the time he graduated at the age of 17, he was brimming with self confidence. he was almost full of himself. he was very confident. had certainly moved past the reticence and the attributes that he had had when he was ten or 11 or 12 years old. very much confident in himself. confident in his abilities, confident in his intellect. he had been largely clas

well, james madison say that they were unconstitutional. so, i mean that you're right, they weren't controversial, but everyone, the father of the constitution, they were a mistake. yeah, but but also the on the religious test office, the supreme court did strike them for states and mcdaniel v patty and picasso in the 1960s and federal constitution that the point is. yeah but if we relied on tradition alone and said whatever the founders did it would mean that religious test for office by incorporation that could have religious test for office. my only argument is tradition isn't enough. it's a it's a piece of evidence. but sometimes the founders actually their traditional practices were in conflict with underlying natural rights principles. and if you take a natural rights, then those traditional practices would be struck down. of course, there's a risk there, right, that you could be a court and just say, well, we've reason to better than the founders. but then that's always a danger, right? it's always a danger. and it's a danger. i thin

well, james madison say that they were unconstitutional. so, i mean that you're right, they weren't controversial, but everyone, the father of the constitution, they were a mistake. yeah, but but also the on the religious test office, the supreme court did strike them for states and mcdaniel v patty and picasso in the 1960s and federal constitution that the point is. yeah but if we relied on tradition alone and said whatever the founders did it would mean that religious test for office by incorporation that could have religious test for office. my only argument is tradition isn't enough. it's a it's a piece of evidence. but sometimes the founders actually their traditional practices were in conflict with underlying natural rights principles. and if you take a natural rights, then those traditional practices would be struck down. of course, there's a risk there, right, that you could be a court and just say, well, we've reason to better than the founders. but then that's always a danger, right? it's always a danger. and it's a danger. i thin

>> i think there are two and we can lrnhem from james madison and joseph story. james madison specifically ngd out south carolina as a place it's taking its gerrymander and entrenched it constitutione itself and of course virniin 1830 does theam thing where the try to aggrandize the political power of putting a rtan gerrynd in the state constitution and there's nothing anyone in the statean do about it short of amending the constitution were coming to congress. the flipside of that is what joseph story in section 820 th commentary on the constitution says which is is a boon that the state legislatures have this what he said on the flo tt maachusetts can venture a unlimited discretion. the boon is because they have adopted ability adaptability to local politics, local that can't be and tenney don't have that adaptabili ithe state constitution. >> subject to federal cou review in state court review of the federal constitutional claims. anisrically as i look at it virginiathe example of trngo constitutionalize the three-fifths rule witreect to african-americans. the

madison designed a government were factions, have to work together to get things done and its incremental process and one step at a time but that's the way that it was designed to have work together to do that. >> representative don bacon, republican of nebraska, thank you for giving us your time today. >> thank you. >> my first guess of the monies representative jim hines democrat for i think you for giving us your time to think for having me. >> was a be revealed as far as a result selling a government funding crisis. >> i think was on track to get something done by december 17th, head i hope that it is we committed lease with the leadership is committed to do witches get a bill done before little bit of wavering from kevin mccarthy that said wait until republicans take control and is not yet the majority so my hope is that we have this done and is always a good idea to get the budget bills done rather than to move to a continuing resolution and that means that all these news projects at the pentagon or wherever else to get started and i hope we get it done. >> as far as the call, what

madison to david crockett and from john lewis to john glenn. all the way to the 36 members that we commemorate today. it is tiny right now but this tree will be here for generations of family and friends to visit as they remember their loved ones. and we hope you will have time to see it while you are here. it is situated on the house side of the capital, as you make your way down the hill. it is across the street from the entrance to the rayburn office building, and we hope you have a chance to visit it. again, on behalf of fmc, welcome. it is now my pleasure to recognize fmcsa percentage former representative from virginia for opening remarks. >> when they do that has passed, way he was the longest serving republican in history. focused on solutions for america, and they saw that -- >> now i have the privilege of representing about 800 former senators and house members as part of the association of former members of congress, of which i am the president. on their behalf, i want to welcome the families, the friends, and the staff members of th

from james madison to crockett. from john lewis to john glenn. all the to the 36 members we commemorate today. this tiny right now. but history will be here for generations of family and friends to visit as they remember their loved ones and hope you'll have time to see it while you're here. it is situated on the house side of the capitol as you make your way down hill. it's across the street from the entrance to the rayburn office building, and we hope you have a chance to visit again behalf of fmc. welcome. and it is now my pleasure to recognize the family's president, former representative from virginia ellis payne, for opening remarks. thank you very. and thank all of for being here with us this afternoon. my name is left payne and. i had the honor of serving with of the people whose lives are remembering today. i represented the fifth congressional district of virginia in the house of representatives, and now i have the privilege of representing about 800 former senators, house members as part of the association of former members of congress

madison designed a government were factions, have to work together to get things done and its incremental process and one step at a time but that's the way that it was designed to have work together to do that. >> representative don bacon,

caller: i think with james madison, it is literally impossible not to have faction in society with freedom of expression. similar to the man who was talking about gerrymandering in texas in the democratic party reaching out to rural voters. i think that there's a breach in the social fabric of society in part by misinformation but also can recredit elitism -- democratic elitism. progressive hike yields are popular amongst the american people in our just about messaging. progressivism is more popular in nature. it is about explaining it in a way that is successful and not nash. i think if you can find it what to do that, which the democratic party failed, you can build a broad coalition that -- a huge -- of the electors would be unstoppable. host: richard in arizona. independence line. you are on. caller: hello there. my thought process, i will keep it simple. remember the old toy the kids have, the top that you had on the floor and the colors went all the way to the top. i can argue both sides on a lot of issues. host: what number one change would you like to see? caller: more critical thi

in 1817 president james madison was the father of the constitution he vetoed a ear with earmarks and in recent marks a worthless project that part hasn't changed. >> people might think this is money here like orinda museum and the members district or whatever but that all adds up to a lot of money, doesn't it. >> in the last bill in march there were nearly 5000 earmarks totaling $9 billion, that's not the real damage. the real damage is what goes on in the multibillion-dollar spending bills that those earmarks use the skins for. that's why tom called them the drug perspective. steve: i want to underline that quickly, the whole argument for these it's a way of getting members for congress to vote for things that they don't agree with. it's completely twisted. >> explain why that's a good thing it's true the members of judgment tell them to vote against, suddenly becomes an imperative when local your marks are in. i don't understand how it's a good thing to encourage members to support legislation they know is going to hurt the country just because it helps her district. steve: congres

did you know the bill was introduced by james madison and he later became the fourth president of the united states. congress passed 12 of his amendments and the state only ratified 10 of them. two of them concerned the number of constituents for each rep resented. limited how members are compensated. the letter of the two rejected amendments was ratified to a three years later, 27th of amid which active competition for members of congress buried the bill of rights is displayed in a rotunda of the national archives building here in washington dc and there were 14 copies made. one for each of the 13 states to sign and one for the federal archives. only 12 copies arrived today. all of the rights are important, the right to keep and bear arms ensures we keep all of those rights. without that i believe the rights was -- would be rescinded throughout the decade, they say. rich in mariana ohio, republican. good morning. caller: yeah. a lot of good conversation. it seems like the ability to have arms, i don't know how you deal with that, with the countries that cannot be arms. we have to be

we can see this in james madison's remarks. i would refer to the third volume of elliott's debates where james madison laments partisan gerrymandering and singles out one state, south carolina, for their partisan gerrymandering. their partisan gerrymandering was found in the state's constitution. that is the rule my friends on the others are advocating for. u can have a partisa gerrymander but you have to put it in the state's constitution. >> it is not a matter of the text but you are pulling things from the history saying james madison's comments support the procedural substantive line? >> we grounded it in procedure, tax, structure, and history. host: you can heaall of the supreme court's oral arguments on c-span.org/supremecourt. here's a text from ricky from baltimore who wants to comment on what a previous caller said. he said, our country was not founded judeo-christian. it was founded on religious freedom. stan next in oregon. republican line. caller: i have to mute my tv. are you still there? host: go ahead. caller: i

now, this was something that the framers actually thought a lot about, especially james madison because they had read their and they knew that to the extent that there had been early democracies those democracies had fallen into civil war then they the roman republic. the roman republic fell into civil war. that fell in the civil war. when there were just two factions. this is something that scholars of civil war also now know is when you have too big, equally balanced, you often get civil. and the reason is not hard to understand if there's a majority that majority is going want to use its power to its narrow majority and, if there's a minority in a divided political system that minority is going to feel like there's no way for them to gain power legitimately. so what's the alternative? what's the alternative to politics, violence? so the framers, what they really feared was just great parties, a binary divide, and they thought they had worked out a rather solution, which was clever at the time. 1787, which this complex system of checks and, balances in which if have all these differen

. >> welcome back america want to end the program with a quote from james madison one of the truly great set had the most to do with our constitution and federalist 51 he said among other things , what is government itself the greatest of all reflections of human nature? if men were angels no government would be necessary. if angels were to govern men neither external or internal controls would be necessary. in framing a government which is to be administered of men over men the great difficulty lies in this, you must first enable the government to control the governed and in the next place oblige to control itself we have the constitution of the united states that's its purpose and is it does not leave and separation of powers and administration does not believe in legislative authority administration was to destroy the independence of the judiciary. we have an administration that does not believe in america the democratic party that does not believe in america what do we have? one hell of a problem on our hands. i will see you next time on "life, liberty & levin". steve: breaking tonig

now, this was something that the framers actually thought a lot about, especially james madison because they had read their and they knew that to the extent that there had been early democracies those democracies had fallen into civil war then they the roman republic. the roman republic fell into civil war. that fell in the civil war. when there were just two factions. this is something that scholars of civil war also now know is when you have too big, equally balanced, you often get civil. and the reason is not hard to understand if there's a majority that majority is going want to use its power to its narrow majority and, if there's a minority in a divided political system that minority is going to feel like there's no way for them to gain power legitimately. so what's the alternative? what's the alternative to politics, violence? so the framers, what they really feared was just great parties, a binary divide, and they thought they had worked out a rather solution, which was clever at the time. 1787, which this complex system of checks and, balances in which if have all these differen

we can see this in james madison's remarks. i would refer to the third volume of elliott's debates where james madison lamts partisan gerrymandering and singles out one state, south carolina, for their partisan gerrymandering. their partisan gerrymandering was found in the state's constitution. that is the rule my friends on the others e advocating for. you can have a partisan gerrymander but you have to pu it in the state's constitution. >> it is not a matter of the text but you are pulling things from the history saying james madison's comments support the procedural substantive line? >> we grounded it in procedure, tax, structure, and history. host: you can hear all of the supreme court's oral arguments on c-span.org/supremecourt. here's a text from ricky from baltimore who wants to comment on what a previous caller said. he said, our country was not founded judeo-christian. it was founded on religious freedom. stan next in oregon. republican line. caller: i have to mute my tv. are you still there? host: go ahead. caller: i

james madison and james monroe the honorary presidents of the american colonization society it was very respectable. very respectable position, it is another sign of how one generations respectability is another generation's sense of a cause of a crisis. b ased on hi>> and so, i think ita mistake to judge lincoln in his entirety based on his views on this which happens in some quarters of the debate. but, i also think that it is incumbent on us if we are intellectually honest and morally open to realize that we are part of a country that's not that that was a plausible thing to do. >> thank you for that education, i appreciate that personally. this is one of my favorite images of lincoln, taken during the debates, the debates in 1850 a by -- and, this guy, i don't know if i want to meet him in a court of law or a back alley, he was a tough guy. >> yes, a great wrestler, he did not like sports, remember going through his informants and being interested by that. he preferred rating to hunting and sports but he was good at them. and i think that, i do not think he was menacing in any way.

james madison and james monroe were the honorary presidents, the american colonization society. it was very respectable. henry clay was a huge part of this, very respectable position. and it's another sign of how one generation's respectable pity is another generation's sense of a cause of it, or else. and so i think it's i think it's a mistake to judge lincoln in his in entirety based on his views on this, which happens in some quarters of of of the debate. but i also think that it incumbent on us, if we are intellectually honest and morally open, to realize that we are part of a country that thought that was a plausible thing to do. thank you for that education. appreciate that. even personally, this is one of my favorite images of mr. lincoln taken the debates of lincoln-douglas debates in 1858. and i tv pearson and this guy i don't know if i want meet him in a in a law court or a back alley for that matter. he was a tough guy. no. yes. a great wrestler. he didn't like sports. i remember going through herndon's informants and being by that. he preferred reading to hunting and