John Cole: I'm the director for the Center for the Book in the Library
of Congress (Library) and we're pleased to have you here
for another one of the Center for the Book's "Books
and Beyond" author lecture series.
In this series we feature recently published books on topics
of special interest to the Library of Congress, and we also are pleased
to have partners in the Library of Congress
to help present our recent authors.
Today's talk is co-sponsored with the Law Library.
But before I introduce the law librarian,
I also want to mention another, well we hope,
increasingly better-known promotional event on behalf
of books sponsored by the Library of Congress.
That's the National Book Festival.
This year will be the third National Book Festival.
It will be held on October the fourth
on the National Mall this year and I hope
that you will all mark your calendars and check the website
of the book festivals to keep posted on who's going to be here
and what kind of celebration that we're going to be able to have.
The Center for the Book itself now has 50 state centers,
a center in each state, to help us promote books and reading
and libraries and literacy.
Many of the states sponsor state book festivals
and also state author awards and state activities
that emphasize the literary culture of those states.
But here at the Library of Congress in addition
to the National Book Festival this series of talks about books
by their authors who give us the story behind the book,
or some kind of special insight, we have found to be a wonderful way
to promote books and reading.
It's my pleasure now to introduce Dr. Rubens Medina,
who is the law librarian of Congress and the co-sponsor of today's talk.
Rubens? Rubens Medina: Thank you very much, John.
Good afternoon, I think it is now, to everyone of you.
I just want to join John in welcoming all of you to this event.
You can imagine that the Law Library could not be indifferent or absent
of any kind of event that is related to our fundamental rights,
fundamental law of the Constitution.
I think it is very important that in times
like we are living these days we remind ourselves
of what these fundamental laws are,
especially those related to our rights.
And I do hope that you are going to enjoy this presentation as much
as I intend to because of the content that is promised --
that has been promised to us that is going
to be part of the presentation.
I'm here just to express my gratitude for the opportunity
to join the Center for the Book and to also join the audience today,
since we have a very wonderful, not only a subject but a very,
very interesting and very well-known author on the subject.
So I'm going to stop here just to announce that the next person
to address you is going to be a very good friend
and colleague, Ralph Eubanks.
A lot of things could be said about Ralph,
but today the more important thing to be said about him is
that he is a friend of the author, of Miss, of Linda.
So he will give us some thoughts
about what he has in mind for this event.
Thank you very much and welcome again.
W. Ralph Eubanks: Thank you, Rubens.
It's a privilege here to introduce my old friend, Linda Monk.
And Linda Monk and I were college classmates together
at the University of Mississippi.
And 25 years ago when we were part of a very small luncheon group
that talked about books, current events and ideas I didn't think
that I would be here introducing her as an author.
And I actually have a photograph of that little gang of four
at Ole Miss -- [laughter] --
that I looked at that I thought about bringing today,
but I thought better of it because my hair was a lot longer then.
So -- [laughter] But it's a real privilege to introduce Linda today.
Linda is a graduate of the University of Mississippi
and of Harvard Law School and she's also winner, twice,
of the Silver Gavel Award from the American Bar Association
for her books, "The Bill of Rights: A User's Guide" and for her work
on the documentary "Profiles of Freedom: A Living Bill of Rights."
So it's a great privilege to introduce my friend
and fellow Mississippian, Linda Monk.
[applause] Linda Monk: Personally, I liked Ralph with longer hair.
[laughter] That's what I keep telling him is my blackmail photo.
Like Ralph, I never imagined 25 years ago
when we were both English majors at the University
of Mississippi sitting in the cafeteria
that one day we would be sharing this stage.
And perhaps I'll start with thanking Ralph because if it weren't
for him I probably wouldn't have written this book
because he recommended me for the project.
So, big thank you starting off with him.
I'd also like to thank Dr. Cole, who invited me to speak today
at the Center for the Book, and also Dr. Medina whose resources
at the Law Library I used tremendously doing the research
for my book.
And we tend to think in the Internet age that you can look up the site
for anything you need on the Internet.
Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't,
but you can never get a person to answer your question
and to give you advice -- well, try this resource, try that resource.
And I've used the Law Library at the Library of Congress many times
and I'm very grateful for that resource being available.
I'd like especially today to commend the Center for the Book
on its work in family literacy.
And in honor of that mission I'd like to dedicate my talk today
in honor of the spirit of my grandfather, John Monk.
My grandfather was a wonderful storyteller.
And as Ralph Eubanks can tell you, those of us who are born
in Mississippi are just natural storytellers.
It's part of our genetic heritage.
My grandfather could tell stories of coon hunting and fishing
that would make your hair stand on end.
And you could hear those hounds bang at that tricky raccoon.
And you could feel the huge catfish belly as he was stroking it trying
to keep it from making a big fuss and turning
over the boat when he was in it.
[laughter] You know, and it was because my grandfather was
such a good storyteller that I would often go to him as a child
and ask him to read me a story.
I was just learning to read myself and I would often pester him
to read me - to read to me at the end of his long day as a welder.
But he always had the same refrain, "Pa-pa's eyes are too tired, honey."
That's what he would always say.
But one day, I would not relent and my mother finally called me aside.
"Your Pa-pa can't read," she said.
And I was frozen in shock, because I could not imagine
that a grown-up could not read, especially my beloved grandfather,
and I quickly set about to remedy the situation.
And I tried to teach him the alphabet the same way I learned,
which was learning your letters on the back of a Luzianne coffee can.
[laughter] Now, you know, of course
that didn't work despite my youthful enthusiasm
because my grandfather's shame was too great.
Today family literacy advocates know how to remind an adult of all of his
or her competencies upon which they can build to read.
And so I'm glad that thanks to the work of places like the Center
for the Book, grandchildren don't have to go to bed
without hearing their grandparents read them stories.
And I think it's wonderful that this year the Center
for the Book has chosen as one of its reading promotion themes,
"Telling America's Stories,"
because in many ways that's also the theme of my book.
The Constitution is our highest form of law
and is probably the best way to tell America's story.
Now, you know, we're used to beginning that story in 1787
when the Constitution was written,
but the story of American liberty began long before that,
almost soon as the colonists set foot on American soil in 1607.
In my book, I used the metaphor of the Constitution as a conversation,
because the Constitution is more than just words on parchment stored
under glass at the National Archives.
The Constitution is a product of an ongoing conversation among Americans
about the freedom - the meaning of freedom in our daily lives
and that conversation began long before 1787
when the Constitution was written.
And it's included men and women of all classes,
races and religions enslaved and free.
As a matter of fact, in 1777, the slaves of Massachusetts --
because remember Massachusetts along
with the other 13 states was a slaveholding state --
they petitioned the state legislature for their, quote,
"unalienable right to freedom."   Heard those words before?
They were echoing the Declaration of Independence
and here's what they said.
They said, "Your petitioners cannot but express their astonishment
that it has never been considered before that every principle
from which America has acted in the course of their unhappy difficulties
with Great Britain pleads stronger than a thousand arguments
in favor of your petitioners."
Women argued too that they were included
in this conversation on liberty.
In 1776, Abigail Adams famously warned her husband
to "remember the ladies" when writing the laws.
She wrote, "If particular care and attention is not paid
to the ladies we are determined to form in a rebellion
and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws
in which we have no voice or representation."
Well the Constitution is a result of all these voices coming together
to create change in ways that the framers themselves could never
have imagined.
Because you know in 1787 it wasn't at all clear
that the American experiment was going to be a success.
In fact, after the chaos of the Revolutionary War the government
of the United States seemed to be on the verge of collapsing.
The Articles of Confederation,
which was the nation's first constitution -
remember the first one that we had didn't work out so well --
was proving inadequate because, in its own words,
the Articles of Confederation said that it was a firm league
of friendship among 13 independent states,
not a truly national government.
And like independent states they were fighting like siblings
over taxation, commerce and international affairs.
Things were so bad that George Washington wrote in 1787 [sic],
excuse me 1786, "What a triumph for our enemies to find
that we are incapable of governing ourselves."
And it was only after prodding from the different states and people
like George Washington that the Confederation Congress agreed
to call a convention in Philadelphia.
Now its job was to amend the Articles of Confederation.
Now today, we refer to that convention in Philadelphia
as the Constitutional Convention because we know the final outcome.
But at the time it was known as the Federal Convention
and the deliberations were secret.
Remember that in Independence Hall the windows were kept shut
because people weren't exactly sure what these convention delegates were
up to.   The windows were kept shut
so the nosey press wouldn't find out what was going on.
And remember that was an age of no air conditioning or deodorant,
so it must've been a pretty hard time
for those four months for our Founders.
And we have to remember that those 55 men that gathered
in Philadelphia during that hot summer had a sense
of failure as well as promise.
The American colonies had declared their independence from Britain only
about a decade before in that same room, and yet a stable form
of government did not appear likely for the United States.
You know and after those four long months the framers themselves
weren't certain that their new Constitution would be a success.
Not even all the convention delegates would agree to it.
George Mason, who was George Washington's closest friend
at that time, his neighbor on Mount Vernon [sic], excuse me,
the Potomac Riverfront, said that he would rather chop off his right hand
than sign that Constitution because he thought it needed a Bill
of Rights, whereas most of the other framers thought it was unnecessary.
You know, but none of the framers thought the Constitution
was perfect.
And as I say in this metaphor of a conversation,
remembering that it starts -- this conversation starts in the 1600s,
goes on for 150 years to the 1780s and it continues still today.
But even the people in 1787 didn't think the Constitution was perfect.
That wasn't what they thought they were giving us.
And at the Constitutional Convention, in fact,
Benjamin Franklin, who was the oldest delegate at 81,
tried to remind the people that were dissenting, that didn't want
to sign the Constitution, he said, "Nothing's perfect."
And he says, you know, I'm the oldest one among you,
so I've had many occasion to think that I knew exactly what was right
and then upon further time and reflection changed my mind.
Here's what he said to the delegates.
He said, "I agree to this Constitution with all its faults,
if they are such, because I think a general government necessary for us
and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing
to the people if well administered.
I doubt too whether any convention we can obtain may be able
to make a better Constitution, for when you assemble a number of men
to have the advantage of their joint wisdom you inevitably assemble
with all those men: all their prejudices, their passions,
their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.
From such an assembly, can a perfect production be expected?
It therefore astonishes me to find this system approaching so near
to perfection, as it does."
But you know, George Washington didn't think the Constitution
was perfect.
He wrote to Patrick Henry, who turned out to be one
of the big opponents of the Constitution.
Remember, he wouldn't even come to the Constitutional Convention
because he said he smelled a rat.
Here's how Washington tried to persuade Patrick Henry.
Washington said, "I wish the Constitution
which is offered had been made more perfect, but I sincerely believe
that is the best that could be obtained at this time.
And the Constitutional door is open for amendment thereafter."
And that's the secret really when you look at it
to our Constitution, the amendment process.
Article Five sets up a process
through which we can change our government in a peaceful way.
Now, we can't do it easily, but it's not too hard
to do either; we've done it 27 times.
And it's the amendment process that keeps the conversation going.
It's the amendment process where we can say, "Well,
we don't want slavery to be included as part of our Constitution,"
or "we want to protect against discrimination
and have equal protection of the laws," or "we want
to have African American men to be able to vote
and then women and then 18-year-olds."
That's our mechanism for keeping our civil conversation going.
Because, you know, when you look
at the Constitution I think its greatest strength is also its
greatest weakness, and this is probably the best way you can look
at how the conversation in America about liberty has been carried out.
What are those first three words of the Constitution?
"We, the people," that's its greatest strength
that for the first time a government is based on the sovereignty
of the people, not the king, not the Congress,
not the president, the people.
And then it's also our greatest weakness because we know in 1787
that that phrase, "We, the people," didn't include white men
without property or African Americans
or women or Native Americans.
And it's through that conversation, that amendment process,
that we finally change it.
In fact, this question: "Who constitutes 'We, the people'?"
has troubled us from the beginning.
Lucy Stone was probably my favorite feminists.
She was one of the earliest advocates for women's rights,
was the first full-time paid speaker for abolitionists as a woman.
And she said in 1853, "'We, the people...'
Which 'We, the people'?   The women were not included."
Other Americans throughout time have asked that same question
with Lucy Stone, "Which 'We, the people'?"
"Am I included?"
And white men without property began to ask that question
after the Constitution was adopted.
As you know, they didn't have the right to vote
and so there was a movement to extend suffrage
to white men without property.
And John Adams, our great Founder, he fought this movement.
He said, "You know, if you give white men without property the right
to vote, they're dependent,
they won't exercise an independent ballot,
and you might as well give women and children the right to vote too
because they'll be asking for it next."
[laughter] Now Benjamin Franklin, good old Benjamin Franklin,
he believed in at least male suffrage
and he gave a wonderful story that I include in my book about a man
and his jackass to prove his point.   Here's what Franklin said.
He said, "Today, a man owns a jackass worth $50
and he is entitled to vote.
But before the next election the jackass dies.
The man in the mean time has become more experienced,
his knowledge of the principles of government more and his acquaintance
with mankind are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified
to make a proper selection of rulers.
But the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote.
Now gentlemen, pray, inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage
in the man or in the jackass?"
[laughter] Now in the 1830s, the Cherokee Nation,
which was being deprived of its land by the state legislature of Georgia
and other southeastern states,
believed that American Indians should be protected
under the Constitution.   They issued a protest to Congress
when President Andrew Jackson would not enforce the Supreme Court
decision that upheld their land rights under the Constitution.
Here's what they wrote to Congress:
"For more than seven long years have the Cherokee people been driven
into the necessity of contending for their just rights.
And they have struggled against fearful odds.
Their resources and means of defense have been seized and withheld.
The treaties, laws and Constitution of the United States,
their ball work and only citadel of refuge put beyond their reach."
African Americans too sought to be included in "We, the people."
Here's what Frederick Douglass, a brilliant abolitionist orator,
wrote in 1857 after the Supreme Court ruled
in the infamous Dred Scott case
that not even free African Americans could be part of "We, the people."
Douglas said, "We, the people, not we the white people;
not we the citizens or legal voters; not we the privileged class
and excluding all other classes, but we, the people.
Not we the horses and cattle, but we, the people.
The men and women, the human inhabitants
of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution."
Women also looked to that same language, "We,
the people" in this conversation on liberty.
Here's what Susan B. Anthony wrote in 1872
when she was campaigning for women's suffrage.
She said, "It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens nor
yet we, the male citizens,
but we the whole people who formed the union.
And we formed it not to give the blessings of liberty
but to secure them, not to half of ourselves and the half
of our posterity, but to the whole people, women as well as men."
Meanwhile, to ask me after all the research that I did for my book the,
"The Words We Live By," what was the most astonishing thing to me
about our American conversation on liberty and about our Constitution.
It was how many times people were told that they were not included
in "We, the people" didn't believe it.
They just didn't believe it.
African Americans, women, Native Americans over
and over again said no matter what George Washington said,
no matter what the Supreme Court said,
I'm included in "We, the people."
And through the amendment process eventually that story,
that conversation becomes reflected in our law of the land.
After the Civil War, the 13th Amendment ended slavery,
the 14th Amendment gave African Americans citizenship,
the 15th Amendment gave black men the vote.
And in 1920, the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote nationwide.
And in "71 the 26th Amendment extended suffrage to 18-year-olds.
So we can see how our Constitution in many ways fell short in 1787
and how it required an amendment process to bring it into a concept
that most of us today is more fully, "We, the people."
But you know it's also important to remember what it got right in 1787.
I think Yale law professor, Akhil Reed Amar,
has pointed this out wonderfully.   He said, "The adoption
of the Constitution was the most participatory, majoritarian
and populist event the earth had ever seen."
You know, and indeed our Constitution is the oldest written
constitution still in use by a nation.
But you know, sometimes our Constitution has been so successful
that I think it's kind of easy to worship it from afar rather
than see its real strengths and weaknesses.
In fact, some people have even said of that 1787 convention,
they've referred to it is "the miracle at Philadelphia."
And George Washington himself said, you know,
It was something little short of a miracle that people from all
over the country could agree on a system of national government.
But you know, some people take this miracle metaphor
and attribute divinely inspired wisdom to our framers and a lot
of times using the phrase the Founding Fathers.
It'd be interesting if anyone knows where that phrase,
"Founding Fathers" came from?
In fact, it was somebody doing research at the Library
of Congress that found this out.
It came from that wonderful source of our presidential wisdom,
Warren G. Harding -- [laughter] -- who used it --
he was a newspaper editor, so he could turn a good phrase even
if he couldn't necessarily run the economy.
[laughter] And that phrase though I think has kind
of taken on a life of its own.
In fact, some legal scholars say that there's become a philosophy
in America called "Founding Father knows best."
And the idea that if we can just figure out what our founders thought
about these Constitutional issues that our problems are solved.
And kind of like when Robert Young came home from work at the end
of the tough day, get their ruling and then we're done
and we don't have to do any of the heavy lifting.
Because see, that's the other flipside
to "Founding Father knows best" is that the rest
of the family doesn't have to do the work because dad has to do it all.
But you know, George Washington himself cautioned against this view.
He said in 1787, he said, "I do not think that we are more inspired,
have more wisdom, or possess more virtue
than those who will come after us."
So even he cautioned against that point of view.
How I will respond to that is to say, you know,
it's not that our great men weren't great,
it's not that the people meeting in Philadelphia
in 1787 didn't have a lot of good ideas, they did,
and we benefited from that.
But the important thing to remember is they didn't do it all
by themselves, that generations of Americans, including the founders,
participated in this conversation on liberty
that resulted in our Constitution.
And that conversation continues today because it's up to us
as citizens to give meaning
to the Constitution's principles in our daily lives.
One of my favorite quotes is from law professor Garrett Epps who used
to write for the "Washington Post."
And he said, "Every morning we wake up and decide that we want to live
in a constitutional republic."
Those of you who came to talk today about the Constitution decided
that this is part of living in a constitutional republic.
The great Judge Learned Hand put it another way.
He gave a famous speech during World War Two called "The Spirit
of Liberty" because he knew that Nazi Germany had a constitution
and laws and courts, but that didn't ensure freedom.
He said, "I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon
laws and courts and constitutions.
These are false hopes, believe me, these are false hopes.
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women
and when it dies there no constitution,
no law, no court can save it."
And that's part of why I named my book "The Words We Live By,"
because the secret to the Constitution's success is not
because they were magical words.
You know, the 14th Amendment when it was ratified in 1868 and protected
or guaranteed, supposedly, equal protection of the law
for about the first 50 years to everybody expect African Americans.
Those words were the same until the Supreme Court finally read them
to mean that that didn't include segregation.
So it's not just the words that give us the principles,
it's what we as citizens are willing to do for that.
And that brings us to today, to our place now in this conversation
on liberty because we are living in perilous and privileged times.
Perilous because our lives and our liberty are endangered in ways
that Americans before never really knew.
Privileged because we have a chance, just like the generations before us,
to answer the call of our country.
It's our turn to step up to the plate.
We are called to safeguard our system of freedoms from those
who would use that very system of freedom to destroy us.
So the question becomes how can we protect our constitutional liberties
and still survive?
My husband was working in the Pentagon on Sept.11,
so this is not an abstract question to me.
And in fact, it's an old question, not a new one,
and Americans have not always answered it well.
We should look back at other times
at how our Constitution has responded in times of war
and our citizens have responded.
You know in 1798 the U.S. as an infant nation was caught
between this war between England and France
and John Adams was fighting mightily to try
and keep the infant nation alive.
He and his federalist allies passed a law that made it illegal
to criticize the government.
And you might say where was the First Amendment?
It was seven years old at the time.   Where was the Supreme Court?
Well the Supreme Court was dominated by Federalists,
most of whom agreed with John Adams.
And it was out of that conflict really
that then you saw the political process through the election
of Thomas Jefferson, the people who were being put in jail
under John Adams, exercised their right to vote, and threw them out.
That was our first response to the test of freedom of speech.
During the Civil War Congress actually refused
to hear petitions opposing slavery, despite the First Amendment,
because they feared the union would be torn apart.
During World War II [sic, World War I] thousands of people were jailed
for criticizing the government for its so-called "war
to make the world safe for democracy"
when they felt democracy wasn't safe at home because working people
and women didn't have the right to vote.
And as we well know, during World War II thousands
of Japanese Americans were imprisoned in internment camps,
two-thirds of whom were native born citizens, despite the fact
that no evidence of disloyalty was never found against them.
And in fact, law professor Peter Irons has demonstrated
that not only was no evidence ever found against them
but that the solicitor general
of the United States arguing before the Supreme Court knew there was no
evidence and told the Supreme Court otherwise.
Now, it's easy for us to look back and say -- shouldn't have done that,
that wasn't a good idea, but we have to remember those Americans were
as afraid as we are today that the terrors they were facing were
to them no less frightening than what we say we're facing today.
So we need to remember when our children read their history books 20
years from now, what compromises with liberty will they see
that we have made and what will we tell them?
The most important thing that we should remember is that we
as Americans are defined by our commitment to certain principles.
That's what makes us American -- not nationality, not race, not gender,
not how many generations your family has lived in this country.
It's if you'll assent to the American proposition.
And the Constitution reflects that proposition,
includes such principles as due process of law, freedom of speech
and religion, the right to a fair trial,
and equal protection of the law.
We must remember that when we stop living by these principles,
when we stop living by these words, we stop being Americans.
Thank you very much.   [applause] [end of transcript]