Richard Beeman

  • Aired:  05/18/11
  •  | Views: 38,586

Richard Beeman reads the 14th Amendment from his pocket Constitution to dispute David Barton's position on states' rights. (6:39)

>> Jon: MY GUEST TONIGHT THE

PROFESSIONOR OF HISTORY AT THE

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.

HIS BOOK "PLAIN, HONEST MEN:

THE MAKING OF AMERICAN

CONSTITUTION IS OUT IN

PAPERBACK.

PLEASE WELCOME BACK TO THE

PROGRAM RICHARD BEMAN.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]

-- RICHARD BEEMAN.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US

AGAIN.

WE'RE DELIGHTED.

LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY YOU

ARE HERE.

YOU ARE AN ACCREDITED HISTORIAN,

A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR.

AM I CORRECT, SIR, IN SAYING

THAT?

>> I HOPE SO.

>> Jon: YES.

YOU'VE WRITTEN HOW MANY BOOKS,

SEVEN?

>> SEVEN, YES.

>> Jon: SEVEN BOOKS.

I HAD THIS FELLOW ON THE PROGRAM

A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.

HIS NAME IS DAVID BARTON.

HE CALLS HIMSELF A

CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORIAN.

HE HASmy AN INTERESTING

PERSPECTIVE.

I THOUGHT, GEEZ, I'M NOT A

CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR AND HE

TALKS REAL FUNNY.

WHY NOT BRING ON A GUY WHO ALSO

TALKS FAST BUT InCONSTITUTION TO EXPLAIN

HEAD FELT LIKE THE LIBERTY BELL

AFTER THIS GUY LEFT.

GIVE ME THE STATES RIGHTS SOUND

BITE.

>> THE CONSTITUTION LIMITS FOR

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOT THE

STATES THAT'S THE NINTH AND

TENTH AMENDMENT.

FROM THE STANDPOINT OF FOUNDING

FATHERS RELIGION WAS TO BE DEALT

WITH IN STATES.

IT'S THE POWERS DOCTRINE.

IF IT'S NOT THERE THE CONGRESS

DOESN'T HAVE PERMISSION TO DO

IT.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS ONLY TO

LIMIT THE FEDERAL CONGRESS, NOT

THE STATES.

>> Jon: WHAT HE SEEMS TO BE

SAYING IS IF THE STATES DO NOT

WISH TO ABIDE BY THE BILL OF

RIGHTS, THEY DON'T HAVE TO.

>> THERE WAS A LOT GOING IN THIS

THAT STATEMENT INCLUDING A GREAT

DENIGRATION REALLY OF THE POWERS

GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION BY THE FOUNDING

FATHERS.

BUT IT IS THE CASE THAT BETWEEN

1791 AND WHEN THE FEDERAL BILL

OF RIGHTS WAS ADROPDROP THE --

ADOPTED AND 1868 THE STATES WERE

NOT OWE BLIJED -- OBLIGED TO

ABIDE BY THE FEDERAL BILL OF

RIGHTS.

THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS

RELATED TO THOSE THINGS THAT

CONGRESS COULD NOT DO TO ABRIDGE

FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

>> Jon: HE IS NOT A CRAZY

PERSON.

>> HE IS NOT.

HE'S RIGHT.

>> Jon: HE'S RIGHT!

>> ON THAT NARROW SUBJECT.

ON THE POINT OF RELIGION, IT'S

IMPORTANT TO THE NOTE THAT THE

STATES N FACT, FOR NEARLY ALL OF

THAT PERIOD WITH THE EXCEPTION

OF THREE, CONNECTICUT UP TO

1818, NEW HAMPSHIRE UP TO 1819,

MASSACHUSETTS UP TO 1833, THOSE

STATES ALSO ENACTED LAWS -- ALL

OF THE OTHER STATES AND FINALLY

NEW HAMPSHIRE, CONNECTICUT AND

MASSACHUSETTS EMBRACES THE IDEA

NOT ONLY OF FREE EXERCISE OF

RELIGION BUT SEPARATION OF

CHURCH AND STATE.

>> Jon: RIGHT SO.

>> THEY ULTIMATELY CAME IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE BILL OF

RIGHTS.

BUT THE MORE IMPORTANT AND

REVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT CAME

THREE-QUARTERS OF A CENTURY

LATER WHEN THE STATES AND THE

CONGRESS ADOPTED THE 14th

AMENDMENT.

JON, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO

FORGIVE ME I'M A SAP MANTICS

CONSTITUTIONAL -- SEMANTICS

CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR HERE.

I WANT TO GET THE RIGHT WORDS.

>> Jon: PLEASE.

>> THIS IS MY TRUSTY

CONSTITUTION -- POCKET

CONSTITUTION FROM THE NATIONAL

CONSTITUTION CENTER.

>> Jon: FOR MADISON THAT WAS

FULL SIZE.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

TINY LITTLE i.

>> Jon: I BET THAT KILLED AT

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONGRESS.

GO AHEAD.

>> NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR

ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL

ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR

IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE

UNITED STATES NOR SHOULD ANY

STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF

LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY

WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW NOR

DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS

JURISDICTION THE EQUAL

PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

WHAT THAT 14th AMENDMENT HAS

COME TO MEAN AND THIS HAS BEEN

EMBRACES BY VIRTUALLY EVERY

CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR IN THE

COUNTRY AND EVERY JUDGE IN THE

COUNTRY INCLUDING, ON MOST OH,S,

JUSTICE ANTONIC SCALIA --

ANTONIN SCALIA, WERE BOUND TO

ABIDE BY THE FEDERAL BILL OF

RIGHTS.u!

ALTHOUGH IT INITIALLY APPLIED TO

ONLY ACTIONS OF CONGRESS IN OUR

21ST CENTURY WORLD IT TRULY DOES

APPLY PARTICULAR ANY IN THE AREA

OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO STATES AS

WELL.

>> Jon: I ASSUME HIS ARGUMENT?%?R

WOULD BE THAT IS WRONGLY DECIDED

AND THAT IS NOT THE

INTERPRETATION OF THE 14th

AMENDMENT THAT THE FOUNDERS

WOULD HAVE WANTED OTHERWISE THEY

WOULD HAVE PLACED IT IN THERE.

WHY DIDN'T THE FOUNDERS PUT IN

THE TENTH AMENDMENT THAT NOT

JUST AT CONGRESS SHALL NOT

ABRIDGE THESE LAWS BUT THAT THE

STATES SHALL NOT?

>> IN FACT, JAMES MADISON WHO

WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN DRAFTING THE

FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS WANTED AN

ARTICLE PROHIBITING THE STATES

FROM INFRINGING FREEDOM OF

RELIGION AND ESTABLISHING

RELIGION BUT HE WAS DEFEATED.

HE WAS DEFEATED BECAUSE

MASSACHUSETTS, CONNECTICUT AND

NEW HAMPSHIRE DIDN'T WANT THAT

TO HAPPEN.

BUT, IN FACT, THE TIDE OF

HISTORY WAS MOVING WITH MADISON.

THOSE STATES DID ULTIMATELY DO

THAT ON THEIR OWN.

>> Jon: IN SOME RESPECTS

THERE'S A GOOD KERNEL OF HISTORY

HERE THAT IS HOLDING ON IT TO.

IT'S NOT COMPLETELY AL CAMI BUT

IT'S IGNORING THE 200 YEARS

AFTER IT.

SORT OF LIKE MAKING THE ARGUMENT

WE HAD SHR SLAVES.

IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION WE

HAD SLAVES SO THE FOUNDERS WOULD

BE OKAY.

>> PRECISELY.

LISTEN, AS I HOPE PEOPLE WHO

READ MY BOOK WILL APPRECIATE.

>> Jon: NICELY DONE.

NICELY DONE.

DO YOU HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES.

HERE IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

YOU SHOULD GET THE BOOKS BECAUSE

THEY ARE GREAT AND WELL WRITTEN

AND EVERYTHING.

WE'RE GOING TO GO TO COMMERCIAL.

WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK.

WE'LL PUT UP ON THE WEB THE REST

OF MY CONVERSATION WITH THIS

FINE HISTORIAN, "PLAN, HONEST

Loading...