For the latest on the mullah probe and Congresses investigation of the investigators. Please check out the Mccarthy work, national reviews, newest podcast, featuring Rich Lowry and me Andy Mccarthy. We dive deep into the latest developments about Russia's interference in the election allegation, political spying against the Trump campaign and more you can make the Mccarthy report part of your podcast feed, by subscribing on Itunes, Google play or stature and review us, if you like what you here and, of course, wherever level, along with other terrific and our podcast at National review, dot com.

This day in July will be the most memorable a pocket in the history of America, I am to believe, that'll be celebrated by succeeding generations. As the great anniversary festival commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God almighty. He saw nice with pop and parade with shows game sports guns bells bonfires illuminations from one end of this continent to the other. From this time forward, for ever more, you will think transported with enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well more aware of the toil and blood and treasure that will cost us too, maintain this declaration and support and defend these states yet through all gloom. I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory icons.

that the end is more than worth all the means and that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction even although we should rule it, which I trust in God, we shall now, thus road, John Adams, to Abigail on July Third, one thousand seven hundred and seventy six welcome to the special July. Fourth edition of the editors is the Senate damnably on Democrat, is the bill of rights and anachronism, at least when it caught conflicts with a progressive goals, is I can regime corrupt, plus the founding fathers ranked wielders, all this and more I'm rich Lowry and am joint as always early. Some of the time by the right. Honourable Charles see W Cook Loop Tommy, the smartest political consulted. We know and then a tour is boom boom to Michael Brendan Dirty. The recent riots alarm is away

on assignment Euro listening to a national view, podcast quick public service announcement, if you listening to the spot gas, a national Yoda com, we're delighted have you, but it would be easier few and better for us, if you made as part of your feed at Google way stature to an end Were I tunes and if you like what you hear here, please Consider reviewing us on Itunes if you dont, like what you hear here. Please forget, I said anything so Charlie. Let me start with you it's for a while now a troop of liberal commentary and certain aggressive precincts to vocs, perhaps foremost among them, that we are stuck with this horrible institution, the centre, which is not representative and democratic. Does you have small states that have two senators and enormous say it states that have to senators as well as that fair? Why? I think the

for the Vocs misunderstand what the Senate is for. I think that they filtered through a value that it you're not supposed to represent They do so because what they parties have because progressives will criticise anything that is at present in that way, and Republicans control the Senate. But they also do so because the left has come to see democracy as the only value. It is important, and so they say that it, the Senate, is on the classic which in some ways it is, but really it's not undemocratic, so much as its local list its Federalist, the Senate, is there in all to give all states equal representation, can't really look at why. That is the case it without looking

The federal system in general, if it the case that the United States, where a unitary state and that the powers vested in the federal government, it wouldn't like any sense to have a Senate, it would be silly in fact to have a Senate. But that's not the case. The federal government is supposed to do. Only a few Gangs is supposed to do national things. Everything else is is to be less locally. Not the fact that the Senate, Just as many members from Rhode, island, astern, California. It does not stop California doing almost anything that it wants to it. Just stops cattle, funding from riding roughshod on national policy over other states, and that's it liberals- and I know that there was a debate at the founding over whether we should have a senator tool. But there was to a different conception of federalism at the founding, and I think that, given that we largely got rid of the

limited powers doctrine, given that we have allowed the federal government to spread into areas. It was never intended to go this is in a sense playing fallback role, and making sure that, if you to set strong national policy, a policy that it everyone you need, a lot of by and you need buying from different sources states from big states from small states, from states on the coastal states, in the middle of from state at a very white from states that have mixed populations I think, as a result of the fetish, isolation of democracy and a desire on the part of progressive to nationalize most questions to turn the states inter regional departments of the federal government. They look at the instance, it is a problem and they think it's on democratic, but it's not local list, and it fits perfectly into

a federal system that even those who opposed the Senate at the constitutional convention wanted to maintain said lit as stirring defence of the Senate by our colleague, but isn't it saying. It's look list and fit in this federal system. Another way of saying it's not strictly speaking democratic. What stuffing democratic right, but I don't think the Senate was ever. to be democratic, Madison hated, the Senate Hamilton didn't like the Senate. There were reasons for this. Mostly they were worried that it was gonna, essentially embed the articles of confederation in the constitutional system, and they were wrong about that. But I think that the Senate can justify itself on different grounds. I one of the best things about the Senate is that the six year term helps to stagger and offset the presidential the presidential cycle as the kind of ordering force in american politics, which is good for it and and as someone who comes from small state. Originally, I think, having small state outsize representation in a single body, especially legislate

He goes a long way to creating a kind of conciliation way of doing politics within within the constitutional system in both of those are good things, but I dont think you can defend Senate on democratic grounds. Even by saying look, this is a union of states, and so these localities at least the ones that pre exist, the Federal Union in the form of territories or colonies, deserves some sort of persistent representation. Sure ok, fine, but really it's it's not a democratic force and that's going to always put its legitimacy. In question, but I think that the centre can defend itself also so what'd medicine, Hamilton, thinkers and shining the articles just because it would it was a confederation of states are represented within the Senate. Yeah. It's important keep in mind that in the lady can century, the states really bad actors and

moreover, like metal and hated the state's right. I mean it there's a whole book about medicines. Ideas about this called righteous anger at the wicked states, which I think sort of encapsulates his views, the state governments were fleecing, get holders persecuting loyalists, engaging in all manner of like malfeasance printing currency to avoid their debts. You know smuggling essentially making it impossible to have a federal government and so Their hostility to the Senate stems from a view of what the state governments would be doing that the closest analogue we haven't in living memory would be Jim Crow right, where you just have states flouting federal law, founding flouting sort of the federal government and, as a result, there's its but for us the kind of capture the anxiety that they had about the Senate on the flip side, I think that their baseline view that the Senate would always be subject to a popular scepticism, because it was elected not on popular grounds, but on preexisting, fairly arbitrary state borders is right and his means it's gonna, be an open question having sex

but I don't think it's going anywhere, Michael, so that their rough consensus here, maybe not democratic, certainly locust, federalist but defensible. You on board yeah. I mean it's defensible because its anti democratic, I mean the first: U S attorney general. All admin round off said that he wanted. members of the Senate to be less than the House of Commons to restrain, if possible, the fury of democracy. I think You know the federal government, as we have today doesn't function the wave any of the found, he imagined it would, but I do think that it's still. Please rule tools. degree, if you, if you could imagine the partisan swing, elections of two thousand six of two thousand and ten happening in the house. Os and there being no Senate. The IMF, Out of you know would feel like revolutionary changes

work and life will be implemented. Perhaps every six years or so the Senate prevents permit, does restrained fury of democracy in that way. In that new supercharged majorities don't get to just. don't get to implement policy just as they like over every facet of american life, because they have to deal with mine Terry in procedure in the Senate that prevent that those have been rolling over time, but they still play this role of restraining the passion of democracy and that still a salutary role. In american life and in a very necessary one, and I will, regret when the Sun is eventually abolished. Or completely neutered. You know you see this in the way that the the upper house is the Anti democratic upper causes of the british system

have essentially been neutered. Rights is the act of parliament in the early twentieth century and they been gradually terrified of getting too far away, from the commons right there there they almost like ratify what happens. I think you see disasters in Britain, british postwar government of having these swing elections that totally trains. In the state you ve been spared that term to a degree, and it's been for good, yet surely further Michael's point we're talking about it, a principle critique of the Senate, but typically partisans, of each side are annoyed at the Senate when they have control of Congress, because the Senate stops thing from happening. You look at the republican legislative record in the house is pretty good. I mean I M past Obamacare appeal, but it's the Senate that stops everything. Mapping. You will never having making that case. If and when the Senate stops.

Saying that I like, and, of course the Senate has been an obstacle to implementing policy that I favour in, Last year, brave times the full that, but it's so I've been an obstacle to implementing policy that I dont like. I think, if you are not prepared to accept that rules apply to you, as well as to the other side then you don't really belong in a mature republican and do you know that is, of course, a big problem that we have you. Your exactly right, rich, is that people are prepared to play by the rules, The good news is that that's, of course, one of the reason the Senate is there as one of the reason we have a written constitution so that people contest just it out, because it's getting in the way of their aims, also the Senate, by far and away the most difficult part of the constitution to change and get rid of now. Aware of it.

fear is less that there would be some sort of constitutional pension or stand alone, constitutional amendment that would abolish this and more that we would have either revolution or what happened in seventeen eighty seven in the first place and really something usurpation of the existing order. But those who won to get rid of the Senate, are going to have their work cut out because in order to deprive a state of its representation, you need is permission which effectively means to get rid of the Senate. You need everything a person to agree an and they're not to do that. For exactly that reason, we just discussed at any given point half the countries once the Senate. In order to stop the other I from riding roughshod over it that I gotta stop me their key preempting. My exit question so may go extra question to Luke, First Luke Thompson

Senate. As we know it will exist twenty years from now, yes or no, yes, especially in so far as it serves as the sort of clearing house for executive branch personnel. I dont think the engine of policy in the house wants to handle personnel and the Senate sort of helps the house out by taking care that Michael still exist, yes or no, yes, but I think we're gradually going to we're going to continue to see this trend of stripping my Nor tyrian powers in the Senate that can act as a as a block. It will be, it will function moroz as simple majority. More and more in more and more of its functions, Charlie will still exist, many years now, yes, or no still exists. I think in one respect it will have slightly less power. I think to filibuster is going to be diminished if not abolished.

and respect it will have more power. I think what the Republicans did with merit. Garland was entirely justified because the Senate gets to decide who sits on the Supreme Court, but I also think that the Democrats- do that now and in a sense the country all over who gets to sit on. The Supreme Court will therefore be more in the Senate hands. Then it was perhaps ten years ago. I agree. Michael that it will still exist. It just want. No longer have the this kind of animal. Or it tyrian rules that are part of what makes the Senate and will operate much more. The way the house does biscuit, entirely the way the house does, except through with these. These functions like confirming administration, appointees and picks for the court, and with that, let's hear from us,

actual July. Fourth, sponsor Quip, the revolutionary toothbrush truth is most of us are brushing our teeth wrong, not for long enough and forget to change our brush on time. That's because most brands focus on selling flashy gimmicks rather than better brushing, but not quip. So what makes quipped so different for starters quip is an electric toothbrush. That's a fraction of the cost of bulkier brushes, while still packing, just the right amount of vibrations to help clean your teeth, quips built in timer, helps you can for the dentist recommended two minutes with guiding pulses that remind you went to switch sides. I personally, I find this a very useful feature because two minutes when you're standing there brushing your teeth is forever. I think most people don't realize are not getting close to two minutes, but Quip has said feature that lets. You know how much time has passed next quips subscription

plans are for your health, not just convenience. They deliver new brush heads on a dentist recommended scare. every three months for just five dollars, including free shipping, worldwide quip also comes with a mountain It's right, you're, mirror and unstick to use as a cover for hygiene. travel where ever you take your teeth and finally everyone loves quip. They were on operas o list named when Times best inventions and is the first subscription electric toothbrush accepted by the American Dental association plus their backed by a network of over twenty thousand dentist in high genocide and hundreds of thousands of happy brochures use quip, everyday, Agnes, say: there's a very cool device, mouth electric toothbrushes, their bulky kind. It grows there a little difficult to use quip is so can slim and sleek and cool

like a toothbrush that could have been invented by apple soap, I urge you to check it out. Quip starts at just twenty five dollars and if you go to get quit, dot, com, slash, editors, get quip, dot, com, ash editors right now. You'll get your first refill pack free with equip electric toothbrush. That's your first refill pack free at get quip dot com. Slash editor spell G g g q. You IP dine com, flash editors, please check it out everyone. So, let's move on Luke to broader discussion of the bill of rights, which is supposed to be the most honoured aspect of our system cross. The spectrum but I saw just last week that rather harrowing decision that we, we actually discussed a little bit on podcast last week, where it

Catherine he's gonna compelled speech in effect by pro life, pregnancy centres and therefore votes for ok, that and it just seems especially the first and second amendment and and others there's this on the left. If they're in the way, there's this effort, chip away in a road them, so certainly the first and second, and went to the most tendentious right now and those politically heated, but that's also why I think they're, probably the safest and in its worth, keeping in mind that you know our current regime of first amendment. Fundamentalism is not. The way the first amendment has always been to him. But I know when I look at the bill of rights, if I'm saying ok, which of these things is going down, I'm thinking probably the fourth amendment, the seventh amendment you do. You have, in the fourth amendment

just changes in technology and and cultural shifts in the United States, broadly notions of privacy have have gone out the window, it of course. The fourth amendment is not about the word privacy, but that sort of house interpreted nets were the jurisprudence goes, and it's it's hard to imagine. What, the fourth amendment looks like in twenty eighteen as a meaningful, practical sort thing and then Seventh amendment, you know the sort of National, loyally and judicial classes want to get rid of the civil jury in the worst possible way in part because of the lasting legacy, We have long economics, illegal positivism, but also because there are a lot of elements and business that would prefer to have bright line rules rather than juries, and I think that's too bad, because I think one of the great sort of checks on commercial malfeasance as the risk of having to be held accountable for once business

practices in front of a jury of one's peers. But you know the civil jury is being attenuated day in and day out, and I think if I had to pick one that was going to die as a practical matter, first would be seven, but Michael the Bill of Rights, bill of rights under threat, yeah absolutely I'm I mean my view is the first amendment is in real jeopardy. I think will especially the clauses on religion, my keys on this is kind of a little strange. I think founders didn't really understand what they meant by the capacity note by the category of religion, which is in modern America, much more multifarious and difficult to describe. than it was when it was just simply mostly protestant sects, a few Catholics and a few Jews. Now, Religion is anything you make up in your garage in many instances and I think were, I think, what were gradually thing, sir thee,

the norms of America's like posts, protestant elite, which track with the episcopal church ordaining women ordaining gaze, whether that's going to become increase only compulsory for for all religious bodies or for for all institutions is too abide by the norms that a kind of american elite. Profess, and am I see any way of stopping it. Essentially that you know suits coming in Catholic Hospital, saying after of or offer abortion, because Amy or some other body demands You do so you're. Just seeing this actual erosion of the idea that, while we live with several different religions that can due to the common good of this country, and you should just respect their ability to practice as they preach not only as individuals but in institutional forms site that I think that one is

going to be a long, bloody battle, and I I just don't see how liberties of my church or of many other communion survive it Charlie. How do you see the threat I'm torn because I agree with everything that Michael just sad. I think the speech part of the first amendment is safe. Legally, it's probably never been stronger, legally or their cultural. It's on a threat I am also worried about the second amendment, not because I think the Supreme Court is likely to get it, but because the Supreme Court seems to be helping on ignoring it and that is opened up the opportunity, for the court to place anybody's with had I what they have done without admonished from above I'm. I dont think american gun cultures go anywhere, but I do think that de the unwillingness to enforce and uphold Heller, which has drawn criticism from Clarence Thomas

no go such an and Scalia just before he died is a big problem and its approval you don't have would say the first Emma ivory instead it by what looks at but I'd, be interested to know what look thinks of the recent jurisprudence with the fourth amendment, especially with Sate Justice Roberts seems to be applying it to technological changes quite stringently now, and then I think, a trying. But again as a practical matter, we might get a few rules out of it, but it's just really hard to imagine what privacy can mean given the existence of a third party doctrine. So if the court wines at this reading a third party doctrine, then that has really major ramifications for the economy that I'm not sure the court would be willing to kind of view. Itself is responsible for

flip side. Whatever rules they sort of create can almost certainly be circumvented, at least in terms of identifiable personal data through the Third Party doctrine, and even if someone were to completely opt out of the system by not using a cellphone only using cash and other things, making them functionally intractable within the sort of broader data ecosystem, you can still impute plenty about any one. Individual based on patterns of behaviour from everybody else, so yeah they seem the anxious about it. But in less someone's willing, shoot down the Third Party doctrine. I really don't see how you, how you make those things, have teeth. Michael, execute To you, twenty years from now, the first amendment will be stronger weaker, the same it will be weaker up. All parts of it will be weaker, not just the religion parts but the free speech parts Charlie, stronger weak are the same.

The first amendment I agree with Michael, I think the speech parts will be stronger, their religion parts will be weaker, look press will be stronger. assembly will be stronger. Everything else will be weaker. I think the answer is weaker. I think the jurisprudence is, and very often one boat, is what saving us from a political tied that wants to weaken the first amendment. Let's stop here in it our discussions. I can tell all of you a little bit about our new premium service on now a view dot com called an hour plus we like to say and our plus is a lot more than a digital subscription, because it truly is, when you become and our plus member you of course get on Had access to the national view, digital magazine that Maisie dont get the pay war. When you want to read NASH, Review magazine

those on a computer or mobile device. You get total access to delays tissue and to all the issues and our ten year archive but an hour This is more than a digital subscription. That's where we say it. It really is a membership. When you get joint and our plus you get access to our members. Only Facebook group we also get included in conflict. Calls featuring and our writers in yes, this might be your opportunity to talk to the right. Honourable Charles seed, W cook only an hour plus members get the call in info. I know what you're thinking Maybe I can work the angles and somehow get this call and info. If I dont see for an hour. Plus. I tell you it's not happening. You only get the call and info if you sign up for an plus there's also commenting only an hour plus members can comment on the website, which makes it much more elevating commenting experience

and get this when you join and our plus and are logged onto the site, you will see up to ninety percent fewer ads on the site. In particular, you will see zero add within the articles outright and zero adds within the articles when you come to the site turn to read: article that you're in sit in. You will not be distracted by ads a lot more to the inner plus programme, but those are the key takeaway. So why not joined today? It's really terrific deal. We have some great first year, pricing, in place you all. You want to act now. Here's what you do good, an ash from you, dot, com, slash plus that's national view, dotcom, slash plus, and there you can read about. we think this membership has to offer and just cause. Join now to see all your options, that's an r plus folk Naturally, you dot com, slash plus, please check it out. Michael, where we are little love, pessimistic about prospects of the

First, amendment. Listen certain aspects, another many of our system constitutional system that is under constant challenge is the basic structure of that system that that set out in the constitution with competing. A power centres and ambition and political ambition, running up against political ambition, which is very often section, and this has been true, probably the last seventy years. That really does not compute for the left. yeah. So I think this is actually the the point where the american government is at its weakest, and I am afraid that in our lifetimes, perhaps This whole thing can be revealed to be in a kind of house of cards. I think the practical experience of almost every living human in America. Is that the ambition restraining ambition is a matter of partisan politics.

The matter of one party restraining: other, and that you, you swing one way or the other when the other budget just a punish the other party, the Mccain the actual structure of the branches sort of a kind of background noise. I think people basically view do you know when their party has the White House and has control of the executive branch which itself employment more people than are collected in several states combined. Ah they, feel empowered. They feel that they are owed the spoils of victory and the other side of power in the White House loses their minds and their basically there congressmen of the opposition party that they sometimes gathered in themselves to actually opposed and investigate the executive branch. But mostly these are standing actors in

putting the rage of the out of party partisan base and talking wildly about how the president is in some way, illegitimate because he's born in Kenya or because the Putin elected him and then we, just during at secession in oak, saying that, oh well, Jesus Land and then there's the real America or Theirs real America, and then there's this- install occupation of Amerika, and I think that My own view is that if you know if in the future The supreme court does not play its current role basically swinging, to favour one side or the other in roughly even measure? maybe inflicting more losses on social conservatives overall, but basically, a partisan basis. It swings back and forth. Some I regularly, I think, if the court begins really consolidating to the left or the right, I think the whole structure

can come under immense sure do you have any idea what that would look like as a practical manner the sixties. I think it could like you have the Sixtys and Seventys, where there's just one Is terrorism may be either terrorist cells or militia tight groups? If it's more from the right that that that there is is coming, and I think you ll see like the vacation in states you know so that serve those traditional resistance at me. Notification wasn't just a defence slavery. Sometimes notification served abolition and that your history can be uncovered as well. European innovation. Twelve right So I think I think see states looking too secede. If the court keep swinging one way or the other you couldn't. Stuff, like I think, Texas, the right to subdivide into five states and as part of its accession treaty to the United States. I am

all this stuff and come into play. If you see just consider Seventy two majorities of liberal court or conservative court. Ok, so Charlie Michael, has set of very good baseline of pessimism path. Here, it's gone durability of our our regime. Where are you compared to that? While I'm not where Michael is in part, because the partisan precious, that we are seeing eye helping to prop up the system in some ways in the ass we said earlier with part of the government. Your team has you like, albeit temporarily, and so with divide a government which happens, a lot you end up with people willing to defend Congress or defend the president or defend this

cream cod and certainly the case for most of the Obama administration, that sad what what worries me, as I do think forgotten where power is supposed to line. I don't want to step on Luke Thompsons, toes heck as he's a great exponent of this But Congress is supposed to be in charge and when someone such as Brac Obama says, will have Congress won't act. I will that there was not a broader opposition and reaction and discussed is worrying to me. I think, There is enough of those enough pilot. Cultivation to keep. This is come on. It's ties, but sometimes you don't want that to be the only guiding light. You want that the broad understanding of what the executive branch is supposed to do and what the legislative brought disposed to do.

and the proper role of the court as well. I do see warning signs. Their Obama was not opposed enough in his usurpation, but I don't Think that we're heading toward South America, which is the the argument you. in places like vocs in the New republic, because the The incentive still remain to take one part of the government and then to use it to block the other, which is ambitious. in counteracting ambition It is still the case that damn That's our hell bent on taking back Congress, still see some value in that and wild dynamic remains. I think the system will be fine overrule. Sir, look

we, the typewriter, we have Michael saying some extreme partisan reaction when the other side, as the White House is a threat to our system, are self Charlie, saying no, that extreme parson reaction buttresses elements of our system and therefore is not a threat to it. Overall, where are you on it? I'm probably on team Charlie on this one partially, because the constitutional system is always relied on on Para state or informal institutions to keep it functioning of the two party system is is old, but it's not ossified. Yet. If you look at the collapse of latin american constitutional regimes, it usually preceded by the ossification of the two parties that control the government and that, once those things become incapable of incorporating rising groups or new groups with new claims into sort politics, that's when they break that's what happened in Venezuela, its happen and other countries before them

so I'm not as pessimistic, but I would say that I had hoped that the term presidency, if nothing else, would raise scepticism the minds of people on the left and the right about the worshipful devotion to a God came presidency that both parties have been guilty of and in the twenty First and it seems to have only exacerbated it on the left and at least for the present on the right has not done much to two abated me. Be just maybe we'll see because of trumps personal style and his rather fluid ideology, return to an emphasis on administering things effectively, I would hope that that would be part of what president could run on, but an

there's some evidence that if you really botch administration, see Hurricane Katrina, the politics around that a more. If your perceived at least have botched administration. You you suffer political blow back for it. But then you know Barack Obama seem to have suffered no political consequences for the opium hack and some other really serious administrative debacle on his watch. So yeah I mean I'm, I'm not as pessimistic as Michael, but I probably only think that people appreciating the structure of government as a bulwark of but he will increase because its essentially at its need your right now. So I am not quite were warm Michael is, I just think the passive it of such an alarming scenario is more likely than it has been in a very long time. It's not

reimagining. For me that if Trump is re, elected and there's a controversy like we saw with its separation of the migrant children at the border, the left could legitimately talk itself into the need for a color revolution in America, and you could have new tens of thousands of people outside the White House that you camped out. The way you see in Korea when there's a unpopular present or something of that nature. So let me ask the exit question Michael understand king of the structure of the constitution as a bulwark of liberty will wax, are continued Wayne it will Wayne before a rising tide you from the left at first, maybe the right later, but from the left at first They will begin to view the founding itself as the problem that every step or positive. Liberty has been a step away from George Washington, just as

the slaves who were escaping Washington to join the british we're trying to get away from him. We have to escape Washington and that legacy is well Charlie, wax away. I think it will, when I think, getting worse. I just think that there's enough palate go pressure underneath assistant to keep it intact. So look you're wax think were where area at the bottom also also overwhelming influence of the editors pod can bring people to wisdom. this has always been of the most vulnerable part of our system in terms of public and understanding, and will continue to be so and continue to wane. So, let's do some some more exit questions, colonel in round style,

and I'll go to you. First Luke rank these founding fathers from most to least consequential John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George, wash it Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, atoms. Ok, I'm trying to keep score here, Thou TAT, her husband, I can, I guess I gotta go. I gotta think I get ourselves so Luke Michael, is Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams D agree very different, Washington Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison and unfortunately, Adams was the least invalids it would have been better if you ve been more influence in Europe, your Flippin, Madison and and Jeff yeah. I think just even if you look at the Senate, if you, the power that fly

over America still has, I think, that's all legacy of yeoman Democracy that Jefferson wanted to bequeathed to us, and I think that that still exists, even if Hamilton and where a commercial Republic Jolly Washington because there would be no country without him Madison, because he was the architect of the constitution it, and then the prime driver behind a bill of Rights Hamilton because unfortunately he was right is his vision of the future was was spot on Jefferson, because, as I argued last year, you need those words in the declaration there fundamentally important to the United States. They acted Ass, the the beacon saw. The promissory note, I'm ok words and then

I'm sorry, I don't put him off because he's use. This is one of one of the great men of history, but I dont think he attempting Can we put anywhere else, so I think clearly why in turn agree with their one. Also release no question about it. He is the indispensable man in american history, perhaps the only indispensable man in America history and where I think this question is tough- is between Madison and Hamilton in Medicine, father that the constitution and the bill of rights, and just so all sorts of ways- but I guess I would tippit Hamilton like Luke, just because I think he is right about a really big about whether it would be a commercial republic or not Psycho Hamilton, second, Mass and third Jefferson. Fourth, although it is a big deal, not just the declaration, will talk about that of in a moment, but

I mean he's kind of founder of party politics and in effect and sort of God wet to small de democratic politics would be in this country, better, unfortunately than his federalist adversaries, and finally John Adams- and I just endorse the sentiment of my colleagues, a giant among men, he is so eloquent wonderful writer- I read a passage at the beginning of this podcast. and just a key activists and thinker and all this and in no other grouping of five Americans do come up with John Adams last, except for this one. So Michael o me good to you with the next question. What's more important the constitution or the declaration of independence. My counter intuitive sir, is the declaration because declarations, the prince

was the decoration and unseen aids will eventually destroy the constitution Ok, elaborate! Please I mean you just the the pursuit. of happiness will be an. This kind of rights based understanding of human affairs is destructive of human governance itself, and so I ultimately it's the understanding that people have, I think, It is a debate among people on the right, especially having some on the right about liberalism itself and about this bequeathed understanding of rights, and I kind of take decide that the way people understand themselves in modern America is as well? sparing individuals and that this is The disconnected from all sense of duty or common good

and it will eventually it has to destroy gum. France and result in anarchy. Eventually, so, have you read your I'm has on AIDS book random. I know nationalist you met him just just recently. Not yet I haven't read it in this. Is you you'll be very simple I have things it a brilliant book? I love at first nationalism it where it seems to go too far off track for me as a base thanks. John Locke has destroyed America, which is what they were high. What visa daddy? I just think I think rights can be justified. I mean listen, I just don't believe even human wrongs, not human rights. I believe that I believe I can tell you when some does something wrong. Stealing is wrong but unlimited right to property. Now, that's not right and just an ontological sense and it tends towards anarchy and the structure of the constitution. I dont think and survive this this spread so,

the rights and are inevitably- and this would not have happened, like a really long, flew that the acts are they wouldn't happen immediately. The decoration destroy us just destroy us over the course of three hundred years I mean listen. I'm a conservative. I think there is some processes that can happen over half a millennium or longer So this is why, Michael it we had discussions offline copycats ago. I think the debate should should be instituted in the National League has pitchers hitting is a ridiculous, barbaric anachronism, but MIKE you can't do that because you will get then just inevitably defensive inoffensive, you airs Yunus. This is kind of you to hear. You say view that the declaration reacts hath millennia baseball work of evolving. If we, if we yes like on this it well, I said- and I am I am: listen- I'm an instinctive conservative. I would have you know the

Introduction of the numbers. Zero was itself an innovation once and I probably would have opposed Charley was more important consultation in the declaration. I just want. register. My horror Michael just said, because I have a whore a feeling he might be onto something oh I worry about that and I've. I haven't quite so, how he put it. But it's something. I've noticed in conversations about the constitution and in part you dismiss. It is so well. Ok, so here's the enumerated paths, doctrine and that's why the and then someone says well what about my life to my right to life liberty in the pursuit of happiness. He said what you that's in the declaration of independence and then you know your first. Likewise with eight, they don't know the difference, but that's the problem. Michaels lighting, sir I'm I'd, never put so help me

thank you for ruining my day. The constitution is more important. I have a copy of the declaration of independence. Hanging in my office is just to my right. I think it is one of the great You must even history, as I say it served ass, a promissory note and a crucial one. It is its own statue of liberty, but he's not the law and there is- ways in need if you have a tunnel. Jefferson in the room to also have a John Adams, There is a need, if you have flighty rhetoric, also to have some iron rules and the constitution plays the the part of filter Jefferson's ideals.

To a workable hall, and it is a lot less flighty. The constitution is a document that is premised. on an understanding of human nature and an understanding of other countries, the founders had a real understanding, not not just to Britain but of Rome, of France and of of antiquity, and they try to. channel that into a workable settlement, and I think they they did it. The! U S would not survive just on the declaration of India. and it has survived on on the back of the constitution, so you have to have the constitution. The constitution. Is this permanent? Look? I shall like any to push back vigorously.

Hence this Dundee night tendency in the room, but I'll come up with a pretty crazy reason to say why the constitution's more important I mean look like if, if our rights language were so powerful and our minds, we wouldn't practiced human chattel slavery. For so long, we would have doubt the native americans- we wouldn't be the only country who, however, justified had use nuclear weapons and more time I dont think that our embrace of rights, language actually translates necessarily into the sort of activation of rights, is lived, reality, but more important than that. The constitution put the rules in place that created the two party system, which survived the constitution itself when it collapse during the civil war and lives with its still- and basically the only durable institution american life in terms of its actual function so Our I'll say constitution is more important because it's the thing that framed and keeps the parties I wholeheartedly agree theirs if a passage from Lincoln, where talks about how the to

and is the the apple and that this biblical reference Africa forget now which to what verse and the constitution, the silver frame and the frame was built for the EP, not other the other way around, but the constitution's obviously much more important declaration was just directly stolen from the Virginia decoration of of rights. By the way, I think we need to put a little aspect on Jefferson's authorship, and I agree with you- you know, there is, I believe, critic Crisper Hitchin said the declaration of independence was built for export will take us two hundred years to export it to the American South. So I think that that function, is highly limited and we would have eliminated chattel slavery and Jim Crow, with or without the duration. All those obviously hugely important, Ferko Tool for Lincoln And at times for four Martin Luther king, but we would eliminate limiting them, cause all other English speaking countries eliminated them and

Martin Luther King rhetoric, not the declaration that was the motive force of it. It was the Bible, and particularly the king, James Bible, which I think was, is Sir out ranks decoration terms of the importance of rhetorically in America. history, so I'm gonna say the constitution to other questions quickly before we go because we begin around a time, Charlie Cook. What is your favorite? patriotic oration or piece of patriotic writing. This is a slightly off the wall. One and I answer this question in various forums for foreign chosen different things, so here, I'm gonna highlight something that I've just almost never seen highlighted, and that is a lead Calvin Coolidge wrote in nineteen twenty four in response to

letter. He received from Army sergeant Charles gardener. Charles gardener was angry because the Republican Party in New York, twenty first congressional district, had nominated a black man ass. Their candidate was a dentist and Damn Coolidge wrote. And said at the suggestion of denying any measure of their full political rights to such a great group of our population ass, the colored people is one which, however, it might be received in some other quarters, could not possibly be permitted by one who feels a risk civility for living up to the traditions and maintaining the principles of the Republican Party in those principles. We note Coolidge thought were good for with America's principles. He also mentions the founder in the latter. Again, that was in nineteen twenty four He was a successor after after Harding too,

Woodrow Wilson, who is horrendous on these questions, who reciprocated Washington and am operating in a time in which Congress still couldn't agree. Whether anti lynching laws were a good idea to to believe so strongly in the basic values. yes, the declaration, I think, is admirable and is about as patriotic as it gets look. So it's difficult to take just one but I'll go with a speech that wasn't delivered and that's the speech William Sapphire wrote for Richard Nixon in the event of an APOLLO eleven disaster, meaning that alternate Armstrong would have had been left on. The moon It's it's in the fine tradition of viewing America as a universal icing for

but also as a concrete material force in the world, not unlike the resurrection. As historical fact, verses metaphor is America, as adventuring force out into the unknown, breaking pathways for all mankind and sacrificing in doing so Michael. I defy you to follow up on that I'm I would go with what, but sometimes called the other decoration day speech from eighteen. Seventy one is Frederick, Douglass, add Arlington national cemetery, just it's it's one, great pieces of prose in american oratory as well one paragraph, those on Heroes, whose whiten bones have been piously gathered here in his green, if we now strew with sweet and beautiful flowers, choice em, alike of pure hearts and brave spirits reached in their glorious career that highest

point of northern this beyond which human power cannot go, they died for their country, I think it is just one most beautiful pieces of organ oratory and it won't fail to inspire you yet awesome, he should be on currency. I believe just because it that has such an awesome, prophetic, look and there's a book that came out last year are fairly recently just about how he is the most photographed man of the nineteenth century. Just has all these images of Frederick, Douglass and Frederick Douglass does not ever look anything but majestic and HANS I am also of the cabin Coolidge selection, like Charlie, a more common one. His speech on the hundred and Fiftyth anniversary of the declaration, which we ve all just kind of trampled in in the mud, but it's it's- will also knock your socks off and is really a sign of an exceptional mind at work.

And someone who really understands the American Express met. So let's go a little light or to conclude here, Michael: what's your favorite, your life for tradition, just fireworks and hot dogs. In lifted civil justice as simple as that gonna get her friends or family. I'm telling you it's like works havin, some hot dogs at nothing, entertainer counter intuitive, just hot dogs in fireworks. Yet- and I mean- is not enough for me to have a good german food in a Chinese. A chinese spectacle Charlie I I'm new, relatively answer I don't have any tradition, of my own, so I've inherited them from my wife's family and them

partly its yes, hamburgers and hot dogs. But for me that that this is the day on which I well listen to anyone on the other side, I'm quite open minded generally, but I'm not interested in people who want to ruin July. Fourth, sir. I limit myself to reading that coloration reading, Frederick Douglass, perhaps reading a little bit of Mcculloch, oh, come on John Adams, remembering just hawks. Ordinarily lucky, we all ought to leave her look so I'll do something similar Michael's, but in a fine tradition of american Commerce. I grew up in Kansas and Missouri, basically has no laws in terms of what's allowed in fireworks sales, and so you could sort of drive across the state line and buy stuff that look like they tried to give it the mujahideen in Afghanistan,

to fight the Russians and and then smuggle it back across into Kansas, to light often hide when the police inevitably came. Looking for who was setting off something akin to a small dynamite. Ass, also, smuggling fireworks, adding my favorite worth July tradition. I like in aid all town celebration several years ago as part of a cabin Coolidge July. Fourth, up at Plymouth, Notch in Vermont and love small town little parades commemoration casually here in New York for and in the right place, yields you'll see someone colonial garbage. Two years ago there, some there, some New York Regiment yet said technically existed since before the country's founding in these guys they dress up and get out the the the the drums and- and I just in the old flags- and I just love that, but of course you can ever go wrong with with hamburgers and I work, so that's it for

You ve been listening to a national view, podcast any re, broadcast retransmission or account of this game without the express written problem Permission of national you magazine is strictly it'd and yes right hand Salaam wherever you are at whatever barbecue your currently brilliant they triangulated at. I am looking at you. Thank you, Charlie Cook. Thank you, Luke Thompson, fake, thank Michael Brendan Dorothy thanks all of you listening, joy, your forth and see you next.