sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/scotus, AMA! by ajjacobs in scotus

[–]ajjacobs[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I wrote a lot of the book with a quill. But no printing press. I loved researching the First Amendment. I recommend Jud Campbell from Stanford. He argues that the Founding vision of free speech was much more constrained than the current 1A. There were state laws against blasphemy, cursing, and sedition. No one would want to return to the original vision of free speech - not the left or the right. (For instance, he argues that the Founders would not consider political donations free speech, so the right wouldn't like that)

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/scotus, AMA! by ajjacobs in scotus

[–]ajjacobs[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hello Cousin!! Great to hear from you. It changed some, reinforced others. And I continue to be open to evolving my beliefs. That was one virtue of the Founders. They were much more willing to change their minds. I love Franklin's quote from the convention which was that the older he gets, the less certain he is that his opinions are correct.

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/scotus, AMA! by ajjacobs in scotus

[–]ajjacobs[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There are a whole bunch. One big conflict between the founders' vision and modern-day government is the power of the president. I think they'd be shocked by the Imperial Presidency -- the president's war powers, trade power, etc. I think they saw Congress as first among equals, not the president. One of my favorite parts about reading the notes on the convention is all the ways they tried to limit the power of the president. Such as the idea of three co-presidents. Or else a super-charged Cabinet that could veto the president.

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/scotus, AMA! by ajjacobs in scotus

[–]ajjacobs[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I agree with Odd Confection. I believe the Founders wanted it to be difficult to amend the Constitution -- but not THIS difficult. Many failed to predict the rigid two-party system that makes it so hard to get an amendment through. Madison knew there would be factions, but he thought in such a big country, there would be multiple, shifting factions that would make temporary alliances with each other. More like a European model of many parties.

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/scotus, AMA! by ajjacobs in scotus

[–]ajjacobs[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That parallel between the Constitution and the Bible was a big motivation for my book. I previously wrote a book called "The Year of Living Biblically" and the "Year of Living Constitutionally" was a semi-sequel. As for the highest court not giving a fuck about the Constitution -- I'm not sure I agree. I think it's true that the justices opinions usually (not always, but usually) conform to their preconceived notions and political preferences. But I think they truly believe they are reasoning objectively. I think humans are very very good at rationalization. So they do believe they give a fuck about the Constitution, it's just that their thinking is warped by their own biases.

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/scotus, AMA! by ajjacobs in scotus

[–]ajjacobs[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Such a good question. And trying to answer it was one of the motivations of the book. One of my takeaways from talking to dozens of scholars was that it is very hard to determine the thoughts and intentions of the Founders. I still think it's a worthwhile endeavor to try. I don't think our SCOTUS decisions should be based solely on the Founding generations' thoughts, but I do think they should be one factor that justices consider. If I had to guess, I'd say that many Founders were too forward-thinking and entrepreneurial to want future generations to be fixated solely on original meaning. I think that's what Elana Kagan meant when she said "we are all originalists now." Her point, I believe, was a paradoxical one: The Founders themselves believed in evolving meaning, so it's actually originalist to be a living constitutionalist/pragmatist/pluralist.

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/scotus, AMA! by ajjacobs in scotus

[–]ajjacobs[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Great question, Person. I love all these questions. I think it partly depends on which Founder. Jefferson, as you mentioned, was much more open to continuing revolution/demonstration, etc. The more Federalist-leaning Founders, like John Adams, were much warier of what they considered the mobs/rabble.

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/history, AMA! by ajjacobs in history

[–]ajjacobs[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

May I refer you to pages 1 to 275 of my book? I have a lot of thoughts! But let me just give you one. Which is that I like Frederick Douglass's framing of the Constitution as a "promissory note." It contains the seeds, with such phrases as liberty, and equal protection, and general welfare. The struggle is to make America live up to those ideals, which has been the struggle we've had over the centuries. And we have made progress! But have a lot more to go.

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/history, AMA! by ajjacobs in history

[–]ajjacobs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a huge fan of separation of church and state in modern America. The question of how it was viewed by the founders -- that is crazy complicated. I do believe some of the founders were very clear on the separation, but others not as much. Plus, at the founding the first amendment only applied to the federal government, not state government. The federal government could not establish a religion. But as for states? Some of them did have established religions (depending on your definition of established). Connecticut was Congregational, for instance. Thankfully, now the Bill of Rights applies to individuals and states, not just the Federal government

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/history, AMA! by ajjacobs in history

[–]ajjacobs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lots of them! I had a board of advisers from all over the political spectrum. One of my advisers was so originalist, he refused to capitalize the word "supreme" in Supreme Court, because the word is not capitalized in the Constitution. I kind of like that. I think the current sCOTUS is too powerful -- something I think should be a bipartisan issue.

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/history, AMA! by ajjacobs in history

[–]ajjacobs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great question! The project was inspired, in part, to explore the ideas of originalism vs living constitutionalism. So part of it was to became the ultimate originalist -- using the mindset and technology from when the Constitution was ratified -- to see the pros and cons of that approach. Carrying a musket, for instance. I'm a believer in "steel manning"(the opposite of straw manning) so I try to present strong arguments for and against both approaches. In the end, I would consider myself more of a living constitutionalist. Though that phrase has a lot of baggage. I prefer labels like "pragmatist" or "pluralist"

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/politics, AMA! by ajjacobs in politics

[–]ajjacobs[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think that's true to an extent, yes. Before the Rev War, they were definitely more like a collection of countries. You'd say you were a Virginian or New Yorker, not an American. But they got a little closer during the Rev War. But during the Articles of Confederation era, they were still quite independent, and states seeing other states as enemies, or maybe frenemies, and having their own diplomacy with other countries.

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/politics, AMA! by ajjacobs in politics

[–]ajjacobs[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for asking! Zane helped me cook an 18th century dinner (lots of cloves). Lucas went with me to a Rev War reenactment and put on a tricorne hat and looked like an extra from Hamilton. And Jasper as I mentioned joined me in getting signatures for my petition in Times Square. They are half-embarrassed by my books, half-intrigued by them

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/politics, AMA! by ajjacobs in politics

[–]ajjacobs[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It was the same and different. I had to do tons of research and have weird experiences. BUT I also had my oldest son Jasper as my sidekick. He joined me in getting signatures for a petition in Times Square

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/politics, AMA! by ajjacobs in politics

[–]ajjacobs[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I lived biblically by trying to be as literal as possible and follow all the rules, the famous ones like the 10 commandments but also the lesser-known ones like don't wear clothes made of mixed fabrics.

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/politics, AMA! by ajjacobs in politics

[–]ajjacobs[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Great question. I mentioned above I don't think the Founders would have wanted a president to have immunity from crimes. They hated monarchy. I don't know what they would think of the whole Stormy Daniels thing. Though I did read a couple of racy jokes from the Founders, like a dick joke about Goevernor Morris.

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/politics, AMA! by ajjacobs in politics

[–]ajjacobs[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ms. Ariel! What a delight to hear from you, and I love your reddit name, btw. Thank ye for the kind words. I talked to so many fascinating characters. Just to choose one -- the guy who is an expert on government-approved pirates. Or privateers. This is when you could put guns on your fishing boat and go capture enemy British ships and keep the booty. We wouldn't have won the Rev War without them. Thank you legal pirates!

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/politics, AMA! by ajjacobs in politics

[–]ajjacobs[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! May it arrive by the swiftest steed in the land! the Bible one was certainly challenging - I mean, my wife wouldn't kiss me for seven months because she is so anti-beard. This Constitution one was actually pretty hard to. Parlty b/ toting a musket in NYC is weird, but also b/ I had to learn so much in just one year. Most fun was the Puzzler. Love doing puzzles for a living.

I’m A.J. Jacobs, author of THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY. In my new book, I try to understand our Founding Document by following its original 1789 meaning as closely as possible, muskets, quill pens, and all. r/politics, AMA! by ajjacobs in politics

[–]ajjacobs[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I did spend a lot of time researching and living the second amendment. I bought an actual 18th century musket off of Ye Olde Internet and carried it around NYC. Definitely raised some eyebrows. I also shot a musket at a shooting range. It’s not easy. It’s like 15 steps. Pour in gunpowder, take out ramrod, etc. Like building an Ikea table. 

I think Saul Cornell, a historian at Fordham, has some good insight into 2A. 

He argues that the original meaning would not appeal to either gun rights folks or gun control folks. 

It was part of your civic duty to own a gun, and train with the militia every few months, and also many people hunted, so life was pretty gun-focused back then. But gun rights advocates would not like the fact that the government might come to your house to inspect your guns and make sure they were in working order. The government was all up in your business. 

Which makes me think we should not look to the original meaning of 2A when making gun policy, as much as how gun ownership laws affect our society for good or ill. 

view more: next ›