A.J. Jacobs, author of The Year of Living Constitutionally: One Man’s Humble Quest to Follow the Constitution’s Original Meaning, in conversation with NCC President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen, author of the new book The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America. Listen to their discussion on what it means to live constitutionally today.
Video:
Podcast:
Participant:
A.J. Jacobs is a journalist, lecturer, and human guinea pig who has written four bestselling books—including Drop Dead Healthy and The Year of Living Biblically—that blend memoir, science, humor, and a dash of self-help. A contributor to NPR, The New York Times, and Esquire, among other media outlets, Jacobs lives in New York City with his family. His new book, The Year of Living Constitutionally, is available now.
Additional Resources:
- A.J. Jacobs, The Year of Living Constitutionally: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Constitution’s Original Meaning (2024)
- "Colonial America" fashion, Brittanica
- Jonathan Gienapp, The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era (2018)
- Jud Campbell, “What Did the First Amendment Originally Mean?,” University of Richmond (2018)
- Texas v. Johnson (1989)
- NCC's We the People podcast, "The Modern History of Originalism," (August 2023)
- NCC's We the People podcast, "What the Supreme Court's Opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen Means for the Second Amendment," (August 2022)
- "How a college term paper led to a constitutional amendment," Constitution Daily blog, (May 7, 2024)
- NCC's Constitution Drafting Project
- Walter Isaacson, Benjamin Franklin: A Life, (2004)
Excerpt from Interview: A.J. Jacobs discusses how the U.S. Constitution's initial flexibility gave way to rigidity, highlighting the unexpected rise in presidential and Supreme Court power compared to the founders' intentions.
A.J. Jacobs: Right. I think it happens with all institutions that the initial flexibility gives way to more rigidness. And the advantage of that is stability, which is a good thing. But the disadvantage is the inability to change as circumstances change. And what was amazing to me was reading James Madison's notes on the Constitution, on the convention, and how fluid the ideas were how if a few delegates had voted a different way, we would have three presidents. I was blown away by the fact that when, I believe it was James Wilson brought up the idea of a single president, several delegates said, are you jesting? I don't think they said that, but they said, this is a terrible idea. We just fought a war to get rid of a monarch. Why would we wanna go back to what they called the fetus of monarchy? A single president is the fetus of monarchy. And so just which, in my opinion, was very prescient because the presidential power, both Democrat and Republican, has expanded alarmingly. And I don't think three presidents is a great idea. I don't think we want Biden, Trump and RFK Jr, co-working in the White Oval Office. However, I do think this idea of restraining the president in some way. And also the fluidity of ideas is so crucial.
Jeffrey Rosen:Absolutely. One great power of the book is you so well distill the central debates of the convention, Hamilton's desire to create a strong national government, his opponent's fear that he would crush the states, and that debate about the presidency is just such a great example. You also talk about the importance of balance, and that example of the president having much more power than the founders envisioned is just one of the many ways in which the balances anticipated by the founders have gotten out of whack. What are some other technological and constitutional structural changes that unsettled the founding balance?
A.J. Jacobs: Well, I think, yes, the president, I believe the founders would be surprised by how much power. And I also think, and you can tell me if you agree, that they would be surprised by how much power the Supreme Court has. Because I don't think, I talked to a great scholar who I'm sure, I probably heard him on We the People, Jonathan Gienapp at Stanford, who has studied. The power at the very beginning. And his argument is that the Supreme Court was not considered the final say. Most founders would have been surprised that the Supreme Court has the final say on matters constitutional and what is and is not. They were supposed to have judicial review. They were supposed to be in the mix. But Gienapp argues that it was a combined, it was sort of nebulous. The president also had say over it, and the Congress, and the court. So they had judicial review. They did not have what he calls judicial supremacy. And that is the situation we are in now, where they are considered the final word. So I think that is a little out of balance.
Excerpt from Interview: A.J. Jacobs describes a dinner party with diverse guests discussing constitutional changes, emphasizing the value of civil, face-to-face dialogue on political issues.
Jeffrey Rosen: And just an amazing story and so great that you were able to talk to him and make his incredible story concrete. Gregory Watson and the amendment process was one of the issues that you discussed at your constitutional dinner party. And you had an 18th century dinner party. You invited people from all over the political spectrum for beef stew and cloves and 18th century song. What was that like and what did you learn about what they would change about the Constitution if they could?
A.J. Jacobs: Well, this I feel, was a very National Constitution Center project because the idea was that we need to return to face-to-face civil discussions of how to fix our country, what works and what doesn't. So, as you say, I brought in conservatives and liberals. My son cooked a meal. They loved cloves in the 18th century, so it was very clove-heavy. I tried to start at light by telling a joke from an 18th century joke book that did not go over great. I'll just say it very quickly. It was about a woman married to a mathematician, but they didn't have kids. Her friend said, your husband is a great mathematician. And she replied, "Yes, but he cannot multiply." So a dad joke, I call it a founding dad joke, which is sort of a meta dad joke, because it's a dad joke about dad joke. But in any case, after that, we went around and said, what do we like about the Constitution?
What would we change? And of course, it differed vastly depending on the person. But we, at the end, we all felt a little more optimistic because there were some things that we could agree on even through the disagreement. One of them was just the meta idea that we need to talk about this more. We need to gather and have more face-to-face discussions. So it was a wonderful experience and I recommend it to everyone. You don't need to do the cloves or the beef stew, but getting together with people of vastly different views and having a civil discussion which I know is part of the NCC's mission, is just so important.
Full Transcript
View Transcript (PDF)
This transcript may not be in its final form, accuracy may vary, and it may be updated or revised in the future.
Stay Connected and Learn More
- Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]
- Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr.
- Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.
- Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen.
- Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube.
- Support our important work.
