July 2, 2025 • 29 mins
How does the U.S. Constitution protect our country from being taken over by a power-hungry dictator? You may not like the answer. President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, Jeffrey Rosen, explains how much of our federal government is based on political norms and precedents that are vulnerable to the whims of the masses. Still, our Constitution has weathered some of the most serious political storms of the past 250 years and held strong. The key to success, Rosen explains, is an informed citizenry that holds elected officials accountable to America's founding principles.
GUEST: Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, where he hosts We the People, a weekly podcast of constitutional debate. He is also a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School and a contributing editor of The Atlantic.
Rosen’s new book is "The Pursuit of Liberty, How Hamilton vs. Jefferson Ignited the Lasting Battle Over Power in America"
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Intro (00:03):
You've reached American History Hotline.
Bob Crawford (00:06):
You asked the question, what is political technology?
Jeffrey Rosen (00:08):
Did George Washington really cut down at churchree JFK Marilyn
Monroe having an affair?
Bob Crawford (00:13):
We get the answers. I'm so glad you asked me
this question. This is such a ridiculous story that we
tell ourselves because we don't want to know the real story.
Leave a message. Hey, they are American History Hotliners. Your host,
Bob Crawford here, happy to be joining you again for
another episode of American History Hotline. You're the ones with
the questions. I'm a guy trying to get you some
(00:36):
answers and keep those questions coming. The best way to
get us a question is to record a video or
a voice memo on your phone and email it to
Americanhistory Hotline at gmail dot com. That's American History Hotline
at gmail dot com. And remember we are American History Hotline.
(00:57):
I love ancient Egypt as much as the next, but
there's plenty to talk about on this continent. Okay, today's
question is about the US Constitution. Here to help me
answer this question is maybe the best possible person to
answer it. It's Jeffrey Rosen. He's the president and CEO
of the National Constitution Center. His soon to be released
(01:19):
book is titled The Pursuit of Liberty. How Hamilton Versus
Jefferson ignited the lasting battle over power in America. I
highly recommend it. Jeffrey. Thank you for joining me today.
Jeffrey Rosen (01:31):
Great to be with you.
Bob Crawford (01:33):
Okay, Jeffrey, here's the question we were hoping you could
help us answer. It comes from Susan Goldberg in Tallahassee, Florida.
I worry about presidential overreach. What did our founders put
in the Constitution to protect us from a dictator taking
over the presidency? Now, this is a great question. Maybe
a good place to start would be to understand the
(01:56):
mindset of the framers of the Constitution when they wrote it.
How worried were they about the overturning of elections or
a president acting like a monarch or dictator.
Jeffrey Rosen (02:09):
It's a great question, and the founders were very worried
about demagogues and dictators. I have a new book out
on how the battle between Hamilton and Jefferson defines all
of American history, and it starts with the following scene.
It's Jefferson's house, President Washington's away and he invites the
whole cabinet over. Hamilton looks around the room and says,
(02:30):
who are those three guys on the wall. Jefferson says,
those are my three greatest men in history, John Locke,
Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton. Hamilton pauses, and then he says,
the greatest man that ever lived was Julius Caesar. And
Jefferson writes in his diary this proves that Hamilton is
for a dictator based on corruption. And then he goes
(02:51):
on to found the Democratic Republican Party in supposed opposition
to the monarchical, dictatorial ambitions of Hamilton and the Federalists.
And now it's such a great story because Hamilton was
almost certainly joking, and he spends his whole career warning
of a Caesar like dictator who will ride in and
fan the passions of the mob. In fact, the whole
(03:12):
Constitutional Convention is called in response to Shay's rebellion, the
mob violence in western Massachusetts where farmers are mobbing the
federal courthouses, and Hamilton writes in the Federal's papers, imagine
that Chay's rebellion had been headed by a Caesar or
a Cromwell, it would have led to the subversion of
the republic. So, in other words, both Hamilton and Jefferson
(03:35):
are centrally concerned about a Caesar like demagogue who will
flatter the people, subvert Republican institutions, and install himself as
a dictator. Both Hamilton and Jefferson think that they've found
such a would be Caesar in Aaron Burr. And in fact,
Hamilton says, if we have a crypto Caesar or an
(03:55):
embryo Caesar, tis Burr. And they think that Burr is
conspired ring to foment insurrection in Spanish Louisiana and install
himself as the dictator of a newly established American state.
And that's why Hamilton dies in the duel, and that's
why Jefferson prosecutes Burr for treason. So Burr is the
(04:17):
warning sign of someone who will subvert American democracy. And
what's the danger of an Aaron Burr? He subverts the
separation of powers and wants to call off elections. And therefore,
the answer to Susanna's great question is what are the
founders put in the Constitution to prevent a Caesar like dictator?
(04:39):
The separation of powers that is the most important constitutional feature.
Bob Crawford (04:44):
All right, So let's talk about those separations of powers.
There's horizontal separation and vertical separation, right, horizontal checks and balances,
vertical federal state. Can you describe those for us?
Jeffrey Rosen (04:58):
Absolutely? The big idea is that the power belongs to
the people. We, the people of the United States, create
the Constitution. We have the sovereign power. We parcel out
bits of that power to the three branches of the
federal government, the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. And
we also divide it between the federal government and the
(05:18):
states to ensure that none of our representatives can speak
in our name. And our ultimate power is embodied in
the Constitution itself. So the very first draft of the Constitution,
drafted by the Committee of Detail, and it's in the
handwriting of James Wilson of Pennsylvania, says resolved that the
government of the United States shall consist of a legislative, executive,
(05:41):
and judicial branch. That's it. It's not we the people,
it's not why, it's just separation of powers. And this
is coming from Montesquieu, who's the French political philosopher who's
quoted more than anyone else at the Constitutional Convention, and
Montesquieu says, all pure republics always degenerate into their bad forms.
(06:05):
So a pure monarchy will degenerate it too, tyranny, aristocracy
into oligarchy, democracy into the mob. You have to have
mixed governments where you separate powers and blend and balance
them against each other, to prevent any one group from
getting all the power and consolidating power. So that the
president isn't a king, so that he can't order people
(06:27):
in jail on his own, says, so he can't make
the country go to war, so he can't have taxation
without representation. This is the whole point of the revolution,
is to prevent a president from becoming like King George
and becoming a dictator. So that's the big idea. Separate
the legislative, executive and judicial power, make them independent of
each other, so that ambition can be made to counteract ambition,
(06:51):
as James Madison so famously put it in the Federalist Papers,
and will ensure that the ultimate power remains in the people.
Bob Crawford (06:57):
Did the founders see the separated powers legislative, executive, judicial
as being equal.
Jeffrey Rosen (07:05):
They were all independent, but in practice the Founders feared
and believed that the most dangerous of the three branches
would be Congress. James Madison said that Congress would suck
all power into its impetuous vortex. As he memorably put it,
he thought that the executive would have the power to
(07:26):
execute Congress's laws, but would be a chief magistrate, vigorous
but constrained. And the judiciary was going to be the
least dangerous branch, as Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalst.
Seventy eight, because it had neither person nor sword. It
couldn't force its judgments to be enforced. It couldn't make
the president listen to it. It relied on legitimacy and
(07:47):
on the wilful acquiescence of the other two branches.
Bob Crawford (07:52):
So let's play this scenario out. According to the Founders,
what would happen if an executive defied a judicial decision,
if the president defied the Supreme the Supreme Court decision
you just said, the Supreme Court does not have a sword.
They have no way to really enforce.
Jeffrey Rosen (08:13):
This is the great dilemma and the great concern of
the Supreme Court ever since the beginning. John Marshall becomes
Chief Justice. He has a rivalry with his distant relative,
Thomas Jefferson, who he cordially despises, and he's really afraid
if he orders Jefferson to do something Jefferson doesn't want
to do, Jefferson's gonna ignore him, and it'll reveal the
(08:36):
judiciary to be weak. On the other hand, Marshall can't
refuse to confront Jefferson at all, because that'll show that
the judiciary has no power. Marshall comes up with a
brilliant solution. He asserts the court's power to strike down
on constitutional laws, but he refuses to order Jefferson to
do something he knows Jefferson and ignore because, as Marshall says,
(08:57):
I'm not fond of butting my head against a wall sport.
He doesn't want to fight battles he can lose. And
it's this delicate combination of diplomacy and assertiveness that makes
Marshall the greatest Chief Justice. He establishes the Court as
a strong and equal branch of government. But this tension
has remained throughout American history, and there's always the danger,
the risk that presidents won't listen to the Court. Thankfully,
(09:21):
we have never in all of American history had a
president who's ignored an unambiguous order of the Supreme Court,
that would be a constitutional crisis, and thankfully it hasn't
happened yet.
Bob Crawford (09:33):
Ten nineteen am. This is American History Hotline. I'm your
host Bob Crawford. Today, my guest is Jeffrey Rosen, President
and CEO of the National Constitution Center. We're talking about
the guardrails of the US Constitution. Let's talk about precedents
and norms, things not written in the Constitution, but practices
(09:55):
that honor and spirit. What was the power of George
Washington's volunteer Harry stepping down from office.
Jeffrey Rosen (10:03):
The power was invaluable. It was the most important precedent
in the entire early Republic. When King George contemplated the
fact that Washington might voluntarily step down, he said, if
he does that, he'll be the greatest man in the world.
And Washington did it. His model is the great Roman
general Cincinnatus, who reluctantly serves the state and at the
(10:25):
earliest opportunity voluntarily relinquishes power so he can go back
to his farm. And Washington could at any point have
established himself as a dictator at Newburgh and in seventeen
eighty three there's calls on him to lead a military
coup and to make himself general for life. He declines
to do that. On the contrary, he mounts a wooden
(10:47):
platform called the Temple of Virtue. He has Addison's Cato,
a play performed for the troops, praising the mild virtues
of calm philosophy. Can you imagine? And then he appeals
to the troop for patients and temperance, and so they
can just hold on a little bit. He'll ensure that
they're paid. Then he takes out he can't read the
(11:08):
letter he's trying to read to the troops. He takes
out his reading glasses and says, forgive me, gentlemen, I've
grown old in your service. Now I've grown almost blind.
The soldier's weak because they've never seen him confess weakness before.
And it's that combination of remarkable self mastery, self restraint,
and authority that makes Washington the greatest man of his age.
Bob Crawford (11:26):
How much of our federal government is norms versus constitutional law.
Jeffrey Rosen (11:32):
Well, it's a complicated blend of both. It's hard to
parcel out the exact proportion, but there's no doubt that
the law rests on norms, and the most important norms
are not written in law. We just identified the norm
that presidents voluntarily step down at the end of their term.
It's not written in the Constitution that they have to.
(11:54):
But presidents have more or less since Washington, voluntarily relinquish power,
and there are so many and the norm that judicial
decisions are obeyed. President Eisenhower's decision to send the airborne
troops to back up the court's order that you had
to integrate the school of Little Rock. He didn't have
to do that. The Constitution didn't make him, but he
(12:15):
thought that his job to execute the law included the
job of sending troops to enforce the unambiguous orders of
the U. S. Supreme Court. It really shows how incredibly
resilient our system is, but also how delicate, how fragile
it is, how it really does depend on the virtue
(12:37):
of our public officials. Virtue means self restrained, moderation, compromise, tranquility, balance,
recognizing that it's the willingness to disagree without being disagreeable,
to listen to different points of view. Anytime one branch
pushes its power too far, the whole system risks collapsing.
Bob Crawford (13:00):
Some of you for your favorite examples of when the
Constitution was put to the test and worked.
Jeffrey Rosen (13:08):
The first great example is the election of eighteen hundred.
The political parties who are up and running. Jefferson has
created the Democratic Republicans, Adams for the Federalists. It's a
contested election, decided by Hamilton's last minute decision to side
with Jefferson rather than Burr. You know, it almost brings
the country to its knees. But what happens Adams voluntarily
(13:32):
surrenders power, although he does leave early in the morning
before the inauguration. The system works, and then the most
moving ending a few years later, Adams and Jefferson reconcile.
They have one of the most beautiful correspondences in American history,
where they talk about their shared love for philosophy, for
the Bible, and for the wisdom of the ages. And
(13:54):
then they both die on the same day, July fourth,
eighteen twenty six, with Adams whispering Jefferson still lives, not
realizing Jefferson had died a few hours earlier. That shows
on the willingness of Americans to engage with even their
greatest political opponents. I end the book on Hamilton and
(14:15):
Jefferson with the remarkable fact that after Hamilton died in
the duel, Jefferson put his bust next to Jefferson's own
bust in the entrance hall of Monticello. You can see
it today if you go there. And whenever he would
pass it, Jefferson would smile and say, opposed in life
as in death. For him, Hamilton was not a hated
enemy to be destroyed, but a respected opponent to be engaged.
(14:37):
And he signaled that respect by putting Hamilton's bust in
the entrance hall. And then there's so many other inspiring
examples of the system holding and the center holding and
because the norms hold. Think of Andrew Jackson, elected as
the great Populist. He's an opponent of the Bank of
(14:58):
the United States. He says, the bank is trying to
kill me, but I will kill it. You might have
thought he'd be a friend of secession because of his
devotion to Jefferson and states rights. But when South Carolina
issued its a nullification proclamation and asserted its right to
refuse to obey federal laws had disagreed with like the
(15:19):
hated tariff of Abominations of eighteen twenty nine. Jackson, in
this dramatic toast, nobly says liberty and union they must
be preserved, and by signaling his devotion to union rather
than secession, he preserves the Union. And then think of
(15:40):
the greatest testing in American history, the Great Secession Crisis.
Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas have debated. Lincoln wins the
contested election of eighteen sixty. It's been a flight, a
fight unlike any other. But what does Douglas do after
he loses the election. He pledges his allegiance to Lincoln
(16:03):
and to Union, and he holds Lincoln's hat during the
inaugural speech. It's just so moving that that's how much
of a patriot is. And Douglas dies soon after, and
his last whispered words or that his own sons will
defend the Union in the face of secession. We could
keep going, but it really is inspiring that at our
moments of greatest testing, patriotic presidents have signaled their devotion
(16:27):
to Union and to the Constitution of the United States.
Bob Crawford (16:33):
This is American History Hotline. I'm your host, Bob Crawford. Today,
my guest is Jeffrey Roseen. His forthcoming book is The
Pursuit of Liberty. How Hamilton versus Jefferson ignited the lasting
battle over power in America. We're talking about the United
States Constitution and how much of a beating it can withstand.
We've talked about how examples of where the Constitution held right,
(16:59):
where the checks and balances did their job. What are
some examples that you can think of where they did not.
Jeffrey Rosen (17:07):
Well. The biggest, of course, is the Civil War and
the Southern States seceded. Lincoln denied their constitutional right to
secede and said he had not only the right, but
the duty to preserve the Union. Lincoln's position was based
on his view that we, the people of the entire
(17:30):
United States, had made the constitution. In fact, that the
original Union arose from the Declaration of Independence and its
assertion that all men are created equal, which created an
American nation. The Southern States insisted that as sovereign states,
they could withdraw from the Union, and the war came,
as Lincoln said, establishing the proposition that the Union was indissoluble.
(17:55):
Since then, we've had great testing moments, mostly involving political
violence and insurrection. When you think about insurrection in the US,
It's remarkable how relatively rare political violence has been, as
the great historian Richard Hofstadter said in his Definitive History
of Political Violence. Political violence in the US after the
(18:18):
Revolution started with Shay's Rebellion, those farmers in western Massachusetts
mobbing the federal courthouses. It continued with the Whisky Rebellion
once again, dissatisfied farmers in the back country of Pennsylvania
rebelling against Hamilton's hated whiskey tax, and they attack the
federal tax collector and tar and featherham and eventually Washington
(18:42):
has to go on horseback with Hamilton at his side.
The only time a US president has led a military charge,
goes to Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The opposition melts away, and Washington
and Man pardons most of the rebels. Jefferson wants to
pardon and forgive insurrectionists at every stage. He says that
(19:03):
the blood of liberty has to be moistened with revolution.
He kind of endorses the French Revolution in a rather
chilling endorsement of violence, showing the difference between Hamilton and
Jefferson on that question. And then, when you think about
political violence, of course, erupted brutally during the Civil War,
but then after the Civil War, we saw more violence
(19:24):
in opposition to reconstruction and in the bloody Battle of
New Orleans of eighteen seventy four, where there's armed conflict
in the streets over who's been elected governor. And then
in the racist reaction to reconstruction legislation like the Colfax massacre,
where African Americans are brutally murdered trying to defend state
(19:47):
buildings after a legitimate election. We see what the historian
Jefferson Cowi calls white resistance to federal power basically, which
can take the form of violence at times. That continued
in the nineteen twenties with anti immigrant violence, and then
(20:07):
during the Civil Rights era after Brown v. Board of Education,
when Southern separatists didn't want to obey the Supreme Court,
they tried to block the integration of the schools as
well as violently resisting voting rights, and we had dramas
ranging from Little Rock to Pettus Bridge. In all of
(20:29):
these cases of violence, it was crucial that the federal
government come down on the side of Union, and it
was only Lincoln's decision to enforce Union, and Grant's decision
initially to enforce reconstruction, and Lyndon Johnson's decision to enforce
civil rights, Eisenhower's decision to send the troops that ultimately
(20:53):
led to the triumph of Union. But it reminds us
that the point of the Constitution is to constrain politics
with principle in order to avoid violence. And when we
abandon our devotion to the constitution and the rule of law,
then violence can result.
Bob Crawford (21:10):
We talked about the weakness of the judicial branch to
enforce its decisions. Let's talk about the political recaliation. Does
the constitution stop a president from using his power against
his political rivals.
Jeffrey Rosen (21:26):
That's a good question, and the answer is not explicitly there.
Those are norms. There's a norm in the Justice department
of a political prosecutions, but ultimately the president has the
executive power. He controls prosecutions if he uses them in
a treasonous or corrupt way. The founders anticipated that the
(21:51):
remedy would be impeachment. They were very afraid of foreign corruption,
in particular, that might enlist a corrupt president to take
bribes and perhaps to wield power on his own behalf
for self interested reasons. But they believed that impeachment for treason, bribery,
(22:11):
or other high crimes or misdemeanors, as the language of
the impeachment clause originally put, it would ensure that patriotic
congress people would remove from office any corrupt or treason
as president.
Bob Crawford (22:24):
What about a situation, a scenario where one political party
orchestrates a prolonged attempt to take over the government at
every level and in every branch. It installs loyalists in
every top position. The government becomes a shadow democracy. Did
the Framers anticipate a scenario like that.
Jeffrey Rosen (22:46):
They did not, because they did not anticipate political parties.
They imagined that the real threat was what they called faction.
And James Madison defines a faction as any group, a
majority or a minority, animated by passion rather than reason,
devoted to self interest rather than the public good. Now,
pretty soon Madison and Jefferson presided over the creation of
(23:08):
the first political party, the Democratic Republican Party, in opposition
to the Federalists. Madison came to see parties as useful
ways of aggregating different political interests and integrated them into
the system. Thought that in productive ways. They could ensure
a clash of principle rather than pure politics. However, the
(23:32):
whole system depends on the separation of powers, which we
started talking about, and the founders did not anticipate that Congress,
for example, would stop checking the president because of partisan loyalty.
They thought Congress will assert its constitutional progres and the
judiciary also will independently enforce the Constitution and not be
(23:55):
taken over by any particular faction. So the whole system
depends on the separation of powers.
Bob Crawford (24:00):
Next year, we're going to celebrate our nation's two hundred
and fiftieth anniversary. The Constitution's about two hundred and forty
years old roughly. I remember Harriet Martineau, who was a
British journalist who visited the United States in the mid
eighteen thirties. She visited with the elderly president, former President Madison,
(24:22):
and she wrote something to the extent of, even if
the United States only last this fifty years the Constitution's
been in place at that point, even if it only
lasts fifty years, it is the greatest achievement of humankind.
Here we are trying to get to two hundred and
forty For the Constitution trying to get to two hundred
(24:44):
and fifty for the United States? Were the founders optimistic
about the longevity of the nation?
Jeffrey Rosen (24:52):
Great question in great quotation from Harriet Martineau, And she's
absolutely right. The founding of America on the principles of liberty, equality,
and government by consent is the most inspiring achievement for
liberty in human history. Were the founders optimistic that it
would succeed? No, they were not optimistic, all of them
(25:13):
for various reasons. Feared the fragility of the republic. Washington
fears faction and the rise of the new political parties.
Jefferson rightly fears civil war over slavery, which he sees
like a tolling bell in the night. Hamilton thinks the
executive isn't strong enough to defend America. Adams has a
(25:37):
very dark view of human nature and preciently predicts the
dangers of financial oligarchy and thinks that rule by elites
may degenerate to threaten liberty. Only Madison's a little more
optimistic because he both expects less of the system, which
he thinks will check and balance passion. But Madison does
(26:00):
put a lot of faith in a new media technology,
the broadside press, which allows citizens to read complicated arguments
like the Federalist papers in the newspapers, to discuss them
with their representatives, never to talk directly to the president.
The idea of a tweeting president as a Madisonian nightmare.
But through deep reading and deliberation, he hopes that reason
(26:20):
will slowly spread across the land, and a new class
of enlightened statesman, he calls the literati, will ensure the
triumph of reason over passion. Now, even as I describe
that Madisonian hope, it seems like we're kind of far
from that vision, which really reminds us of the urgent
importance of civic education. For all the founders. Everything turns
(26:42):
on the citizens and on your willingness to educate yourselves,
to learn about American history, the principles of the Constitution,
how to deliberate without descending it to violence, how to
disagree without being disagreeable, and most importantly, to keep the
principles of the Declaration and the Constitution before our eyes
(27:02):
and in our minds and hearts at every moment. You
mentioned Harriet Martineau and Madison in the eighteen thirties there's
another moment just a few years later in eighteen thirty
nine where John Quincy Adams, who's another hero of both
of ours, I know, gives a speech on the jubilee
of the Constitution and it's Washington's fiftieth anniversary of his inauguration,
and Adams fears civil war which is brimming on the horizon,
(27:24):
and he says, we are going to degenerate into violence
unless we study and keep the principles of the Declaration
and the Constitution. And then in this amazing moment, he
quotes the Book of Deuteronomy from the Hebrew Bible and says,
of the principles of the Declaration of the Constitution. Take
these principles as frontlets between your eyes, place them upon
(27:45):
your hands and your arms. Whisper them to your children
before you speak. Make them the principles of your political salvation.
So that's how important it is for John Quincy Adams
that we learn about and study the principles of the
Declaration and the Constitution. If we do that, he believes
that the Union will prevail, and if we don't, we
will degenerate into civil war.
Bob Crawford (28:04):
I always want John Quincy Adams and Jeffrey Rosen to
have the last word. I've been talking with Jeffrey Rosen.
He's the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center.
His forthcoming book, The Pursuit of Liberty, How Hamilton Versus
Jefferson Ignited the lasting battle over power in America. Check
(28:25):
it out. Jeffrey, thanks for joining us today on American
History Hotline.
Jeffrey Rosen (28:30):
Thank you so much.
Intro (28:34):
You've been listening to American History Hotline, a production of
iHeart Podcasts and Scratch Track Productions. The show's executive producer
is James Morrison. Our executive producers from iHeart are Jordan
Runtall and Jason English. Original music composed by me Bob Crawford.
Bob Crawford (28:54):
Please keep in touch.
Intro (28:55):
Our email is Americanhistory Hotline at gmail dot com. If
you like the show, please tell your friends and leave
us a review in Apple Podcasts. I'm your host, Bob Crawford.
Feel free to hit me up on social media to
ask a history question or to let me know what
you think of the show. You can find me at
(29:16):
Bob Crawford Base. Thanks so much for listening.
Bob Crawford (29:19):
See you next week.
You've reached American History Hotline.
Bob Crawford (00:06):
You asked the question, what is political technology?
Jeffrey Rosen (00:08):
Did George Washington really cut down at churchree JFK Marilyn
Monroe having an affair?
Bob Crawford (00:13):
We get the answers. I'm so glad you asked me
this question. This is such a ridiculous story that we
tell ourselves because we don't want to know the real story.
Leave a message. Hey, they are American History Hotliners. Your host,
Bob Crawford here, happy to be joining you again for
another episode of American History Hotline. You're the ones with
the questions. I'm a guy trying to get you some
(00:36):
answers and keep those questions coming. The best way to
get us a question is to record a video or
a voice memo on your phone and email it to
Americanhistory Hotline at gmail dot com. That's American History Hotline
at gmail dot com. And remember we are American History Hotline.
(00:57):
I love ancient Egypt as much as the next, but
there's plenty to talk about on this continent. Okay, today's
question is about the US Constitution. Here to help me
answer this question is maybe the best possible person to
answer it. It's Jeffrey Rosen. He's the president and CEO
of the National Constitution Center. His soon to be released
(01:19):
book is titled The Pursuit of Liberty. How Hamilton Versus
Jefferson ignited the lasting battle over power in America. I
highly recommend it. Jeffrey. Thank you for joining me today.
Jeffrey Rosen (01:31):
Great to be with you.
Bob Crawford (01:33):
Okay, Jeffrey, here's the question we were hoping you could
help us answer. It comes from Susan Goldberg in Tallahassee, Florida.
I worry about presidential overreach. What did our founders put
in the Constitution to protect us from a dictator taking
over the presidency? Now, this is a great question. Maybe
a good place to start would be to understand the
(01:56):
mindset of the framers of the Constitution when they wrote it.
How worried were they about the overturning of elections or
a president acting like a monarch or dictator.
Jeffrey Rosen (02:09):
It's a great question, and the founders were very worried
about demagogues and dictators. I have a new book out
on how the battle between Hamilton and Jefferson defines all
of American history, and it starts with the following scene.
It's Jefferson's house, President Washington's away and he invites the
whole cabinet over. Hamilton looks around the room and says,
(02:30):
who are those three guys on the wall. Jefferson says,
those are my three greatest men in history, John Locke,
Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton. Hamilton pauses, and then he says,
the greatest man that ever lived was Julius Caesar. And
Jefferson writes in his diary this proves that Hamilton is
for a dictator based on corruption. And then he goes
(02:51):
on to found the Democratic Republican Party in supposed opposition
to the monarchical, dictatorial ambitions of Hamilton and the Federalists.
And now it's such a great story because Hamilton was
almost certainly joking, and he spends his whole career warning
of a Caesar like dictator who will ride in and
fan the passions of the mob. In fact, the whole
(03:12):
Constitutional Convention is called in response to Shay's rebellion, the
mob violence in western Massachusetts where farmers are mobbing the
federal courthouses, and Hamilton writes in the Federal's papers, imagine
that Chay's rebellion had been headed by a Caesar or
a Cromwell, it would have led to the subversion of
the republic. So, in other words, both Hamilton and Jefferson
(03:35):
are centrally concerned about a Caesar like demagogue who will
flatter the people, subvert Republican institutions, and install himself as
a dictator. Both Hamilton and Jefferson think that they've found
such a would be Caesar in Aaron Burr. And in fact,
Hamilton says, if we have a crypto Caesar or an
(03:55):
embryo Caesar, tis Burr. And they think that Burr is
conspired ring to foment insurrection in Spanish Louisiana and install
himself as the dictator of a newly established American state.
And that's why Hamilton dies in the duel, and that's
why Jefferson prosecutes Burr for treason. So Burr is the
(04:17):
warning sign of someone who will subvert American democracy. And
what's the danger of an Aaron Burr? He subverts the
separation of powers and wants to call off elections. And therefore,
the answer to Susanna's great question is what are the
founders put in the Constitution to prevent a Caesar like dictator?
(04:39):
The separation of powers that is the most important constitutional feature.
Bob Crawford (04:44):
All right, So let's talk about those separations of powers.
There's horizontal separation and vertical separation, right, horizontal checks and balances,
vertical federal state. Can you describe those for us?
Jeffrey Rosen (04:58):
Absolutely? The big idea is that the power belongs to
the people. We, the people of the United States, create
the Constitution. We have the sovereign power. We parcel out
bits of that power to the three branches of the
federal government, the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. And
we also divide it between the federal government and the
(05:18):
states to ensure that none of our representatives can speak
in our name. And our ultimate power is embodied in
the Constitution itself. So the very first draft of the Constitution,
drafted by the Committee of Detail, and it's in the
handwriting of James Wilson of Pennsylvania, says resolved that the
government of the United States shall consist of a legislative, executive,
(05:41):
and judicial branch. That's it. It's not we the people,
it's not why, it's just separation of powers. And this
is coming from Montesquieu, who's the French political philosopher who's
quoted more than anyone else at the Constitutional Convention, and
Montesquieu says, all pure republics always degenerate into their bad forms.
(06:05):
So a pure monarchy will degenerate it too, tyranny, aristocracy
into oligarchy, democracy into the mob. You have to have
mixed governments where you separate powers and blend and balance
them against each other, to prevent any one group from
getting all the power and consolidating power. So that the
president isn't a king, so that he can't order people
(06:27):
in jail on his own, says, so he can't make
the country go to war, so he can't have taxation
without representation. This is the whole point of the revolution,
is to prevent a president from becoming like King George
and becoming a dictator. So that's the big idea. Separate
the legislative, executive and judicial power, make them independent of
each other, so that ambition can be made to counteract ambition,
(06:51):
as James Madison so famously put it in the Federalist Papers,
and will ensure that the ultimate power remains in the people.
Bob Crawford (06:57):
Did the founders see the separated powers legislative, executive, judicial
as being equal.
Jeffrey Rosen (07:05):
They were all independent, but in practice the Founders feared
and believed that the most dangerous of the three branches
would be Congress. James Madison said that Congress would suck
all power into its impetuous vortex. As he memorably put it,
he thought that the executive would have the power to
(07:26):
execute Congress's laws, but would be a chief magistrate, vigorous
but constrained. And the judiciary was going to be the
least dangerous branch, as Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalst.
Seventy eight, because it had neither person nor sword. It
couldn't force its judgments to be enforced. It couldn't make
the president listen to it. It relied on legitimacy and
(07:47):
on the wilful acquiescence of the other two branches.
Bob Crawford (07:52):
So let's play this scenario out. According to the Founders,
what would happen if an executive defied a judicial decision,
if the president defied the Supreme the Supreme Court decision
you just said, the Supreme Court does not have a sword.
They have no way to really enforce.
Jeffrey Rosen (08:13):
This is the great dilemma and the great concern of
the Supreme Court ever since the beginning. John Marshall becomes
Chief Justice. He has a rivalry with his distant relative,
Thomas Jefferson, who he cordially despises, and he's really afraid
if he orders Jefferson to do something Jefferson doesn't want
to do, Jefferson's gonna ignore him, and it'll reveal the
(08:36):
judiciary to be weak. On the other hand, Marshall can't
refuse to confront Jefferson at all, because that'll show that
the judiciary has no power. Marshall comes up with a
brilliant solution. He asserts the court's power to strike down
on constitutional laws, but he refuses to order Jefferson to
do something he knows Jefferson and ignore because, as Marshall says,
(08:57):
I'm not fond of butting my head against a wall sport.
He doesn't want to fight battles he can lose. And
it's this delicate combination of diplomacy and assertiveness that makes
Marshall the greatest Chief Justice. He establishes the Court as
a strong and equal branch of government. But this tension
has remained throughout American history, and there's always the danger,
the risk that presidents won't listen to the Court. Thankfully,
(09:21):
we have never in all of American history had a
president who's ignored an unambiguous order of the Supreme Court,
that would be a constitutional crisis, and thankfully it hasn't
happened yet.
Bob Crawford (09:33):
Ten nineteen am. This is American History Hotline. I'm your
host Bob Crawford. Today, my guest is Jeffrey Rosen, President
and CEO of the National Constitution Center. We're talking about
the guardrails of the US Constitution. Let's talk about precedents
and norms, things not written in the Constitution, but practices
(09:55):
that honor and spirit. What was the power of George
Washington's volunteer Harry stepping down from office.
Jeffrey Rosen (10:03):
The power was invaluable. It was the most important precedent
in the entire early Republic. When King George contemplated the
fact that Washington might voluntarily step down, he said, if
he does that, he'll be the greatest man in the world.
And Washington did it. His model is the great Roman
general Cincinnatus, who reluctantly serves the state and at the
(10:25):
earliest opportunity voluntarily relinquishes power so he can go back
to his farm. And Washington could at any point have
established himself as a dictator at Newburgh and in seventeen
eighty three there's calls on him to lead a military
coup and to make himself general for life. He declines
to do that. On the contrary, he mounts a wooden
(10:47):
platform called the Temple of Virtue. He has Addison's Cato,
a play performed for the troops, praising the mild virtues
of calm philosophy. Can you imagine? And then he appeals
to the troop for patients and temperance, and so they
can just hold on a little bit. He'll ensure that
they're paid. Then he takes out he can't read the
(11:08):
letter he's trying to read to the troops. He takes
out his reading glasses and says, forgive me, gentlemen, I've
grown old in your service. Now I've grown almost blind.
The soldier's weak because they've never seen him confess weakness before.
And it's that combination of remarkable self mastery, self restraint,
and authority that makes Washington the greatest man of his age.
Bob Crawford (11:26):
How much of our federal government is norms versus constitutional law.
Jeffrey Rosen (11:32):
Well, it's a complicated blend of both. It's hard to
parcel out the exact proportion, but there's no doubt that
the law rests on norms, and the most important norms
are not written in law. We just identified the norm
that presidents voluntarily step down at the end of their term.
It's not written in the Constitution that they have to.
(11:54):
But presidents have more or less since Washington, voluntarily relinquish power,
and there are so many and the norm that judicial
decisions are obeyed. President Eisenhower's decision to send the airborne
troops to back up the court's order that you had
to integrate the school of Little Rock. He didn't have
to do that. The Constitution didn't make him, but he
(12:15):
thought that his job to execute the law included the
job of sending troops to enforce the unambiguous orders of
the U. S. Supreme Court. It really shows how incredibly
resilient our system is, but also how delicate, how fragile
it is, how it really does depend on the virtue
(12:37):
of our public officials. Virtue means self restrained, moderation, compromise, tranquility, balance,
recognizing that it's the willingness to disagree without being disagreeable,
to listen to different points of view. Anytime one branch
pushes its power too far, the whole system risks collapsing.
Bob Crawford (13:00):
Some of you for your favorite examples of when the
Constitution was put to the test and worked.
Jeffrey Rosen (13:08):
The first great example is the election of eighteen hundred.
The political parties who are up and running. Jefferson has
created the Democratic Republicans, Adams for the Federalists. It's a
contested election, decided by Hamilton's last minute decision to side
with Jefferson rather than Burr. You know, it almost brings
the country to its knees. But what happens Adams voluntarily
(13:32):
surrenders power, although he does leave early in the morning
before the inauguration. The system works, and then the most
moving ending a few years later, Adams and Jefferson reconcile.
They have one of the most beautiful correspondences in American history,
where they talk about their shared love for philosophy, for
the Bible, and for the wisdom of the ages. And
(13:54):
then they both die on the same day, July fourth,
eighteen twenty six, with Adams whispering Jefferson still lives, not
realizing Jefferson had died a few hours earlier. That shows
on the willingness of Americans to engage with even their
greatest political opponents. I end the book on Hamilton and
(14:15):
Jefferson with the remarkable fact that after Hamilton died in
the duel, Jefferson put his bust next to Jefferson's own
bust in the entrance hall of Monticello. You can see
it today if you go there. And whenever he would
pass it, Jefferson would smile and say, opposed in life
as in death. For him, Hamilton was not a hated
enemy to be destroyed, but a respected opponent to be engaged.
(14:37):
And he signaled that respect by putting Hamilton's bust in
the entrance hall. And then there's so many other inspiring
examples of the system holding and the center holding and
because the norms hold. Think of Andrew Jackson, elected as
the great Populist. He's an opponent of the Bank of
(14:58):
the United States. He says, the bank is trying to
kill me, but I will kill it. You might have
thought he'd be a friend of secession because of his
devotion to Jefferson and states rights. But when South Carolina
issued its a nullification proclamation and asserted its right to
refuse to obey federal laws had disagreed with like the
(15:19):
hated tariff of Abominations of eighteen twenty nine. Jackson, in
this dramatic toast, nobly says liberty and union they must
be preserved, and by signaling his devotion to union rather
than secession, he preserves the Union. And then think of
(15:40):
the greatest testing in American history, the Great Secession Crisis.
Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas have debated. Lincoln wins the
contested election of eighteen sixty. It's been a flight, a
fight unlike any other. But what does Douglas do after
he loses the election. He pledges his allegiance to Lincoln
(16:03):
and to Union, and he holds Lincoln's hat during the
inaugural speech. It's just so moving that that's how much
of a patriot is. And Douglas dies soon after, and
his last whispered words or that his own sons will
defend the Union in the face of secession. We could
keep going, but it really is inspiring that at our
moments of greatest testing, patriotic presidents have signaled their devotion
(16:27):
to Union and to the Constitution of the United States.
Bob Crawford (16:33):
This is American History Hotline. I'm your host, Bob Crawford. Today,
my guest is Jeffrey Roseen. His forthcoming book is The
Pursuit of Liberty. How Hamilton versus Jefferson ignited the lasting
battle over power in America. We're talking about the United
States Constitution and how much of a beating it can withstand.
We've talked about how examples of where the Constitution held right,
(16:59):
where the checks and balances did their job. What are
some examples that you can think of where they did not.
Jeffrey Rosen (17:07):
Well. The biggest, of course, is the Civil War and
the Southern States seceded. Lincoln denied their constitutional right to
secede and said he had not only the right, but
the duty to preserve the Union. Lincoln's position was based
on his view that we, the people of the entire
(17:30):
United States, had made the constitution. In fact, that the
original Union arose from the Declaration of Independence and its
assertion that all men are created equal, which created an
American nation. The Southern States insisted that as sovereign states,
they could withdraw from the Union, and the war came,
as Lincoln said, establishing the proposition that the Union was indissoluble.
(17:55):
Since then, we've had great testing moments, mostly involving political
violence and insurrection. When you think about insurrection in the US,
It's remarkable how relatively rare political violence has been, as
the great historian Richard Hofstadter said in his Definitive History
of Political Violence. Political violence in the US after the
(18:18):
Revolution started with Shay's Rebellion, those farmers in western Massachusetts
mobbing the federal courthouses. It continued with the Whisky Rebellion
once again, dissatisfied farmers in the back country of Pennsylvania
rebelling against Hamilton's hated whiskey tax, and they attack the
federal tax collector and tar and featherham and eventually Washington
(18:42):
has to go on horseback with Hamilton at his side.
The only time a US president has led a military charge,
goes to Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The opposition melts away, and Washington
and Man pardons most of the rebels. Jefferson wants to
pardon and forgive insurrectionists at every stage. He says that
(19:03):
the blood of liberty has to be moistened with revolution.
He kind of endorses the French Revolution in a rather
chilling endorsement of violence, showing the difference between Hamilton and
Jefferson on that question. And then, when you think about
political violence, of course, erupted brutally during the Civil War,
but then after the Civil War, we saw more violence
(19:24):
in opposition to reconstruction and in the bloody Battle of
New Orleans of eighteen seventy four, where there's armed conflict
in the streets over who's been elected governor. And then
in the racist reaction to reconstruction legislation like the Colfax massacre,
where African Americans are brutally murdered trying to defend state
(19:47):
buildings after a legitimate election. We see what the historian
Jefferson Cowi calls white resistance to federal power basically, which
can take the form of violence at times. That continued
in the nineteen twenties with anti immigrant violence, and then
(20:07):
during the Civil Rights era after Brown v. Board of Education,
when Southern separatists didn't want to obey the Supreme Court,
they tried to block the integration of the schools as
well as violently resisting voting rights, and we had dramas
ranging from Little Rock to Pettus Bridge. In all of
(20:29):
these cases of violence, it was crucial that the federal
government come down on the side of Union, and it
was only Lincoln's decision to enforce Union, and Grant's decision
initially to enforce reconstruction, and Lyndon Johnson's decision to enforce
civil rights, Eisenhower's decision to send the troops that ultimately
(20:53):
led to the triumph of Union. But it reminds us
that the point of the Constitution is to constrain politics
with principle in order to avoid violence. And when we
abandon our devotion to the constitution and the rule of law,
then violence can result.
Bob Crawford (21:10):
We talked about the weakness of the judicial branch to
enforce its decisions. Let's talk about the political recaliation. Does
the constitution stop a president from using his power against
his political rivals.
Jeffrey Rosen (21:26):
That's a good question, and the answer is not explicitly there.
Those are norms. There's a norm in the Justice department
of a political prosecutions, but ultimately the president has the
executive power. He controls prosecutions if he uses them in
a treasonous or corrupt way. The founders anticipated that the
(21:51):
remedy would be impeachment. They were very afraid of foreign corruption,
in particular, that might enlist a corrupt president to take
bribes and perhaps to wield power on his own behalf
for self interested reasons. But they believed that impeachment for treason, bribery,
(22:11):
or other high crimes or misdemeanors, as the language of
the impeachment clause originally put, it would ensure that patriotic
congress people would remove from office any corrupt or treason
as president.
Bob Crawford (22:24):
What about a situation, a scenario where one political party
orchestrates a prolonged attempt to take over the government at
every level and in every branch. It installs loyalists in
every top position. The government becomes a shadow democracy. Did
the Framers anticipate a scenario like that.
Jeffrey Rosen (22:46):
They did not, because they did not anticipate political parties.
They imagined that the real threat was what they called faction.
And James Madison defines a faction as any group, a
majority or a minority, animated by passion rather than reason,
devoted to self interest rather than the public good. Now,
pretty soon Madison and Jefferson presided over the creation of
(23:08):
the first political party, the Democratic Republican Party, in opposition
to the Federalists. Madison came to see parties as useful
ways of aggregating different political interests and integrated them into
the system. Thought that in productive ways. They could ensure
a clash of principle rather than pure politics. However, the
(23:32):
whole system depends on the separation of powers, which we
started talking about, and the founders did not anticipate that Congress,
for example, would stop checking the president because of partisan loyalty.
They thought Congress will assert its constitutional progres and the
judiciary also will independently enforce the Constitution and not be
(23:55):
taken over by any particular faction. So the whole system
depends on the separation of powers.
Bob Crawford (24:00):
Next year, we're going to celebrate our nation's two hundred
and fiftieth anniversary. The Constitution's about two hundred and forty
years old roughly. I remember Harriet Martineau, who was a
British journalist who visited the United States in the mid
eighteen thirties. She visited with the elderly president, former President Madison,
(24:22):
and she wrote something to the extent of, even if
the United States only last this fifty years the Constitution's
been in place at that point, even if it only
lasts fifty years, it is the greatest achievement of humankind.
Here we are trying to get to two hundred and
forty For the Constitution trying to get to two hundred
(24:44):
and fifty for the United States? Were the founders optimistic
about the longevity of the nation?
Jeffrey Rosen (24:52):
Great question in great quotation from Harriet Martineau, And she's
absolutely right. The founding of America on the principles of liberty, equality,
and government by consent is the most inspiring achievement for
liberty in human history. Were the founders optimistic that it
would succeed? No, they were not optimistic, all of them
(25:13):
for various reasons. Feared the fragility of the republic. Washington
fears faction and the rise of the new political parties.
Jefferson rightly fears civil war over slavery, which he sees
like a tolling bell in the night. Hamilton thinks the
executive isn't strong enough to defend America. Adams has a
(25:37):
very dark view of human nature and preciently predicts the
dangers of financial oligarchy and thinks that rule by elites
may degenerate to threaten liberty. Only Madison's a little more
optimistic because he both expects less of the system, which
he thinks will check and balance passion. But Madison does
(26:00):
put a lot of faith in a new media technology,
the broadside press, which allows citizens to read complicated arguments
like the Federalist papers in the newspapers, to discuss them
with their representatives, never to talk directly to the president.
The idea of a tweeting president as a Madisonian nightmare.
But through deep reading and deliberation, he hopes that reason
(26:20):
will slowly spread across the land, and a new class
of enlightened statesman, he calls the literati, will ensure the
triumph of reason over passion. Now, even as I describe
that Madisonian hope, it seems like we're kind of far
from that vision, which really reminds us of the urgent
importance of civic education. For all the founders. Everything turns
(26:42):
on the citizens and on your willingness to educate yourselves,
to learn about American history, the principles of the Constitution,
how to deliberate without descending it to violence, how to
disagree without being disagreeable, and most importantly, to keep the
principles of the Declaration and the Constitution before our eyes
(27:02):
and in our minds and hearts at every moment. You
mentioned Harriet Martineau and Madison in the eighteen thirties there's
another moment just a few years later in eighteen thirty
nine where John Quincy Adams, who's another hero of both
of ours, I know, gives a speech on the jubilee
of the Constitution and it's Washington's fiftieth anniversary of his inauguration,
and Adams fears civil war which is brimming on the horizon,
(27:24):
and he says, we are going to degenerate into violence
unless we study and keep the principles of the Declaration
and the Constitution. And then in this amazing moment, he
quotes the Book of Deuteronomy from the Hebrew Bible and says,
of the principles of the Declaration of the Constitution. Take
these principles as frontlets between your eyes, place them upon
(27:45):
your hands and your arms. Whisper them to your children
before you speak. Make them the principles of your political salvation.
So that's how important it is for John Quincy Adams
that we learn about and study the principles of the
Declaration and the Constitution. If we do that, he believes
that the Union will prevail, and if we don't, we
will degenerate into civil war.
Bob Crawford (28:04):
I always want John Quincy Adams and Jeffrey Rosen to
have the last word. I've been talking with Jeffrey Rosen.
He's the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center.
His forthcoming book, The Pursuit of Liberty, How Hamilton Versus
Jefferson Ignited the lasting battle over power in America. Check
(28:25):
it out. Jeffrey, thanks for joining us today on American
History Hotline.
Jeffrey Rosen (28:30):
Thank you so much.
Intro (28:34):
You've been listening to American History Hotline, a production of
iHeart Podcasts and Scratch Track Productions. The show's executive producer
is James Morrison. Our executive producers from iHeart are Jordan
Runtall and Jason English. Original music composed by me Bob Crawford.
Bob Crawford (28:54):
Please keep in touch.
Intro (28:55):
Our email is Americanhistory Hotline at gmail dot com. If
you like the show, please tell your friends and leave
us a review in Apple Podcasts. I'm your host, Bob Crawford.
Feel free to hit me up on social media to
ask a history question or to let me know what
you think of the show. You can find me at
(29:16):
Bob Crawford Base. Thanks so much for listening.
Bob Crawford (29:19):
See you next week.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com