ConSource: Good News For People Who Love America & The Constitution

Got an email this morning from a good friend of mine who helped found ConSource, the post-partisan effort to collect and digitize primary source documents related to the creation of the American Constitution. It seems a heretofore unknown/identified early draft of the Constitution has been found by Lorianne Updike-Toler, also a friend of the blog.

(It would be more accurate to say that she's a friend of the blog's author as I have no idea what she thinks of the blog as such.)

Anyway, here's the story:

Researcher Lorianne Updike Toler was intrigued by the centuries-old document at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

On the back of a treasured draft of the U.S. Constitution was a truncated version of the same document, starting with the familiar words: "We The People. . . ."

They had been scribbled upside down by one of the Constitution's framers, James Wilson, in the summer of 1787. The cursive continued, then abruptly stopped, as if pages were missing.

A mystery, Toler thought, until she examined other Wilson papers from the Historical Society's vault in Philadelphia and found what appeared to be the rest of the draft, titled "The Continuation of the Scheme."

[...]

"This was the kind of moment historians dream about," said Toler, 30, a lawyer and founding president of the Constitutional Sources Project (www.ConSource.org), a nonprofit organization, based in Washington, that promotes an understanding of and access to U.S. Constitution documents.

"This was national scripture, a piece of our Constitution's history," she said of her find in November. "It was difficult to keep my hands from trembling."

As other researchers "realized what was happening, there was a sort of hushed awe that settled over the reading room," Toler said. "One of them said the hair on her arms stood on end."

Two drafts of the Constitution in Wilson's hand had been separated from his papers long ago. One of them included the beginning of still another draft and was apparently seen as part of a single working version, instead of a separate draft.

Toler said "The Continuation of the Scheme," including its provisions about the executive and judiciary branches, completes that draft, making it a third.

As always, if you're interested in learning more about or supporting the efforts of ConSource, please click the link.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me atlybberty@gmail.com.

Constitutional Sources Project

ConSource is a non-partisan effort to collect, digitize and cross reference all the primary source material related to the creation of the Constitution. They seek to make it available to everyone--students, lawyers, judges, teachers, professors--as part of what I consider to be an ongoing effor to Democratize history. It is an excellent cause that, as a student of history, I hold near and dear to my heart.

I've written previously about the good work done by ConSource here, here, here, here, here, here, here, & here.

They recently kicked off a capital fundraising drive and I've happily agreed to do what I can to aid them in their efforts. Longtime friend and friend of this blog, Matt Berry, penned a letter explaining ConSource and their future goals. Please, give it a read and donate if you can. If you can't, please spread the word or do whatever else you can to aid us in bringing off this wonderful national service.

Friends,

As many of you know, for the past couple of years I have been actively involved with the Constitutional Sources Project—now known across the country as ConSource.

A registered 501c3 non-profit organization, ConSource was founded with the singular goal of created an online, searchable database of all original source documents used by the Founders of this country in drafting our Constitution. And after three years of research, the project is now getting closer and closer to its ultimate goal of containing every constitutional source from antiquity to the 27th Amendment.

With the help of other donors and countless volunteers, ConSource has become an innovation all its own. It offers the only source for searchable text transcripts, high-resolution original images, advanced searching, and scholarly certification standards for its documents. Moreover, no other database in American Constitutional history has allowed for real-time cross-referencing of individual documents within the Constitution.

In offering what it does, ConSource has gained a reputation across the legal community. In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the US Supreme Court used the ConSource legal database in their decision—see related article on law.com here: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202423267162

ConSource was proud to receive official endorsements from former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and current Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia—all three of whom have participated in events held on the project's behalf. On the political side, ConSource recently received a bipartisan show of support signed by Senators Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, Samuel Brownback, and Edward Kennedy.

The project is now housed in Washington, DC on K Street at the renowned international law firm Winston & Strawn, and has close to 200 student volunteers from BYU and Yale working on new source documents. As always, ConSource is forever grateful for the support it receives from the generous donors, supporters, and volunteers. Preserving these documents is vital to the relevance of our Constitution for generations to come.

With the unexpected attention and growth ConSource is proud to announce the preparation for the launch of ConSource 2.0. Along with many aesthetic and user-friendly upgrades, version 2.0 will also include a number of new data search options as well as hundreds of recently added digital papers, including the notes of Benjamin Franklin.

Three years ago we could not have anticipated the amount of attention ConSource has received, and we would have been shocked at the amount of traffic the site would attract—over 200,000 unique visitors each month and growing. It is because of this success that we set out to develop a stronger web platform to handle the volume of users now taking advantage of ConSource.

We need your help in facilitating these upgrades, and introducing more people to the thoughts that built this great nation.

This project would not have happened without the help of our many generous donors, volunteers, and public advocates. As the influence of ConSource has broadened, so has the understanding of our founding principals. We ask that you help us continue this effort in any way you can. To contribute to this vital cause please go to:
https://secure48.easycgi.com/consource/donate.asp

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

ConSource

Tomorrow, watch for my mega-awesome post about ConSource and their ongoing efforts to preserve and make available that most important of historical documents, the Constitution of the United State of America.

As a preview, read this quote--the inspiration for ConSource--from James Madison:

It has been the misfortune of history that a personal knowledge and an impartial judgement of things rarely meet in the historian. The best history of our Country, therefore. must be the fruit of contributions bequeathed by contemporary actors and witnesses to successors who will make the unbiased use of them. And if the abundance and authenticity of the materials which still exist in the private as well as public repositories among us should descent into hands capable of doing justice to them, the American History may be expected to contain more truth, and lessons, certainly not less valuable, than those of any Country or age.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Happy Belated Constitution Day

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention something about yesterday's Constitutional anniversary. I'll quote the ConSource anniversary email which in turn quoted Benjamin Franklin:

I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such....For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an Assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does....Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best.

Freedom. Liberty. Majority rule. Rule of Law. Checks & Balances and Separation of Powers. These are the things outlined by the Constitution and are the principles in which I believe.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Consource & Heller

Alright all you Constitutionally-inclined readers, here's the Heller update for which you've all been waiting. Most of it is straight from our monthly ConSource update email. ConSource, you'll recall, is the effort to collect, digitize and make available all the primary source documents related to the creation of the Constitution. For the last 2+ years we've "consulted" for our friend Matt Berry, one of ConSource's founders.

***

On March 18, 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Heller v. District of Columbia, otherwise known as the D.C. gun ban case. Though the Second Amendment has been a source of much debate, there has not been a significant Supreme Court case on the subject in over 70 years. More, Heller provides the Court its first opportunity to decide whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.

Most importantly for the project, documents found on ConSource have played a role in the case. Because the Court is reviewing an issue of first impression, both sides have turned to sources from the Framing to decipher the intent of the Second Amendment's obscure wording: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. References and debates pre-dating the Second Amendment are found in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, State Ratification Debates, and the Legislative History of the Bill of Rights, all available at www.ConSource.org. Links to the documents on ConSource detailing the history of the Second Amendment's creation and reviewed by the parties in Heller are provided at the bottom of this e-mail. To highlight the part of the document that relates to either clause in the Second Amendment, please use the Constitutional Index found on the right-hand side of each document's webpage.

To read a blog written by Judge Paul Cassel on the Volokh Conspiracy about ConSource'’s role in Heller, please click here.

(ed. note: Spikers, we know Volokh is a UCLA guy, hopefully, as an SC guy, you can look past that.)

Related Second Amendment Documents on ConSource.org

The United States Constitution:

Bill of Rights, Amendments I-X

Federalist Papers:

Federalist 4

Federalist 29

Anti-Federalist and Pro-Federalist Papers:

The Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention (December 18, 1787)

Ratification Debates:

Journal Notes of the Virginia Ratification Convention Proceedings (June 27, 1788)

Journal Notes of the Massachusetts Ratification Convention Proceedings, A.M. (February 6, 1788)

Alexander J. Dallas’ Notes of the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention P.M. (December 12, 1787)

Legislative History of the Bill of Rights:

Bill of Rights’ Drafts and Votes

Madison's Resolution for Amendments to the Constitution (June 8, 1789)

House Committee Report (July 28, 1789)

Amendments Proposed by the Virginia Convention (June 27, 1789)

Articles of Amendments, As Agreed to by the Senate (September 14, 1789)

Amendments to the Constitution (September 28, 1789)

Debates in the House of Representatives

The Congressional Register (August 17, 1789)

The Congressional Register (August 21, 1789)

Newspaper Report of the House of Representatives Debates on August 20, 1789 (August 22, 1789)

Letters of the Framers:

John Randolph to St. George Tucker (September 11, 1789)

George Mason to John Lamb (June 09, 1788)

Jeremy Belknap to Paine Wingate (May 29, 1789

Fisher Ames to Thomas Dwight (June 11, 1789)

Fisher Ames to George R. Minot (June 12, 1789)

***

This case is a perfect example of the usefulness of ConSource. If you are so able, we recommend you make a donation to ConSource to help support their efforts.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

A Brief Note On Constitutional Interpretation

This isn't a law blog or a Supreme Court specific blog. We don't pretend to be experts on either of those topics. Therefore, we opine on judicial philosophy with a certain degree of humility. Our opinion derives from our conservative, traditionalist background.

As a historian, we have a respect for primary source documents. They are the tools of our trade. From them we try to construct a humble narrative--one that attempts to get at the "true" history while allowing for difference of opinion on meaning.

When it comes to the Constitution, a document with which we are familiar and about whose history we know a little, we give it the utmost respect. Sure, it had its flaws--slavery foremost among those--but it is still a landmark, awesome, and foundational document.

Unlike any other prior founding and many since, it was adopted by the consent of the people and conceived by their representatives. From it flow all of our laws and the legitimacy of our government.

As the primary law of the United States of America, the Constitution, we believe, has primacy over all other laws--whether created by Congress, decreed by Executive Order or instituted by Supreme Court fiat. We believe that all government officials and all other laws must derive from the powers, authorities, and procedures it describes.

Thus, in considering a judicial philosophy--especially for the Supreme Court--we believe that they should take for guidance first the Constitution and then American legal precedence. In trying to determine originalism or original intent or a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, Justices and judges should look to three sources:

First, the intent of the Founders, inasmuch as it can be discerned from the primary source documents (letters, journals, notes) related to its creation.

Second, the understanding of the ratifying masses. There exist newspapers, pamphlets and transcripts of debates about the Constitution during the campaign for ratification. Judges can get at how a given section of the Constitution was understood by the people who ratified it.

Third, a reasonable interpretation of the text itself. We think legal scholars call this textual originalism.

From these three, not necessarily in that order, should derive a reasonable understanding of the Constitution. It is true that American jurisprudence harks to English common law, but unlike the English legal system, we have a written Constitution with holds primacy over the opinion of any given judge.

We believe that strict Constitutional interpretation is far superior to the judge or justice who makes law of their own morals or personal opinion. The Founders outlined a process whereby the Constitution could be changed by democratic process. Within the framework of the Constitution, laws which are not at odds with the Constitution can be created. Laws created by these processes have the virtue of common consent either by the citizens of the United States or their representative officials. Again, this is, in our opinion, far superior to the legal codification of personal opinion by judicial activists. Unable to persuade a large enough majority to adopt their measure or view through democratic process--Congress or Constitutional Amendment--these groups instead impose their views through what amounts to judicial tyranny.

We understand that even our favored judges do not always follow an "originalist" or strict interpretation of the Constitution. Just because they fail to do so does not invalidate the philosophy. And, with the collection and digitization of Constitutionally related primary source documents through Consource, understanding and interpretation of the Constitution is becoming easier and more accessible to everyone.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

David McCullough & ConSource

ConSource is a good and worthy effort to digitize relevant primary source documents related to the Constitution and make them available to everyone.

We received the following information via email and pass it along to you, dear reader.

***

Join us today for:

George Washington: From Commander in Chief to Chief Executive

Taught by:

David McCullough
Pulitzer Prize-Winning Author

Webcast at www.ConSource.org
Wednesday, February 13th
2:00-3:00 p.m. EDT

All students are invited to learn and ask questions about George Washington first-hand by participating in this online President's Day celebration.

For more information, please visit www.ConSource.org.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Matt Berry: "He's a really patriotic guy"

Raisin had a field day with our last post about football patriot and erstwhile OL&L contributor, Matt Berry. But we can take it. In that article, we wrote about John Kerry's infamous botched joke and the usual idiocy from Chuck Rangel and referred the reader to Berry who we argued was an example of the type of person who often volunteers to serve--educated, accomplished, yet desiring to defend his/her country.

Well, Berry has been home from basic for a few months and while preparing for officer candidate school, he has continued working on ConSource--another project we've written about before.

In our daily review of cougarfan.com, we came across a recent ABC News 4 piece about Berry and his military service. His candor is refreshing. None of the false, 'shoot 'em up' bravado the loony left uses to caricature soldiers and conservatives. Nope, Berry is as honest about his patriotic desires to serve his country as he is his fears of what might happen to him in Iraq or Afghanistan. Click here to watch the video.

Thanks for your service, Matt.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Matt Berry is a really good guy

We generally try to avoid out and out mention of our friends in our blog. This is a departure from past experience where our folksy attempts at a Top 10 list often included references to family and friends. In the recent case of Matt Berry, we simply can't help ourselves.

Consider first the "botched joke" of John Kerry. Everyone has heard about how Mr. Kerry essentially called the military dumb and poor. We wrote about it here. Congressman Charles Rangel has been making waves with his call for a draft and has been even more explicit in his contempt for the troops:

"If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career, or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq," Mr. Rangel, a Democrat representing Manhattan and Queens, said on "Fox News Sunday."

"If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment," the congressman said.

Even our moronic hometown newspaper has picked up on the theme. The liberal elitist worldview reads that only poor, uneducated--mostly minorities--serve in the military. As recent reports about the overall intelligence of our military as compared to the general populace show, this isn't true. But even if it were true, when did it become bad that people surveyed their list of choices, and then decided to join the military? They see opportunities to get ahead--just the same as someone who attends community college. It is typical of liberal condescension that they look down on those who, without a trust fund, do what they can to get educated and get ahead.

Back to Berry.

Mr. Berry's experience, highlighted wonderfully in an article in the Salt Lake Tribune by Patrick Kinahan (hat tip: Matt Lybbert), shows perfectly that even the "advantaged" are joining the military--and for purely virtuous reasons. Just because some liberals don't include patriotism in their list of priorities, doesn't make those who volunteer irrational.

The recently deceased Milton Friedman made a passionate case for an all-volunteer army. He surmised, based on economic research, that an all volunteer army would most effectively and efficiently allocate the nation's manpower. Sure, many would join because it gave them economic opportunities. So what? Others like Mr. Berry join because they are patriots. Whatever the motivation, these young men and women are hardly stupid or ignorant for joining. They aren't being duped.

Mr. Berry lists among his many accomplishments being a former BYU QB who graduated with a degree in history. He even wrote for this blog(!). He was also a co-founder of Consource where he worked with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and others (Justice Scalia) to make primary source documents relating to the creation of the Constitution available online to everyone. After completing basic training and officer candidate's school, Mr. Berry intends to pursue a graduate degree.

And Mr. Berry is hardly an anomaly. There are others like him. When we spoke with him just before leaving for basic, he mentioned that there were several others in his induction group who had families, were older, and had degrees. These volunteers were established. They hardly fit the profile of young, ignorant, uneducated, minorities like Mr. Rangel would like you to believe.


If you have questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.