A review of PBS’s “The White House: Inside Story”

“Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man [such as a president] in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished.”

– Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 70)

We hear a lot about the “big historical events” of the American presidency. And, to some extent, this is as it should be – some events may just be more worthy of frequent mention than others. But what about day-to-day life at the White House, in either the past or the present? And what about the architectural history of the White House building itself? These are some of the questions that this program attempts to answer, in its brief two-hour runtime. This program was made in 2016, when Barack Obama was still president. (He left office on January 20th, 2017.) And, fortunately for the filmmakers, President Obama was very cooperative with them in allowing them to film various parts of the White House. As the filmmakers note in this film, thousands of people still tour the White House on a typical day, seeing rooms that are actually used for official state functions. That is, they don’t just see “show rooms,” but actual buildings that are regularly used for Washington business. They may see a dining room where a state dinner was recently held, or the Oval Office where the president does much of his business. In some ways, the White House is similar to a palace, which is on loan to whoever currently holds the office. But, if so, it’s a very democratic palace, full of American history stretching back to the country’s founding.

The White House after the fire of 1814

A review of PBS’s “The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln”

“Don’t know the manners of good society, eh? Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside out, old gal – you sockdologizing old man-trap!”

– A comedic line from the play “Our American Cousin” (1858) – spoken by an actor at Ford’s Theater in 1865, the moment before Lincoln was shot there by John Wilkes Booth

Background on John Wilkes Booth, and his unrealized plot to kidnap Abraham Lincoln

I have seen many films about the Civil War. But this film may still rank among the best, despite its relative brevity. It is only 90 minutes long, and it is brilliantly narrated by the actor Chris Cooper. It has many omissions, but it also has some great storytelling. (More about the omissions later.) After a brief introduction, they start by delving into the early life of John Wilkes Booth. They spend some time on his successful stage career, and his early sympathy with the Confederacy. Ironically, John Wilkes Booth had a pro-Northern brother, who later disowned the actions of his notorious sibling. The brother-against-brother phenomenon extended right into the Booths’ own family. But I’m getting ahead of myself here. They spend time on his growing dissatisfaction with Abraham Lincoln, which would later turn into murderous rage. Booth felt some guilt about not having fought for the Confederacy on the battlefield. Thus, he recruited people to help him in a plot to kidnap Abraham Lincoln, and bring him southward. Obviously, this kidnapping plot was never realized – partly because his accomplices pointed out that there were some slight flaws in his plan. But, eight hours before the fateful gunshots, he learned that President Lincoln would be attending Ford’s Theater that night. Thus, he worked at a feverish pace to lay the groundwork for the later events of that evening. Lincoln had few bodyguards around him, in part because no president had ever been assassinated before. That is, there were many other times where Booth could have killed Lincoln with relatively few risks to himself. But he chose Ford’s Theater instead, in part because of his familiarity with the stage. Thus, he got ready to kill President Lincoln. But he also had some accomplices remaining, as well as two other targets.

John Wilkes Booth, the man who murdered Abraham Lincoln

Booth with brothers Edwin and Junius Jr. in Julius Caesar

A review of Ken Burns’ “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History”

A miniseries covering Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Eleanor Roosevelt

Just as the Americans remember Mr. Churchill, so do the British remember Mr. Roosevelt. But when people in Britain hear the name “Roosevelt,” they tend to think of Franklin Roosevelt, the man who led the United States during World War II. Many in Britain don’t even realize that there was another “Roosevelt” president before him. That is, there was Theodore Roosevelt, in the early twentieth century. Theodore Roosevelt is a little more famous in America than he is abroad. Nonetheless, even Americans will hear the word “Roosevelt,” and instead think of his fifth cousin Franklin Roosevelt. There were two famous divisions of the Roosevelt family, of which this documentary makes extensive note. One was the “Oyster Bay Roosevelts,” the branch that produced Theodore Roosevelt. The other was the “Hyde Park Roosevelts,” the branch that produced FDR. But there was another Roosevelt who was one of the bridges between these two branches – although there were other marriages between the branches. That is, there was Eleanor Roosevelt. She was born into the “Oyster Bay Roosevelts” as Theodore Roosevelt’s niece. But she married into the “Hyde Park Roosevelts,” when she married FDR – her own fifth cousin once removed. These are the three principal characters of the story.

The Constitution itself, and the story behind it

The Constitution itself, and the story behind it

What's the difference between the presidency and the prior British monarchy?

“The supreme executive power of these kingdoms is vested by our laws in a single person, the king or queen : for it matters not to which sex the crown descends ; but the person entitled to it, whether male or female, is immediately invested with all the ensigns, rights, and prerogatives of sovereign power ; as is declared by statute 1 Mar. st. 3. c. 1.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 3

Americans discarded monarchy during their Revolution

In prior times, British laws vested the “supreme executive power” of the kingdoms into a “single person, the king or queen.” (Source: Blackstone's “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 3) The constitutional monarchy of Britain now has very little power today; but then, it was a force to be reckoned with. Blackstone further wrote that “With us therefore in England this supreme power is divided into two branches; the one legislative, to wit, the parliament, consisting of king, lords, and commons; the other executive, consisting of the king alone.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) Thus, the king was technically considered a part of the parliament with the “lords and commons”; although these two houses of Parliament did have a few checks on him in return. (All quotations from Blackstone in this post are from the “Commentaries,” so I will not note this every time.) As Blackstone wrote, the executive branch was “consisting of the king alone.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 2) When America was created, one of its most radical departures from British tradition was the total discarding of any form of monarchy. Monarchy was incredibly unpopular in the thirteen states at this time. Thomas Paine expressed this attitude well when he said: “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” (Source: “Common Sense,” Chapter III) Thus, America had a president instead; declaring in its Constitution that “The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold office during the term of four years ... ” (Source: Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 1)

The White House

How did the Founding Fathers use Blackstone's writings about the monarchy?

“The office of president is treated with levity and intimated to be a machine calculated for state pageantry. Suffer me to view the commander of the fleets and armies of America, with a reverential awe, inspired by the contemplation of his great prerogatives, though not dignified with the magic name of King, he will possess more supreme power, than Great Britain allows her hereditary monarchs, who derive ability to support an army from annual supplies, and owe the command of one to an annual mutiny law. The American president may be granted supplies for two years, and his command of a standing army is unrestrained by law or limitation.”

– An anonymous letter signed “Tamony,” dated 20 December 1787

Tamony argued that presidents would possess more “supreme power” than monarchs …

During the ratification debates, an anonymous letter to “The Virginia Independent Chronicle” feared that the president would become more powerful than a monarch. He said that the president, “though not dignified with the magic name of King, he will possess more supreme power, than Great Britain allows her hereditary monarchs” (Source: text of the letter). These fears, though unfounded, were actually quite typical of many of the opponents of the Constitution at this time. This letter was actually dated 20 December 1787, but it was not printed in “The Virginia Independent Chronicle” until 9 January 1788. Later, it was reprinted in “The Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer” on 1 February 1788; and was soon after seen by Alexander Hamilton in that Pennsylvania paper. Because Alexander Hamilton saw the version printed in Philadelphia, he would later refer to the author in the Federalist Papers as “A writer in a Pennsylvania paper, under the signature of TAMONY” (Source: Footnote to Federalist No. 69). As you might expect, Alexander Hamilton disagreed with the author of this letter on this point; and offered a response to him in the Federalist Papers. To bolster his case, he actually cited Blackstone's “Commentaries,” a prestigious legal work from that time. There is an irony in this, I might add here, since William Blackstone had actually opposed the American Revolution until his death in 1780. Nonetheless, Hamilton considered him worth citing in the Federalist Papers anyway, and proceeded to debunk Tamony's argument with some quotes from Blackstone's “Commentaries.”

Alexander Hamilton

“How many presidents have we had?” (Depends on how you count Cleveland and Trump)

So who is "Grover Cleveland," and why does he complicate this answer?

In the presidential elections of 1888, the incumbent president Grover Cleveland actually won the popular vote; but he lost the election anyway that year, because Benjamin Harrison won the electoral vote. Four years later, Cleveland won his rematch with Harrison by both measures, and was thus elected to a second term in 1892. Grover Cleveland was thus the first president ever to serve two non-consecutive terms. Thus, this distinction makes him the 22nd and 24th Presidents of the United States.

Grover Cleveland

So how many presidents have we had in this country?

So how many "Presidents of the United States" have actually held office in this country? The answer is: "Depends on how you count Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump." If you count each of them as two separate presidents, the answer is that Trump is currently our 47th President. But technically, only 45 individuals have actually served as president at the time that I write this; so the question is not as straightforward as it seems.

Grover Cleveland

Some of these presidents have been the subject of movies, such as:

However you answer it, I've blogged about most of these individuals. While I'm not a professional historian, I have as much right to an opinion as anyone else; and so I offer these posts to the world for anyone who is interested.

Why people will always find the executive branch more interesting than the other two branches

"If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?"

- Thomas Jefferson

In every society that I know of, people are fascinated by power - whether their own power, or someone else's. Even in democratic societies, people fear the power of governments; and those who have to live under totalitarian regimes live in still greater fear. People in these countries usually take great care not to offend their governments, of course, because retribution from these governments can be so terrible and swift. Obviously, the governments of more democratic countries don't possess anything like this degree of internal power, of course, but they do possess a great deal of external power that makes them a force to be reckoned with. Nowhere is this more true than the United States, I think, where the resources at the government's disposal (military and otherwise) make it more powerful than any other.

The Pentagon, the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense

People do find the executive branch (including the police and military) more interesting

All three branches of our government have power, of course, but I think people are more fascinated by the executive branch than either of the other two. There have been movies about the legislative branch (such as "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington"), and there have been movies about the judicial branch (such as the John Grisham movies). But for every movie about one of these two branches, there is another movie about the federal police force or the United States military (parts of the executive branch), and some movies even focus on the White House itself.

Headquarters of the United States Department of Justice, or "DOJ"

5 limits on presidential power that you never heard of

"For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other."

- Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" (1776), Chapter III

Impeachment is not the only limit on the president's power

"What's the difference between a president and a king?" This is a question that Americans sometimes ask themselves, and we usually conclude that there are major differences between the two (or at least ought to be). But if you had asked this question at the time of the Constitutional Convention, many Americans would have feared that there wouldn't be much difference between the two under the new Constitution. They might have said that it was too much power to give to one man (like the president), and that powers might be best confined to a larger body like the Congress. They eventually came around to see the presidency as a necessary institution despite these potential hazards, but they still worried greatly about executive power. Moreover, they were wondering how the Congress could check (or stop) the power of the presidency. The most obvious example of a legislative check on the president is the Congress's power to impeach the members of the executive branch - and, most importantly, the president himself or herself. But this is far from their only check on the president's power, since there are a number of others to be found in the Constitution, if you know where to look for them. I will be spending this post discussing just five of them.

King George the Third, the monarch that the American Revolution was (partially) fought against

The tyrannical police state: The worst nightmare of the Founding Fathers

"A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime."

- Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution

Headquarters of the United States Department of Justice, or "DOJ"

Although the president enforces the laws, they can't punish people without the courts ...

In our Constitution, it says that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States" (Source: Article 2, Section 3). This includes prosecutors and police officers. Many of these laws to be "faithfully executed" authorize particular punishments for various actions, from fines to imprisonment to being executed (depending on the seriousness of the offense, as perceived by the Congress). If the president had carte blanche to enforce these laws passed by Congress, with no limits to this power, he could carry out these punishments anytime that he said these laws were violated - or even at times when they were not. (If, that is, there were no judicial branch to check this power, and require him to prove that these violations actually happened as he claimed they did.) Thus the Constitution created a judicial branch that was as independent as possible from the President and the Congress, so that no one group would possess the power to enforce these laws at their own whim or fancy. This is one of the real bulwarks of our Constitution, and is one of the true guarantees of our liberties. Thus, I wish to spend some time on it in this post, and educate us all about our constitutional rights as American citizens - particularly those found in the Bill of Rights.

Supreme Court of the United States

... so the very existence of the court system is itself a check on the presidency

Specifically, the Constitution said that "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." (Source: Article 3, Section 1) The courts have a certain power to strike down laws passed by the Congress, which is another important power that I should note (at least in passing) before moving on to my main topic, which is judicial restraints on the president and the police force. (I discuss striking down laws in some detail in one of my other blog posts, if you're interested in that subject. This post, by contrast, will be more focused on the Bill of Rights, and on the judicial checks on the executive branch.)

U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (an influential appeals court) - Pasadena, California

Actually, the death penalty IS constitutional (as the Fifth Amendment makes clear)

"The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law."

- Coffin et al v. United States (1895), the Supreme Court case which codified the presumption of innocence for people accused of crimes

People are innocent until proven guilty, and do not have to "prove" their innocence

There's a saying in America that is often quoted in these contexts, which is that people are "innocent until proven guilty." This saying is so familiar to Americans that we often take it for granted, I think. We may not always realize how rare it is in the world to have this kind of default assumption. In this country, the burden of proof is on the prosecution - or in civil cases, the "plaintiff" - rather than the defendant. The defendant is not even required to open his or her mouth to "prove" his or her own innocence. This is not written explicitly into our Constitution, but it is implied by a number of amendments, and was codified by the Supreme Court case quoted above. Moreover, a jurist from a previous century named Sir William Blackstone - a man who is quoted in the Federalist Papers - proclaimed that "the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer." (Source: Blackstone's "Commentaries," Book IV, Chapter 27) This doctrine is sometimes known as "Blackstone's formulation" or "Blackstone's Ratio."

William Blackstone

William Blackstone thought it "better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer"

John Adams expounded on "Blackstone's Ratio" in the "Boston Massacre" trial, when he said that "We are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself, is no security. And if such a sentiment as this, should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security what so ever." (Source: Adams' Argument for the Defense, 3-4 December 1770) When a person really is guilty of a crime (as sometimes happens), this can still make it somewhat difficult to bring criminals to justice, of course. Thus, the police force and prosecutors have to possess a high degree of skill to provide the necessary proof of these actions. But if these protections are not in place (and many countries don't have them), then innocent people are vulnerable to an arbitrary tyranny that can punish them at will; and there are few things that Americans fear more than an absolute government with unlimited power. Thus, there must be a balancing act in any free country between individual protections and criminal justice, where the people are protected against both unlimited government and violent criminals. Thus, it might be helpful to go over some of these constitutional protections from our Bill of Rights.

John Adams, the defense attorney in the "Boston Massacre" trial

10 “what if” scenarios that could create constitutional crises (in some places) …

"In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve upon the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President be elected."

- Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the original Constitution (which was partially changed by constitutional amendments, as I will describe later here)

The true test of a country is how it handles emergencies ...

The Constitution is well-equipped to handle the routine and the mundane, and the periods of relative stability that have marked most of this country's history. But this country's Constitution is also well-equipped to handle periods of chaos and instability where elected officials die, or resign, or become otherwise ineligible through disability. The true test of a country is sometimes found in how it handles these contingencies, and the other emergencies that it can face in its history. Thus, the Constitution has a number of backup plans about how to deal with these things. Some of them come from the original Constitution itself, and the clauses related to the succession of presidents and other elected officials. But other backup plans come from the amendments that were made since that time; and a review of these things might thus be helpful here, to show how the Constitution handles these unusual emergency situations.

White House

The Constitution keeps our elected officials on a short leash

"Before he [the president] enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

- Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 7 of the Constitution

Politicians: The problem of every society ...

Virtually every nation in the world resents politicians, I think, even if they don't have the freedom to say so openly. The ones who can, do so often, as a group; and they are filled with resentment of incompetence and corrupt leadership. They tend to care deeply about who can hold political office, about the laws that they are required to follow, and even about when the people can vote on the next batch of them in elections. They watch their legislatures carefully, and are suspicious of all attempts to keep something secret from the public. They pay close attention to how many tax dollars go to supporting the bureaucracy, and monitor the public records of these things that the Constitution requires. Americans may pay especially close attention to how much money goes to supporting the only federal institution that can determine its own salary - Congress. These issues are often touchy ones for Americans, and can bring more than one sharp word from many a suspicious American. Thus, some comments might be appropriate here about what the Constitution says on these subjects. There are a number of solutions therein for these kinds of problems.

Constitution of the United States

Even presidents are not above the law in the United States

"Therefore, I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office."

- President Richard Nixon, in the Oval Office at the White House, on August 8, 1974

The executive and judicial branches can have conflicts of interest at times ...

If the government makes the laws, is the government itself above those laws? Or in other words, can the laws be made not to apply to the people in those governments? In the United States, the answer to this question is a resounding "no," because there are mechanisms in place to punish officials who break the laws. These laws apply to everyone universally, including the President of the United States himself (or herself). This is not so much a problem for members of Congress, because when members of Congress break the laws, they can be prosecuted by the executive branch in the courts of the judicial branch (with certain exceptions for when the legislature is in session) just like anyone else can. When lesser judges break the law, they can be prosecuted by the executive branch in courts presided over by higher-ranking judges; so there are mechanisms in place to prevent this as well.

White House

... so all branches of the government are subject to impeachment and removal from office

But if the judges of the Supreme Court break the laws, there is a conflict of interest coming from the ability to be the judges in their own cases, which allows them to avoid negative judgments against themselves even when they're guilty. A similar situation applies when the President of the United States breaks the law, because the President can refuse to allow himself (or herself) to be prosecuted. (With control over federal prosecutions, they would thus also have a conflict of interest in their own cases.) Thus, all members of the government are subject to impeachment and removal from office, and that includes members of the executive branch. Most importantly, it includes the President of the United States himself (or herself); so a review of constitutional impeachment procedures would seem appropriate here. I will first show how the process of impeachment works in this country, and then talk about particular instances of attempts at removal.

Supreme Court of the United States

The United States Constitution: The secret of America’s success

Great Seal of the United States

As I set out to write a general post about the Constitution of my country, I have the problem of any writer who speaks to a general audience: I speak to those familiar with my culture (including many fellow Americans), and those who know it not at all (since the Internet knows no political boundaries). Even when speaking to fellow Americans, I write to fellow adults who have the power to vote, to a rising generation not yet blessed with the opportunity to participate, and perhaps even to those yet unborn, who will run the country in a distant future. I speak to those who know these things now, to those who once knew these things (but have since forgotten), and to those who never learned them at all - often because the educational system failed to teach them the things it should have; and who, through no fault of their own, have never had the opportunity to hear the message of the Constitution.

A replica of Independence Hall, which is not surrounded by
high-rise buildings (that don't belong in the period) the way the real one is today

In talking about it, I would be remiss to leave out that it is the greatest success story of the United States; and may well be the greatest secret of its more than two centuries of uninterrupted democratic success - the reason for its current greatness. I will try to be (at least somewhat) brief, that I might not burden the audience with an excess of words and analysis; but I will try to be thorough as well, that I might not leave out anything that is essential to why it has worked as well as it has.

Interior of Independence Hall

An overview of the American presidency

"The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold office during the term of four years ... "

- Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution

The White House, where every president of the United States has lived (excepting the first)

Unlike the Congress, the executive branch is controlled by a single individual, who is usually referred to in the masculine in the linguistic style of that time; although there are no prohibitions on a feminine president anywhere in the Constitution, so it is possible to have a female president (although I should note that at the time I write this, it has not happened yet). With this gender clarification in mind, I will give the portion of the Constitution establishing the executive branch: "The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold office during the term of four years" (Source: Article 2, Section 1). There is usually also a Vice President of the United States, who is first in line to become president (more about that subject here). The Constitution says that "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided." (Source: Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 4) However, the Senate does have some other power to elect its own leaders, because the Constitution says that "The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of the President of the United States." (Source: Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 5) With this discussion of the vice presidency concluded, I shall return to a discussion of the presidency itself.

United States Census can influence a state’s votes in Congress (and the presidential elections)

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

- Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 2 (ratified 1868)

The census is mandated by the Constitution

So we recently finished a year ending in a "0" (2020), which means that the United States Census took place at that time. Most of us have heard of the U. S. Census before; but since many of my Facebook friends have never heard before that this is explicitly mandated by the Constitution, I thought that it might be good to explain that there is a part of the Constitution that mandates having a census every ten years - not only because it's good to have accurate information about the population (for purposes of comparison with other countries), but also because the number of votes each state has in Congress - and also, the presidential elections - is determined by the official population count from the census. (Since the number of votes that each state has in the presidential elections is dependent upon the number of votes that each state has obtained in the Congress, I will first discuss the particulars of the Congress votes, before transitioning into how voting in the presidential elections works.)

Capitol Dome, at the building of the United States Congress

Number of votes each state gets in the House of Representatives is dependent upon this census

The number of Congressmen (or Congresswomen) each state gets in the House of Representatives, specifically, is proportioned to the populations of each state respectively. Thus, although it may be done partly for purposes of comparison with other countries' populations, this is not the only reason that it happens; since the most important reason is determining how many votes each state has in Congress - which is a big deal in determining the balance of power in the legislature (and by extension, the electoral college - but more on that later).

The Constitutional Convention, 1787

A review of “Founding Brothers” (History Channel)

"[The Congress shall have the power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States ... "

- Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8, Heading and Paragraph 17

What happened to the Founding Fathers after the Revolution was over?

Most people have some cursory knowledge of what happened during the American Revolution, and what the Founding Fathers did during this period. But what happened to them after the Revolution? What did the Founding Fathers do when the war was over, and the Constitution was ratified? These are the questions that a documentary by the History Channel attempts to address. They follow in the footsteps of a Pulitzer-Prize-winning book by Joseph Ellis - a book called "Founding Brothers," the same title as this History Channel program. The results of it are more surprising, more interesting, and more moving than what you 'd think possible.

What did the Founding Fathers disagree with one another about?

If you're interested in what happened to the Founding Fathers - in the issues they disagreed over, the quarrels between them, and their postwar accomplishments - then this is the best documentary to see. It covers the administrations of our first three presidents - George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson - and does not shy away from depicting Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison as well. These guys are much more interesting than the paintings we have of them, with the powdered wigs and the dated clothing. Moreover, the way that they handled the early days of the Republic set the precedents for all of the democratic dialogue that we've had since then. The government had been created, but it had not yet been given a trial run, and no one was quite sure how it would work in practice.

John Adams movies

What's the best movie about John Adams?

Young John Adams

My answer would be that it depends on what you're looking for. All the ones I've seen have things that they do better than the other ones. Thus, I'll compare and contrast the ones I've seen, to show where each one is strongest. The ones I've seen are a two-hour PBS documentary (which also talks about Abigail), an eight-hour HBO miniseries (with Paul Giamatti), and an old thirteen-hour miniseries called "The Adams Chronicles."

A review of Steven Spielberg's “Lincoln”

" ... that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom ... "

- Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (1863)

So I recently watched the Steven Spielberg movie "Lincoln," with Daniel-Day Lewis in the title role. I've seen a fair amount of media about Lincoln's life, from the Henry Fonda film "Young Mr. Lincoln" to the Sam Waterston TV movie called "Lincoln" (the brief and appealing nature of that title makes it a popular one). This is my personal favorite of the Hollywood movies about Lincoln's presidency, even though it focuses on just one part of his presidency. It sets the record straight on some important things about his administration.

The president is not directly involved in the constitutional amendment process ...

For those unfamiliar with this movie, Steven Spielberg's movie focuses on the last part of Lincoln's presidency, with much attention given to his role in getting the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress, the amendment that banned slavery. At that time, slavery was protected by the Constitution through the Three-Fifths Clause, the Fugitive Slave Clause, and some other notorious clauses. Thus, getting rid of slavery in the United States required a constitutional amendment; and this is the one that did it. People often point out that under the Constitution, the president is not directly involved in the constitutional amendment process; as this is done by Congress and state legislatures. But the president's indirect influence upon it is enormous, as he can offer Congress things they want in exchange for their cooperation, and he was thus able to influence the passage of this amendment.