Tenth Period | John Marshall’s Decision, Marbury v. Madison

0:04 well hello and welcome everyone to another episode of the Bill of Rights Institute’s 10th period webinars I am Kirk Higgins I’m the senior manager of education here at the Bill of Rights Institute and I’m joined again by my colleague Rachel Davison Humphreys I’m Rachel Davison Humphreys director of outreach here at the Bill of Rights Institute we have two fantastic guests today Kirk who’s with us this week we are joined by dr. Joyce Malcolm at the Antonin Scalia School of Law in Joe Tom Daniels who is one of our bill of rights and two features so hi after some brief technical difficulties were excited good to see everyone so I wanted to start out

0:49 our conversation today with a bit of a fun question for Joe Tuan and Rachel and that is what is it that you to think about semicolons okay so I have to admit I knew this was coming to one so I’ll go first to give you a second to gather your thoughts on the robustness of the semicolon thank you very much Rachel I so and you guys came in my office earlier today and like Rachel what do you think about semicolons and I was like word nerds and then I said and then I said I think that semicolons serve a particular use in written language that

1:35 doesn’t exist in spoken language so I feel like semicolons serve a function for preparing the reader to understand something that’s happening later on in the sentence so it’s like it’s a visual cue more than a punctuation mark like we use in daily speech right and so I think that like a lot of times I know students struggle with semicolons because they’re kind of they’re not intuitive because they’re a function of written language that I think isn’t even anymore we don’t need written language the same way that we used to we tend to write like we speak and it used to be

2:21 the case especially in the 17th and 18th centuries that we didn’t write like we speak we wrote in this very particular way that’s my thought on semicolons Jetton what do you think um I think I am gonna piggyback off of you’re very well prepared to response and I do think that it does make a little bit more sense visually than it does in terms of the spoken language typically when I focus on semicolons in the classroom setting I explained the kids that semicolons mean that there is the story that will be continued in a different thought perhaps in another space within that reading as opposed to just continuing to join all of these connections together at once let’s just pause and think on this for a moment to be visited later on right so I

3:08 think that’s excellent and if anyone in our audience has anything else that they want to add on this please feel free to leave a comment on youtube or feel friend to send us a comment on Twitter or Facebook Twitter it’s be our Institute and on Facebook at facebook.com slash Bill of Rights Institute and I love that you both pointed to written language because as it turns out our topic today is Marbury B Madison and it just so happens then that case has to do with interpreting some written language and so dr. Malcolm I wonder if you could tell us from a legal perspective is the is the semicolon pretty significant because from my reading in this case it seems like it’s fairly significant it is it’s usually in written language and

3:54 certainly from legal cases separates a whole series of things that are about to come which is basically what you were talking about often in the same sentence and I should say in the case that we’re going to be talking about today Marbury vs. Madison John Marshall who wrote the opinion wrote a long long opinion over 9,000 words so I’m sure that he had plenty of semicolons inna and basically we need to and particularly teachers on all of us need to get to the heart of what he was trying to say despite the great lengths that he went to to explain his reasoning so I think that’s great so maybe by way of just

4:40 kicking us off dr. Malcolm could you just give us sort of an overview of of what what Marbury versus Madison was how the case came about and and and what Marshalls decision was it’s an interesting background because john adams who was then president was ending his term shortly and the members of the other party President Jefferson with Madison who would be a secretary of state or about take over it’s amazing how quickly the founders divided and to you know pretty us I wouldn’t say vicious but strenuous opposition at any rate Matt Adams issued a whole lot of nominations shortly

5:27 before his term was done all kinds of judges including I should say Marshall who he was appointed to the Supreme Court and what happened was that this was just within days of the end of his term he had all of these Commission’s that had been approved for judges and Marshall in fact himself was in Adams as MIT administration was busy handing them out sending them out to people at the very end when Jefferson takes over there’s still a few that haven’t been delivered and one of those belongs to Marbury who had been appointed a lower court judge but because his commission was not delivered in time before the new administration the new administration

6:14 claimed that he should not get that particular position so that’s basically what it’s about he appeals to the Supreme Court who in fact the man who didn’t get him his Commission is now this the Chief Justice of John Marshall to get some justice for the fact that you know the president had approved this nomination but he because it wasn’t delivered they don’t want to give it to them so that’s basically what the case is about so the case comes before the court and I you know I think it’s one of the the first I guess significant cases the court hears an ultimately decision comes down that John Marshall so people say establishes this

6:59 idea of a judicial review is that where does that idea come from I guess as we all know it’s not something found in article 3 throughout the Constitution but is it something that Marshall pulls out of thin air or is there some precedent for it did you want me to please sorry okay um actually it is not in the Constitution they in fact Madison who’s the father of the Constitution didn’t really like the idea that the judges were going to be have the final word and he felt that his first idea was that Congress would decide whether the legislation from every state was constitutional or not and clearly that would give Congress no time do I feel

7:44 that didn’t fly then he had the idea that there would be a consul that would have the president on and maybe a couple of the chief judge for the judges and some Congress know and they would decide but the founders and the framers of the Constitution didn’t like that either so based judicial review has a slate English background because one of the great gurus of English law ah Sir Robert cook had decided in a early 17th century case that if Parliament passed a statute that was unreasonable and difficult and and violated common law that it was null

8:31 and void and that idea was really important to Americans today if the legislation should pass something that didn’t make sense or violated the basic laws that the court could decide it was null and void I should say the English poopoo that whole idea and anything that Parliament did was fine but but the Americans that notion that the court should have the final say and this case is Marshall making that that claim and of course it’s it’s had a tremendous history but we’re we’re rather unique in the power that our Supreme Court has they never the founders never intended it to be as

9:17 as powerful as it has become because of this role is taken on go ahead what is how does the how do your students how are they introduced to this idea what’s the context if you work through the Marburg oh I kind of sort of when teaching this lesson in the past I’m sort of dealt with like the legal problem in terms and a special question would be put one branch of the government that Ran’s me in the US Supreme Court could the Supreme Court order another branch of government president to do something and who would have the final say and usually with some sort of essential question like that it

10:03 kind of makes it a little bit more relevant and what’s the word I’m looking for attainable for students to deal with these constitutional concepts from there we kind of sort of do get a little bit lost in the story because kids are kind of confused or like wait a minute was was this guy who’s making the decision in see the Supreme Court justice wait a minute wasn’t you the Secretary of State what’s going on here but ultimately what we try to focus most of our attention on is the establishment of the use of president precedents in order to establish a very important role of the court and that is that not that notion of judicial review and so I kind of sort of shorthand it a little bit and say that while Jefferson technically won that battle the Supreme Court ultimately won the war as it became the the arbiter to define the move that the most mystique separation of powers this is a

10:49 power that the court till continues to hold to this day and from us basically discussing what occurred back in the 19th century I’m able to bring in more modern cases that reflect on this concept of judicial review in a very important role of the court that was never quite spelled out in the Constitution itself yeah I think that’s great because it is you know as dr. Malcolm just mentioned something that has ramifications but I also think it’s interesting that judicial review you know didn’t just take off it’s not as though you know all of a sudden we had you know the Supreme Court deciding the constitutional case a constitutional case is that accurate to say I mean that that sort of that changing of the courts role took some time yeah

11:35 the court really wasn’t that important in the first years and John Jay was the first Chief Justice so its Marshall really who through these decisions puts the court kind of at the center what he’s saying is you have a Constitution either the Constitution as the supreme law of the land or an ordinary statute Trump’s the Constitution and so you have to make that decision and if we’re dealing with a written constitution it has to be the Constitution that is the prime decider and then it’s the court that should decide what the Constitution is saying and that’s where we get into you know your question about well who else should could do it you know if it

12:21 isn’t the justices and in a place like Britain they feel that the political branches should make that decision so spar lament makes the decisions they have Bill of Rights but they it isn’t the courts that have the final say it’s usually Parliament we have given that to unelected judges so they’re not accountable in the way that our political branches are they you know we they have that role in this country and it’s it’s almost unique really yeah I think that’s really interesting and again it brings us back to ours being a written constitution and I know that that’s something that Hamilton referenced in in Federalist 78 he talks

13:08 about which many I think see is sort of tipping that judicial review was something that was was understood to be a power that the Supreme Court had and and I wonder too because John I think that that idea of of things being written down is something that our students can oftentimes take for granted or that the fact that we have a written constitution is something that well not unique I think was unique for the time you know how right you get your students to think through sort of the rule of law and how it you know it it practically plays out um glad you actually asked that question of I tend to teach us history slightly different every year and with this school year we started off with an inquiry-based lesson in terms of how

13:54 democratic is the US Constitution and we focused very very very intently on the specific language of the document kind of sort of got to the concept at least from the kids point of view that in its original inception our republic really wasn’t as Democratic as we would think it is today but rather it’s the process of amendments in the the living Constitution being able to be changed as the time stone that allows it to be considered this this this democratic document that we hold in in awe today but we do get into a lot of that very specific language it’s a big issue within the case Marbury v Madison can the court take on a role that it was not specifically given if we are going to be a nation based on the rule of law if we

14:41 are going to be a nation that holds a written constitution could the court actually make that power play and take this power if it wasn’t written explicitly in the document no please obviously they did take that power I mean Marshall did and it took a while for as you say that concept to be appreciated because you also have states with state laws and judges who who did what Marshall did were sometimes impeached and son States so the notion that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land I think was really important just want to say I have my little

15:27 Constitution here and it’s and all your students should have a copy the thing I love about it is it’s so and I have all my students on the copy it is so short if this is one of the shortest constitutions of any other constitutions are so long and it basically has these basic principles but as you say they need to be understood in you know changing environments but it is the law of the land and nothing is more important than the rule of law because we’ve seen countries that completely collapse when there’s no rule of law when the government is is corrupt or when you know there’s just chaos so we’re really very fortunate we might not always like the laws that we’ve got but

16:14 it’s really important that we obey them or at least recently because that’s what keeps this country you know study a little short plug for the Bill of Rights Institute if you need pocket constitutions for your class the Bill of Rights issue does provide free class sets of pocket constitutions so if you are search engine of your choice Bill of Rights it’s two pocket constitutions you’ll be able to fill out a form to get a class a bit of a backlog which is a good problem to have so please those and we give those away to everyone and we can go a different direction but I find it kind of poetic that it was the it was the justice branch that recognized the

17:02 need for the check of the justice that it wasn’t in it wasn’t laid out in the Constitution that this would be a responsibility but it was through our legal institutions that this responsibility evolved would you say that think about it I if I can throw my two cents in I mean III think that that’s really interesting and I teach I also think it’s interesting that the way marshal shapes the cases that he’s focusing in on the rule of law he’s not focusing it on the judiciary itself but instead saying that this document is ultimately you know the thing that we all need to appeal to and so I think establishing that to me injects the stability that dr. Malcolm was just

17:47 talking about which is to say this neutral document open to interpretation obviously is the thing that is supreme in everything that routes through our legislature and everything else now goes through that and by the way because of where the judiciary is position and what its function is it’s in a good position to sort of read and interpret right that document and I think people will accept that actually unlike other countries are the members of our Supreme Court are like rock stars actually people know who they are which isn’t true of other countries and we’re one of the few has always been true in the United States hasn’t always been the case that that

18:34 the Supreme Court does have a kind of popular knowledge of who they are it feels very present right now which i think is a feature of a number of different things like television and technology I I really doubt that they were quite as well known and there were presidents like Jackson who just thumbed their noses at the Supreme Court really you know and even Lincoln with with holding habeas corpus and Maryland at the beginning of the Civil War kind of ignored the Supreme Court when they made their decision on it but I think that now the Supreme Court seems to be taking

19:21 a greater and greater role a lot of things maybe that would have been sorted out in the legislature are now decided in the courts so I mean I I sometimes say that that’s a Supreme Court that decides when we can be born and when we can die and everything a big screen and maybe that’s good and maybe it’s not so good because you know you’re giving these nine people a tremendous amount of power over all kinds of aspects of the lives of the people in this country can i time in right now i’ll flip that point i’m sorry guys dr. mouth and i appreciate that point too because that’s something when ever teaching that you dish brands and specific these key Supreme Court cases within the classroom setting

20:08 I try to make it an absolute emphasis that we are dealing with individuals humans who are making key decisions that are going to impact the lives of individuals not just in the moment that they are making that decision but also in the moments that are gonna follow that key choice so I think it is very important to emphasize that not only do these individuals have power but the power that these individuals holds impacts real individuals real families real lives yes it does and we’ve made that decision I mean other countries don’t necessarily trust you know appointed judges to do that maybe it’s because we were so much reliant on a written constitution you know and

20:54 sometimes you feel well is it are these people really the ones to be deciding those things it was very hard in this and go to another constitutional and our Constitution is very hard to amend the Constitution it’s extremely hard and so if it were easier presumably if you didn’t like a Supreme Court decision you could make some change in the Constitution in our case that’s very difficult to do that maybe saves us from you know the kind of tyranny that other countries have because their constitutions can’t allow the president just people can change them easily and they serve forever but it’s a trade-off you know that we trust these people and

21:41 and they are obviously are human beings as you say who have their own views of things and live in the society – there’s one of my colleagues have thought that the Supreme Court members should go back to riding circuit they used to drove they used to travel around the country and hold Court wherever they went and he felt that if they could if they did that again they would have a better sense of the impact of the things that they were deciding because they would be out there experiencing them so a question coming in from YouTube Vince from YouTube and just one this speaks to you how did the Margrave E Madison ruling set the stage or not set the stage for for the

22:27 Supreme Court to be involved in political situations going forward so this was a very much agreed with Adams and Madison oh yes so how did that set the stage for the kind of politicization of the court did they or didn’t it oh I’d argue the very next case that I get into from Brown or excuse me from this one is Plessy be Ferguson and then brown v board of education in terms of that whole notion of separate but equal and how that law gets challenged and Plessy be Ferguson but the Supreme Court in 1896 says that separate but equal is perfectly constitutional or for instance when we get into Brown v board of educate maybe even more current cases such as Bush v Gore in terms of

23:14 the impact that this is gonna have but the next next lesson that I usually get into is that notion of separate but equal in the role that the court makes that is going to last in this country for quite some time and then the role of and that’s something that whenever I was with students the idea of overturning that the court makes bad decisions that it recognizes the Ute and that’s a feature not a bug right it was a design element that the court would then be able to overturn itself right dr. Malcolm it kept their justice are very reluctant to do that that’s called stare decisis sort of looking to the Past to build on so they’re very reluctant to

24:02 overturn something that’s very long-standing but happily they do and they have made mistakes they’re human beings and there are also products of their time and I think that that makes a difference for a long time I guess in in the separate-but-equal case and the integrating the schools the court began to accept political science studies and other kinds of information that it hadn’t before and that was quite novel so I think that that they do change and and often correct or at least find some way of sidestepping a case that has been wrongly decided I mean one of the worst decisions was

24:49 they and the early after in the wake of this of the Civil War at the Fourteenth Amendment which was meant to make sure that everybody in the States got all of the bill the rights that they were entitled to and yet the first case that came up about that called the slaughterhouse case made a distinction between people that were citizens of a state and citizens of the country and basically Florida the intent of that amendment but this court got around it by using other aspects of equal protection under the law due process the to gives people in the states the rights that initially met to do but they still

25:38 they they haven’t officially corrected that Justice Thomas wanted them to in a recent case but they were reluctant to correct that mistake and they had gotten so used to finding ways of getting around it that they kind of stuck to that so sometimes they they will completely change things like in the separate for the equal Plessy versus Ferguson and other times they just try and find some go round to do the right thing in a case yeah and I think I think that idea of the justices being human is is really interesting and it’s something you know I know that we like to focus on to is not just the majority opinions but also the dissenting opinions now I know for example justice Harlan’s famous dissent in Plessy is one that shows

26:25 these are these are arguments these are debates and I think that that’s a good way to to invite students into that conversation I mean there’s typically in these cases there’s very smart attorneys on both sides that are making very eloquent arguments and so taking both of those seriously and looking at the case and having the students think through it I think it’s a powerful way of engagement and you know it also talking about sort of the the polarization of the court made me think of something that I always think is extraordinary and I think Marberry is a great exemplar of this which is people typically Jackson being a great exception and Lincoln’s pushback against Roger tawny being another but people typically take the court as the arbiter of these things and so Rachel mentioned sort of the election

27:10 of 1800 it’s a very tumultuous time the first time in American history where we’ve changed from one party in power to another political party in power I mean it’s time and is fraught with disagreements and negativity some people might be knocking their heads and saying things sound similar in the present day but the idea that the court is is there as this sort of neutral arbiter seems to be something that has been established the United States and it makes me think of Bush v Gore which I think you mentioned you know the people that Bush v Gore decision comes down and that’s it you know it is the decision and I wonder dr. Malcolm how much or what you think about that I mean is it something that is just that we just revere the court out of a tradition is it because we have this starry decisis precedent you know that

27:56 we’re reluctant to make these changes quickly what do you think kind of gets us in that respect for the court I think the court is very aware too of relying on popular respect and so they’re really employed not to do something that will really upset a lot of people I think with the Bush v Gore they were really anxious that that would lose them a lot of respect from people that they shouldn’t have gotten involved in that so they there is that that issue of respect because so much I mean the times when the court was Florida by former presidents was challenging their their

28:42 authority really challenging the respect they ought to have had and so I think that they may be changing things slowly looking to the past trying to build on on the issues it’s their way of being sure that they are still held in respect because if the court really went off the rails I think that would you know be a real loss but as you said they are they have that continuity they serve for life and once they’re on there unless they do something horrible there there there’s I teach a course called comparative constitutional law and it looks at civil law systems and places and some other common law systems we are the only

29:27 artist the only supreme court where the judge is sent for life without any term or age limit so sick judges sit any judge who wants to stay on stays on you know we don’t have any limit and there is that continuity and that somebody’s is really important and I think that goes to Elliott from YouTube how to have a question or comment on the Supreme Court’s intervention into kind of political questions because of fears about the political politicization of the court yes of the court itself and so I hear you dr. Malcolm saying that’s courts very self-aware of their deaths within culture and making sure that or they they take action to mitigate any

30:16 sense of politicization would you what how would you say that that they do that and then what’s important for students to know about that process well they are actually not supposed to get involved in something that is purely political and in fact this redistricting of states there was a case that came before them about a particular state and they decided that that this should not be up to them it’s a political god it’s a political subject and it should be handled by the states and the people of the state and not by them so I think that they may try to avoid something that is purely political but so many of our issues have a political capacity

31:01 souther do that they are careful and social you’ve been teaching now for a couple of soup court appointments how do your students see the that kind of moments like how did they react what are their thoughts what do you what do you do with those moments they come you know relatively regularly for the best no I would argue we’re living in a great moment to teach these cases and keep them relevant in real context because like you said the frequency of them and and the ability to students to excess a lot of these cases I think is real right now in this moment so I try my best you gonna ask them as much as possible um the biggest thing is that I think in my opinion in working with young people is keeping these cases relevant to the students themselves but

31:47 also illustrating that whole notion of how these case decisions affect the lives of real decisions and that these are of real citizens and these decisions are made by people um based on majority vote and everyone must agree one of the techniques that I do like to try to give that personalization aspect to many of these cases is this notion of a knowing the people to where we really go into each of these participants storms and we understand those stories quite well so that no longer are we just reading names on a paper we’re talking about an individual someone who has a heart so unless oh a loved one from there then we’re able to connect that case ultimately to a constitutional question and Kirk you mentioned this earlier and I think this is a great time for me to plug it in from an educators point of view I love focusing on the dissenting

32:34 opinions those dissenting opinions I think or something that kids can really put their teeth into and they can really wrestle and ask ultimately tough questions of themselves and of their understanding of the Constitution as well as a republic that have a constitution and so we really focus our attention on what is the court arguing right and so we come up with a list of those opinions from let’s say I give them four cases we’ll take a list of those opinions from each of those four cases we’ll research those opinions and then to continue to keep it real and relevant we’ll roleplay with groups um about not only the majority opinion but also the dissenting opinion awesome yeah I think that’s great just one and it kind of connects to to another I think

33:20 question that I’m sure students bring up all the time riah and youtube asked you know Marbury went straight to the Supreme Court in even stole hey you’re at the wrong Court go back to the district court I guess dr. Malcolm you know wasn’t that the case and then also how is it that most cases get in front of Supreme Court yes that was the case and that was one of the things that that marshal spent a lot of time not as Supreme Court had very narrow original jurisdiction there were only certain cases that dealt with counselors and difficult at arguments between states that could go directly to speak without going through the best of the court system all of the rest of the material are cases that the court took were on appeal and so he makes this distinction that this is you know this

34:07 is a case that should not be directly to them it should have gone to a lower court first and and so they had made a mistake and I’m bringing it directly to the Supreme Court and I what could you just tell me the other part of your question because I forgot well so no I think that’s great and it’s interesting and it just makes me wonder you know today we hear all of these cases that come before the court it comes there right in the Supreme Court does have limited original jurisdiction so I guess how do how do most cases arrive arrive at the court and special knowledge of this because judge one next time you teach DCB heller oh yeah that case yeah it’s absolutely right the court gets

34:55 thousands of requests to hear cases and they only hear maybe 70 or 80 a year and so which is fewer than they used to and so there are a lot of cases that might be very interesting but they don’t they don’t take them so it’s up to they they have to have you know a certain number of judges who agree that they’re going to take that particular case and often they take a case where the lower courts have been at odds with each other they’ve made decisions that are conflicting and so it’s up to the supreme court to decide what the rule ought to be and so they tend to offer to take a case like that where there’s a disagreement among the lower courts so that they can kind of clarify an issue but it can be

35:40 very frustrating because you can have some very good cases and there been a lot of Second Amendment cases there were a lot of other cases that really ought to have been heard and worked and Justice Thomas and others some have actually written dissents about the fact that those cases weren’t hurt but I like your focus on the dissent because as they say I teach comparative law and in the car and civil law systems all the judges agree so far as you know you never get you do not get the sense you just you just got the names of the judges and what their decision was so it leaves out whether it’s a close decision but the arguments were and you kind of miss out on the theories of meat of the

36:28 whole thing if you don’t get the dissenting argument simply and as before some of those go on to be really persuasive later on so I think that the way we do it is works well beautiful dissents I’ve read recently was I think it was it was Trump a Hawaii v Trump or Trump V Hawaii the such of my or dissents in that was really really beautifully written if anybody wants to go take a look at it of course it doesn’t mean you have to read a whole lot yes that’s a challenge right yeah but we think you know I personally think that that’s what makes it interesting though history isn’t something that’s inevitable in the Supreme Court I think

37:14 is the the epitome of that right decisions are made their hands down and and they are unanimous sometimes but a lot of times it can be very close and I think that that is a part of that story that there’s always more than one side to to history and how things unfold and and I think it’s it’s fun to dive into all that so absolutely true on that one to Kirk I’m sorry to interrupt the lesson if you guys see me too looking off to my right off screen my class is actually conducting a gallery walk activity right now you’re dealing with the very question that you brought up Kirk how can we have different points of view on the same historical event we’re actually dealing with American Progress both from an American point of view in the native but

37:59 I do agree where we’ve heard the aspect of history is not inevitable so many kids just think that a decision is made and then this is the arc of history that’s going to be shaped and I try my best to be bunk that myth in my class every single day history is not inevitable it is the study of choices humans make these choices and these choices have the potential to shape the arc of our history in one direction or the other and sometimes the the arguments are very close you know you can see the logic of both sides so it’s you know it’s not surprising as you say it’s it’s a choice that’s being made and you might at some point reverse that choice but at least you know what the arguments are I think it’s a great great exercise to have the students do this

38:45 role-playing because they need to learn I think understand and be able to argue in the civil polite way it’s not a question of shouting it’s a question of you know this was my point of view that’s your point of view and to understand different points of view they’re perfectly legitimate but you need to be able to kind of take account of other people’s viewpoints yeah and I think that’s something that we try to do at the Bill of Rights Institute is to try to lay out or have lessons about cases that haven’t been decided to sort of pose the questions to students and let them be the ones to think about it it’s you de cated and then when the ruling comes out they’re able to see hey you know the justices agree or not agree you know that could be that could be an

39:32 interesting activity to walk through as well but I know we’re coming down to our last few minutes here so Rachel I don’t know if you had any final parting questions I think that everything we do is a conversation is a conversation among our students it’s a conversation within our country it’s a conversation among the justices no no decision that’s ever made is anything other than a true and I love that language or toin that we make we constantly make choices as individuals and collectively and the justices are constantly making choices and I I I think helping students and our educators help their students see the

40:18 plurality of the choices that are laid out before actors at different points in history it’s an incredibly powerful way to to support learning because it also reflects back on the adolescent saying well I have choices to make every day and I have choices about my own beliefs and I choices about how I’m going to behave or decisions major decisions that I’m going to take there’s a really beautiful parallel there for many young people absolutely it’s a nice way to think of that and they’re very sensible you know kind of human attitude about the way these things happen so much we had a powerhouse crew tonight so thank

41:05 you to all of our viewers remember that you can keep sending us questions at Twitter at BR Institute or on Facebook at Bill of Rights Institute and next week we will be live from the National Council for social studies annual conference in Austin Texas so if you subscribe to our You Tube channel you will see a live webinar in our booth in Austin Texas so we’re excited to see you there absolutely will help we hope you’ll join us and thank you again dr. Malcolm and Joe Tuan for joining us today we really appreciate the conversation and we will see everyone later on thanks a lot guys had a lot of fun and joy Rachel good to see you dr. Malcolm you should know you are a cult hero in my classroom the kids thanks

41:59 everybody