TDS Time Machine | The Constitution

This is an iHeart podcast.

You're listening to Comedy Central.

The national immigration debate is more contentious than ever with growing fears of these anchor babies we talked about earlier, terror babies, Muppet babies coming to our shores.

By the way, you should check out the new Muppet character, Anchor Me Terror Baby.

Adorably destructive to our country.

The trouble stems from the Constitution itself, specifically the 14th Amendment's promise of birthright citizenship.

The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to, quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States to protect newly freed slaves and their children and guarantee their rights as citizens.

Last time I checked, I don't think we're having that problem anymore.

I don't think the founders understood when they did the 14th Amendment that it would create a circumstance where people could fly into America all over the world and have a child, and that child would have dual citizenship.

Okay, two things real quick: A, the founders didn't write the 14th Amendment, that happened in the 1860s.

And actually, Ben Franklin very much wanted to fly and have babies all around the world.

That's why he invented the sex kite.

Anyway,

does the Constitution need changing?

For answers, we turn to John Hodgman and his segment.

You're welcome.

John Hodgman joins us.

Thank you very much for joining us.

I appreciate you being here.

What is your take on the constitutional crisis?

Well, the reality is the Constitution is badly broken and out of date.

Young people, in particular, never read it anymore, even though it's almost ridiculously easy to steal from the National Archives.

That's the actual Constitution?

Oh, well, I believe this Fifth Amendment says I don't have to answer that question.

All right, I understand.

In fact, that means it's a good one, so we're going to keep it.

There we go.

Are you drawing on the

how are you going to get young people involved in the Constitution?

Well, let's start at the top, John.

It's going to need a hip new name, Constitution.

That's very negative, isn't it?

Why not something a little more positive?

Why not a pro-stitution?

Actually, there's one reason I can think of that that wouldn't really be a good idea.

Too late, I've already made the change.

Which brings me to solution number two.

Let's trim the fat.

I mean, basically, everything after Amendment 10 wasn't written by the founders, so that can go.

And some prominent constitutional scholars think we can go even further than that.

California, along with so many other states, defining traditionally what marriage is, and to see that third branch of government undoing the will of the people gets it's frustrating.

Yeah, but the founders established the judiciary.

Now, just to abolish it, because you don't agree with it, that seems

what?

A few mallet-wielding, brain-bullied lawyers overruling the will of the people?

It's undemocratic, John.

And it brings me to my third solution.

Let's give the prostitution back to the people

by putting it on the internet.

I give you the Wiki Prostitution.

It's an

open source document, a marketplace of ideas where the will of the people can finally speak.

It already has 6,000 new amendments, and as you can see, the people in their wisdom have outlawed anchor babies, legalized marijuana, and apparently we have banned werewolves.

That makes sense, actually.

Team Edward is very active on the Wiki Prostitution.

That's a fascinating document, I'm sure, will stand the test of time, but it's hard to take arguments for changing the Constitution seriously when some of those same people that you're showing normally talking about how the Constitution is sacrosanct.

A lot of people don't think they have to enforce the Constitution as it's written.

They'd like to enforce it as they would like it to have been written.

I am so sick of people taking this Constitution.

We're running it through the shredder everybody, every time somebody wants to do what they want to do.

It took these guys a long time.

They read a lot of books and a lot of history to put the principles together in this thing.

But wait a minute, John, that's Glenn Beck's defense of the Constitution.

It took a long time to write.

If that's the criteria, then that screenplay about the Noid that you started back in the late 80s will be the greatest document of all time.

Believe me, that will be a great film.

Anyway, you didn't play Senator Session's entire soundbite.

I believe the Second Amendment is a vital constitutional amendment.

A lot of people think they have to enforce the Constitution as it's written.

See, John, he was only talking about the Second Amendment.

Guns, John.

Of course, we can't change that clause.

Look, the founders made it Sharpie-proof.

I can't do anything to it.

Damn it.

Their original intent is clear.

See, that's the whole thing.

They talk about the sacrosanct nature of the Constitution.

When they like what it says, then suddenly they say, hey, that's not what the founders meant.

They don't want to do that.

They want to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution that they want.

That's the problem with this original intent business.

We have the founders' words, but no one really knows what they were thinking, and they're not monolithic to begin with.

No one, John?

Yeah, no one.

Or no one minus one.

I should tell you that I'm a noted founding father psychologist.

As you would know, if you had read my book, Men Are From Mars, James Madison was a godlike genius who could do no wrong, and I am the only one who knows what he was thinking.

Now,

how could you know what James Madison was actually thinking?

Didn't you even look at the cover of my book, John?

I thought I did.

I get it straight from James Madison's skull.

What's that?

John,

in the unlikely event that a powdered wig-bearing skull doesn't provide the guidance we need,

what then?

That's a ridiculous premise, John, but I'll play along.

After all, even James Madison recognized a higher authority at work.

Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant.

They're quite clear that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments.

See, that's what I'm talking about.

The Constitution, when it suits them the Bible, when it suits it, it makes it sound like the Constitution is an amendment now to the Bible.

Yeah, a lot of people think that that's true, but that's an easily fixed misconception.

If you scroll down now to New Amendment 6666, I think you'll see that the Bible is now actually a prostitutional amendment.

So it's all in there.

And what about separation of church and state, which is in the Constitution?

What's that, Mr.

President?

Excuse me?

What?

Oh,

James Madison said the separation of church and state was just their little joke.

Thank you very much, John Hodgman, everybody.

We'll be right back.

Welcome back to the daily show.

The United States Constitution.

We all talk about it, but does anyone who's not Nicholas Cage really understand it?

Well, Michael Costa went looking for such a person in his new segment, Thank Me Later.

Hi, I'm Michael Costa.

Civic activism, does it work?

Can one person make a difference?

Tonight on Thank Me Later, we'll meet one man who did the impossible.

No, not me.

He changed the United States Constitution forever.

I sat down with this American hero.

And you can thank me later.

Hi there.

Hi.

Who are you?

I'm Gregory Watson.

I'm responsible for the ratification of the 27th Amendment to the federal Constitution.

That's right.

This Lone Star Scholar got an amendment ratified to the Constitution, like the Supreme Law of America Constitution, as in the 1787 Founding Fathers Constitution.

You're not a founding father, you're more like a weird uncle of the U.S.

Constitution.

Stepfather.

Oh, stepfathers, so you are nice sometimes, but then sometimes you come home drunk and treat the kids crappy because they're not really yours.

Sometimes.

I'm very familiar with the Constitution.

I'm a huge fan.

Why don't you tell our viewers what the 27th Amendment is?

Again, I'm very certain I know what it is, but go ahead.

It says that when members of Congress

want to adjust their

salaries,

they must wait until the next election has intervened.

Has intervened.

Now, for you dumb-dums who don't care about our country, three-quarters of the states are needed to ratify an amendment.

So how did this egghead get it done?

It all started in 1982

with a college paper that I wrote.

I found a book in the library that showed amendments that Congress had approved but which not enough state legislatures had ratified and I found this one from 1789.

Wait,

you're an undergrad.

Yes, a sophomore.

You're a sophomore who realized that this amendment, which was introduced in 1789, was still available to be ratified.

Yes.

March of 1982, during spring break.

During spring break?

Spring break no longer.

When I'm at the wet t-shirt contest in Cancun, you're realizing that an amendment can still be ratified in the U.S.

Constitution.

Yes, yes.

So you write this paper.

Yes.

I turn it in to the TA

and get it back a few days later with a C on it.

With a C.

A C.

And I appealed the grade up to the professor.

She said she'd take a look at it.

And when she came back a few days later, she saw me sitting in the aisle and she physically tossed it at me and said, no change.

I decided right then and there, I'm going to get that amendment ratified.

Wait a minute.

Are you saying that this guy actually got a constitutional amendment ratified?

John, could you stick to the reenactment?

Also, you're meant to be 19 years old, so can you act like a hot teen?

No, I can't.

And so what happens now?

Well, then I start writing those letters, pleading with members of the legislatures in those states to introduce a resolution at the state capitol to ratify the amendment.

And it needed 32 states.

And when Maine ratified the following year in 1983, there was just no turning back.

And that's the story of how Gregory Watson.

Oh, no, I don't have to look at the camera.

Why are you talking?

I was just delivering my line.

You're not narrating.

Hang on, hang on.

I'm John Hodgman.

Sorry.

I'm still on television sometimes.

Okay.

We're done.

Okay.

And then what happens?

So I pestered and I badgered and I cajoled the state legislatures over the course of 10 years and they ratified it.

This whole time I thought you'd be some Harvard law constitutional scholar lobbyist to elicit change.

You're really just a pain in the ass.

Yes.

Yeah.

When the 27th Amendment was finally ratified, what did they give you as a sign of respect for your work?

Absolutely nothing.

You didn't get a thank-you card from anyone?

No thank you card from anyone.

Man, I was afraid I was going to hear a sad, depressing story like that, which is why I made this for you, Gregory Watson.

This is a trophy commemorating you and getting the 27th Amendment ratified.

Beautiful.

I shall treasure it for all time.

Welcome back!

As you know,

America is like a boy band.

Yes.

That is the premise we are starting with.

Each of our 50 states has a distinct personality.

We've got the cute one.

We've got the rebel.

rides a Harley with no helmet.

We've got the one that pretty sure has a drug problem.

But the thing about these states' reputations is they're hard to change.

It makes you feel bad for some place like Mississippi, which every time it opens its mouth, you know, because of its reputation, you're like, please don't say the N-word, please don't say the N-word, please.

Why has that state had such a tough time shaking its rep for bad race relations?

For insight, let's look back at a classic episode of The Daily Show in tonight's segment, 19th Century News.

Hello!

Greetings and salutations.

My name is Jon Stewart and given the times I'm obviously neither Jewish nor on television.

Our top story this day in 1865 is that the state of Georgia has voted to ratify.

We had over the shoulders in 1865?

The state of Georgia has voted to ratify the 13th Amendment.

Oh, delightful.

Being the 27th state to so vote, the amendment is nationally adopted and slavery is abolished in these United States.

Oh, bully.

Of course, there still remain a few stragglers who've yet to ratify the amendment.

I'm looking at you, Magnolia State.

I mean, those square leaders in Georgia ratified it.

How much longer are you going to wait?

148 years?

I mean, that'd be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

After 148 years, the state of Mississippi has finally ratified the 13th Amendment.

And

And that's why.

That was unpleasant.

But that's why Mississippi can't check its rep for bad race relations.

So Mississippi, two things on the recent ratification.

First,

Better late than never.

And second, this is pretty f ⁇ ing late.

Why the sudden ratification?

It's all thanks to Steven Spielberg's film, Lincoln.

After watching the movie, two men discovered Mississippi was the last state which had not officially ratified the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.

And then Mississippi went to see Django Unchained and tried to take the ratification back.

Look,

Lincoln or no Lincoln, how are you just getting to this now?

Didn't the release of Mississippi Burning push to revisit the issue in any way?

I mean to be fair the state had already taken steps towards banning the controversial practice of people owning other people.

The Mississippi's legislature did sign on in 1995 but did not file the proper paperwork.

Oh, red tape.

They tried to ratify the 13th Amendment all the way back in 1995.

Inspired, no doubt, by that year's blockbuster, I know what you did 130 summers ago.

And then there was obviously the 18-year-long paperwork malfunction.

By the way, what did happen with the paperwork?

Their former Secretary of State, Dick Molpas, failed to send a copy of the resolution to the Federal Registrar.

Classic Dick Molpas.

I'm sure he meant to file the paperwork properly.

In fact, here's my impression of him mailing Mississippi's 13th Amendment ratification to the Federal Registrar.

I'm so glad that we did this.

That's really nice.

Let me just put this in the mailbox.

I imagine that'll get there tootsuite.

So who cleaned up the mess left by former Mississippi Secretary of State, Dick Molpas?

The current Mississippi Secretary of State, Delbert Hoseman.

Delbert Hoseman cleaned up for Dick Mopus, huh?

Can't wait for next year's Mississippi Secretary of State race between Smurt Nickel-Dumb and Cleavage Thick Butt.

We'll be right back.

Starting with Twitter.

It's what Elon Musk bought for his midlife crisis instead of a Lamborghini.

Over the weekend, Elon released the so-called Twitter files, which many conservatives had hoped would prove that Twitter colluded with Democrats to censor news about Hunter Biden's laptop during the 2020 election.

Instead, they mostly just showed the Biden campaign asking Twitter to take down nude photos of Hunter Biden.

So yeah, sorry everyone, if you want to see naked people, you've got to go to every other website on the internet, I guess.

So the Twitter files turned out to be a major letdown for conservatives, right?

There was no proof of a conspiracy to help defeat Donald Trump, but you know who doesn't care about any of that?

Donald Trump.

Former President Donald Trump's false claims about the 2020 election now have him calling for the Constitution to be terminated.

With the revelation of massive and widespread fraud and deception in working closely with big tech companies, the DNC and the Democratic Party, do you throw the presidential election results of 2020 out and declare the rightful winner?

Or do you have a new election?

A massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.

Yeah, that's right.

The Republican frontrunner for President of the United States wants to terminate the Constitution

because Twitter wouldn't allow him to see Hunter Biden's dick.

Yeah.

He's like, I want to see the PP.

I want to see it.

I want to see what I'm dealing with.

If you want to see Hunter Biden's dick, just get a bag of cocaine like everyone else, Mr.

President.

Also,

why is this still news?

Can anyone tell me?

Like, why is this still even a headline?

Donald Trump thinks this undermines the election.

He thinks that about everything.

Everything.

However, the math equation starts, his answer is always the same.

Doesn't matter where it is.

Like a waiter could come up like, I'm sorry, sir, the kitchen says we've run out of the Mickey Mouse pancakes.

This is the last straw.

We need to redo the election.

We do have the Donald Duck waffles.

It's too late.

I'm storming the Capitol.

I'll have those to go, please.

And look, I get that Trump doesn't like to lose, but my man, 2020 is over.

You've got to move on.

You know, Trump is like one of those guys who never stops trying to get back with his ex.

Like, he's texting her years later, like, hey, you up?

And she's like, yeah, I'm up with my kids from my marriage.

I'm like, oh, still playing hard to get her.

I like that.

I like that.

But honestly, though, what a start to the Trump 2024 campaign.

First, he had dinner with Nazi lovers.

Now he's calling to scrap the Constitution.

What's next?

Was he going to give the Lincoln Memorial enormous boobs and still the GOP is going to come out like, well, I personally would have gone with a tasteful recap, but I think President Trump's heart is in the right place.

is called The Year of Living Constitutionally, One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Constitution's Original Meaning.

Please welcome the program.

A.J.

Jacobs, sir!

You have to run American Party!

Nice to see you, A.J.

Thank you, thank you.

The Year of Living Constitutionally.

AJ, what, so

how did the Year of Living Constitutionally, a humble quest to follow the Constitution of Reason, how did this come about?

Why would you consider this?

Well, first of all, thank you and good morrow, of course.

Is that a constitutional grief?

Yes, absolutely.

All right, fair enough.

And

this came about because I wanted to figure out what is in the Constitution.

What does it actually say?

And I thought it was a timely question because, as you know, our current Supreme Court thinks we should follow the original meaning from 1789.

Now, I haven't been watching the news.

Is anything going on there?

I recommend it.

What a terrible thing.

Yeah, so I thought I'm going to try to figure out what that was by getting in the mindset of our founding fathers.

Now as you go back and you revisit sort of the mindset of the founders, are you struck by how human they were?

You know, we've deified them

to a large extent.

But when you learn about them, do you think like, oh, a couple of these guys might be idiots?

Like,

what was the thought?

Well, yes, the Constitution is amazing because parts of it are so inspiring.

The preamble, 52 of the greatest words ever written about the general welfare and blessings of liberty.

But then there are, it is a flawed document.

There are actual misspellings in the Constitution.

The word Pennsylvania is spelled two different ways, P-E-N-N and P-E-N.

So it is not perfect.

And I ran the Constitution through Grammarly, and Grammarly found

600 mistakes.

600 mistakes.

So it is not perfect.

With the Grammarly mistakes, did you correct it or did you think, oh, that one, no, let's pass that one through it.

How did you, did you dismiss the Grammarly questions?

Well, I couldn't go in and change it on the.

The actual document spells Pennsylvania two different ways.

That's right.

And it's, and the ITS

actually should be an IT apostrophe S.

So if Ben Franklin had invented social media, they would have gotten a lot of flack for that.

Brilliant.

So it is, and they knew it was flawed.

That's what's amazing.

The founding fathers knew this is a flawed document.

And they said...

Would they be surprised at how we've deified them?

I think so.

I think many of them would be.

Now, in their discussions, did you, as you looked back and saw the discussions that they were having, my understanding is they never really thought that partisan politics would, you know, be the thing we were fighting over.

They thought the branches of government would fight each other, that the executive would fight the judicial, would fight the legislative.

I don't think they thought parties would try and weaponize each department against the other.

They did not see this rigid two-party system coming.

And James Madison, he knew there were going to be factions, but he thought there were going to be lots of factions like they're going, you know, and maybe six or eight, more like a European parliament.

And they would have been shocked by so much of what we have now, including the president.

I bring that up because it's kind of timely.

And they.

They were very understated in the 1700s.

It is somewhat timely.

Well,

when the idea of a single presidency came up in the convention, a lot of the delegates said, are you jesting?

That is a terrible idea.

Wait, they said, are you jesting?

I'm paraphrasing.

I'm paraphrasing.

Are you jesting?

But they said, we just fought a war to get rid of a king.

Why do we want another?

One of them said, this is the fetus of monarchy if we do this.

We should have three presidents, 12 presidents.

Almost like the court.

The presidency

and the court would be similar.

Not a unitary executive, not a single person.

Right.

And in the end, it was fought for weeks.

In the end, the unitary executive won.

But I have to say, that fetus of monarchy coming.

I mean, it's not a fetus anymore.

It's like a teenager.

Right.

It is like, we are.

200 and some years later.

Right.

It took a while, but it's here.

What do we mistake about them?

You know, now, do you watch the arguments that you see about the founders' intent differently?

Does it make you a little crazier knowing what the actual arguments were?

Oh, absolutely.

I mean, it was, their mindset was so different in so many ways.

It was like a foreign country.

And just to give you one example, their idea of rights were very different.

Rights were not...

Trump cards, sorry about that.

But they were...

There were responsibilities with them.

Exactly.

They should have had a bill of responsibilities in addition to a bill of rights.

But they just assumed that we were all going to be part of and contribute to the betterment of our community.

And you saw this all over in the First Amendment, the Second Amendment.

And they would be shocked by...

They would be shocked by how focused we are on individual rights, which I love.

I love them.

But we need the balance.

Right.

And that we've in some ways exploited those conversations to just get what we want or do what we want.

Right, exactly.

And they talked about virtue.

They loved that word.

And this is before it had sort of a negative ting.

How many of them do you think

banged porn stars?

How many of them do you,

when they talk about virtue.

Well, I talked to many constitutional scholars and I never

None of them have ever said that.

But

what about the level of discourse?

Because I'm always struck by, you know, even in this situation that we face now with the debate and all that,

the gaslighting that occurs, the lack of trust in Americans' instincts or ability to take complex issues and hear about them honestly.

Right.

But I imagine their conversations were very frank and very direct, but also sophisticated.

Absolutely.

I think it was a genuine difference.

I wrote this book, a lot of it, with a quill pen.

And I'm not saying everyone needs to go back to a quill pen.

You wrote the book with a quill pen?

Yeah, because I was trying to live the Constitution.

I had my musket.

I carried it around New York.

I wrote a quill with a quill pen.

There's that curiosity.

Do you consider yourself a method writer?

Is that what this is?

That's exactly it.

I love that phrase.

Thank you.

So you did.

So it was a quill pen.

And is there something about using the quill that is more deliberate and allows you to think differently?

I really believe that.

There were no dings and chimes from the internet.

I could actually focus and maybe come up with some subtle thoughts.

And

if the Constitution were written on an iPhone with emojis, that would not be good.

Can you imagine with the,

you know, all men are created equal, LOL.

It would have been a nightmare.

They loved cold takes, not hot takes.

They were all about let's take a look at the pros and cons.

And one of my favorite founding father, Ben Franklin, said at the Constitutional Convention, he said, the older I get, the less certain I am of my own opinions, which I love.

I mean, exactly.

And they even, they baked it into the cake as far as they really thought amendments will be necessary.

This has to be a document that can change with the consent of the governor.

Exactly.

They knew it was imperfect.

They said, let's figure out ways to change it.

But as you say, they didn't see this rigid two-party system.

Now the last amendment we had was 1992 and

I mean you had to get two-thirds of Congress to agree.

You can't get two-thirds of Congress to agree on on the color of a green pepper.

You know, you just can't.

It's impossible.

Yeah.

Because they are reddish.

That's a good point.

Thank you very much for being the year of living constitutionally is available now.

AJ Jacobs!

Explore more shows from the Daily Show podcast universe by searching The Daily Show, wherever you get your podcasts.

Watch The Daily Show weeknights at 11, 10 Central on Comedy Central, and stream full episodes anytime on Faramount Plus.

Paramount Podcasts.

This is an iHeart Podcast.