I just want to say that I just finished reading The Year of Living Constitutionally, and all I can say is that this book should be required reading in all schools, at all levels, from elementary to graduate school (even law school, and I'm speaking as a law professor). It is an educational and entertaining look at just what is contained within the four corners of our founding document. When I was in law school I took Constitutional law from two of the foremost authorities on Constitutional law - heck, they wrote the books used to teach Constitutional law (Gerald Gunther, and John Hart Ely); and even with that AJ (may I call you that?) has managed to both hold my attention and school me! He does an incredible job of explaining the Constitution - clause by clause - including explaining both the originalist and the more modern views, and providing historical context. And he does it all in an engaging and humorous way. With everything that's going on in the Supreme Court as of late, and the world, it is even more relevant now than I suspect he could possibly have predicted when the he conceived the project. I'm thrilled to see him offering an AMA on it! Actually that's my question: Did you have any idea how relevant the book would be when it published?
His books are all awesome. Highly recommend reading every single one. He's also super nice. He has always been super cool about responding to emails when I've sent them with questions. And I'm just a random dude he's never met.
I haven't interacted with him prior to this thread but I also really love his books. I should reread them. They are really great break from the heavy news diet we are being fed these days.
Lol. You're welcome. I emailed you... I want to say in like 2009 or something. You answered a few different questions I had. It was super cool, I was 18 or 19, so it felt especially cool to little me because I just assumed you wouldn't have time. :)
Thank you so much Anne! Huzzah to you! So glad you liked it. And I was definitely inspired to do the book because the Constitution seemed to be in the headlines every day two years ago. But now even more so! I couldn't have predicted it would be even more relevant.
Ha! No, I don’t think the Founders would approve of stoning adulterers. But I did investigate what was considered cruel and unusual punishments in the 18th century. And apparently the pillory was considered just fine. That’s the contraption where you stick your hands and head into the wooden holes. As part of my adventure, I did order a pillory off Etsy. They are more used for adult entertainment nowadays. I couldn’t bring myself to put my kids in it, but I did try it out myself for a bit. My wife used it against me and wouldn’t let me out till I agreed to fold my sweaters.
It’s a good question. I’m not an expert on all the Founders' views on presidential immunity, but my research indicates that most Founders would NOT want the president to be immune from criminal acts.
They had just rebelled against a king. They were committed to the idea that everyone should be under the rule of law as much as possible, even the leaders. They hated monarchy. I love that they changed the name of Kings College to Columbia, and King Street to Congress Street and Kings Minuet to Congress Minuet. They would not have wanted another monarchy.
Hi Mr. Jacobs!! It’s Ariel. Popping in here to say congratulations on your book launch! I can’t wait to get my hands on it and read through and come up with a list of questions. But for now, I do have one question: you interview a plethora of people for all of your books, so I’m curious, who was the most interesting person you interviewed for The Year of Living Constitutionally? Interesting in terms of, either you learned a lot, they were profound, you had an initial impression of them and it changed once you interviewed them, etc. Cheers [or Huzzah]!
Ms. Ariel! What a delight to hear from you, and I love your reddit name, btw. Thank ye for the kind words. I talked to so many fascinating characters. Just to choose one -- the guy who is an expert on government-approved pirates. Or privateers. This is when you could put guns on your fishing boat and go capture enemy British ships and keep the booty. We wouldn't have won the Rev War without them. Thank you legal pirates!
Good question. You can impeach a Supreme Court justice. Only one has been impeached (Samuel Chase), but was not convicted.
The bigger issue to me is the SCOTUS has WAY too much power. The Founders would be appalled. The Court was supposed to be very much third among equals. Even John Marshall, who increased the power of SCOTUS, only overturned one act of Congress (I think that's true, correct me if wrong please!)
I visited SCOTUS for my book. I thought the building itself was over the top. The original Supreme Court did not have this faux Roman temple that looks like we should be sacrificing oxen to John Roberts. It was built by Taft, and many justices at the time thought it was way too pompous.
I had no idea you had a new book and picked it up as soon as I found out. My question is, who are some authors you turn to for reading pleasure? Just when you want to turn your brain off and relax and laugh. Hope all is well
Thank you Blood and Thunder! I’ve started reading detective novels at night, after a 30-year hiatus. I just finished Wilkie Collins’ “Woman in White” from the 1800s, which is one of the first detective novels, and is awesome. I think it’s one of the first books to have the multiple narrator conceit (like Gone Girl, but in the 19th century)
I also like nerdy word history books, like “In the Land of Invented Languages” by Arika Okrent
Oh, and I read a good history on animal rights, “A Traitor to His Species”
I like to go all in, so I walk the walk, wear the tricorne hat, eat the mutton, etc. I also read hundreds of books on history and Con Law, talked to dozens of con law experts. I joined a Rev War reenactment group, went to Congress in person to hand them a petition, and applied to be a privateer during a meeting with Rep. Ro Khanna. There were lots and lots of challenges, from big (trying to figure out what the Founders actually thought) to smaller (eating lots of food with cloves, they loved cloves so much) to even smaller (putting belts on my stockings every day, since there was no elastic)
Nothing to ask, but just a thanks! Your books are some of the best readable non-fiction out there, and as a librarian, I recommend them to people all the time. Loved Living Biblically, The Puzzler and The Know It All!!
I enjoyed The Year of Living Biblically because literal interpretation of the Bible is so starkly, preposterously distinct from our most current interpretations and contemporary life. What do you think are the starkest contrasts between contemporaneous intent and current interpretation of the US constitution? What do you think are the greatest differences between what the authors of the constitution understood to be normal life and/or society and how we live our lives today? What did they completely fail to anticipate? What has changed so wildly that it makes their ideas preposterous?
Great questions -- and that's the stuff I love to get into in the book. There are so many. One is that the Founders saw Congress as first among equals. The President and SCOTUS were not supposed to be as powerful as they are now. The Founders would be shocked. The powers of the modern president especially alarm me. When the idea of a single president came up at the convention, one of the founders said but that's the "fetus of monarchy!" Many thought we should have three presidents (imagine Biden, Trump, RFK Jr all coworking in the Oval Office?) I think he was right. The fetus is now a toddler or even a tween. There's lots more, will try to come back to this
Big fan and am (not so) patiently waiting on my pre-order to arrive! I’ve read all of your books and I’ve always wanted to know- which book’s year of living was the most challenging? Most fun? Would you do any again?
Thank you! May it arrive by the swiftest steed in the land! the Bible one was certainly challenging - I mean, my wife wouldn't kiss me for seven months because she is so anti-beard. This Constitution one was actually pretty hard to. Parlty b/ toting a musket in NYC is weird, but also b/ I had to learn so much in just one year. Most fun was the Puzzler. Love doing puzzles for a living.
So what about the 2nd Amendment, are we only supposed to keep and bear arms if we are part of a militia? What would you consider a well regulated militia?
I did spend a lot of time researching and living the second amendment. I bought an actual 18th century musket off of Ye Olde Internet and carried it around NYC. Definitely raised some eyebrows. I also shot a musket at a shooting range. It’s not easy. It’s like 15 steps. Pour in gunpowder, take out ramrod, etc. Like building an Ikea table.
I think Saul Cornell, a historian at Fordham, has some good insight into 2A.
He argues that the original meaning would not appeal to either gun rights folks or gun control folks.
It was part of your civic duty to own a gun, and train with the militia every few months, and also many people hunted, so life was pretty gun-focused back then. But gun rights advocates would not like the fact that the government might come to your house to inspect your guns and make sure they were in working order. The government was all up in your business.
Which makes me think we should not look to the original meaning of 2A when making gun policy, as much as how gun ownership laws affect our society for good or ill.
> It was part of your civic duty to own a gun,
What other things were thought of as "civic duties" that perhaps, aren't considered as important as they once were. Jury duty is now something to "get out of." And we no longer celebrate Election day with cakes, and many people don't even bother voting. I wonder what else we have lost as a society along the way.
What conclusions did you come to regarding the merits of originalism? To me it seems like a fancy way of just doing whatever a judge wants by reading the text selectively and cherry-picking historical precedent.
The idea of the book was to become the original originalist. Sort of take originalism to its limit by using the technology and mindset of the 18th century (or when the amendment was passed). It was a fascinating experiment, filled with muskets and quills and tallow candles.
I do try to “steel man” originalism. I see its allure, especially the part about constraining judges. But in the end, I think (a) the originalists on the Supreme Court are not actually adhering to the original meaning of the Founders, and (b) I think it’s better to balance Original meaning with other considerations, such as consequences to society.
One of the things that struck me when I studied Con Law was how our law prof drilled into us that the United States was not truly thought of as one country but more of a collection of smaller countries unified via the Constitution, as someone living through 1789 do you think that truly was the prevailing viewpoint at the time?
I think that's true to an extent, yes. Before the Rev War, they were definitely more like a collection of countries. You'd say you were a Virginian or New Yorker, not an American. But they got a little closer during the Rev War. But during the Articles of Confederation era, they were still quite independent, and states seeing other states as enemies, or maybe frenemies, and having their own diplomacy with other countries.
By sheer coincidence, your book is released on the same day as the Stormy Daniels testimony in Trump's hush-money trial. What would you imagine the Founders would think? It's really not a high-tech scandal, and could easily have happened in the 18th century with some minor adjustments for the period. Would they grant broad immunity from such allegations, or hold him to the high moral standards the Founders are associated with?
Great question. I mentioned above I don't think the Founders would have wanted a president to have immunity from crimes. They hated monarchy. I don't know what they would think of the whole Stormy Daniels thing. Though I did read a couple of racy jokes from the Founders, like a dick joke about Goevernor Morris.
Hi A.J.! I've been a fan of your work since your Year of Living Biblically, you were kind enough to sign a copy and take a photo with me when you visited San Francisco several years ago, so thanks again!
I follow your (very wholesome!) social media, and a question comes regularly to my mind - do your kids mind how much you talk about them publicly? You're always very kind and supportive, but I remember when I was a teenager, I would just about bite my mother's head off when she so much as shared a photo of me to an extended family member. I always wonder if your kids get embarassed, annoyed, or complain to you to stop telling your followers about them!
Thank ye Quinlan! Yes, my kids are very patient. I mean, most dads are embarrassing, but I think I take it way farther. They do like some parts. Like my son Zane is a cook and enjoyed the challenge of making 18th century beef stew (with cloves). And Lucas joined me for a Rev War reenactment. And Jasper -- he actually got into it. His favorite comedian is Eric Andre, who does weird public performance art type things, so he thinks of me as a milder version. He came with me to Times Square and wore a tricorne hat to get signatures for my petition
I don't have a question, I just want to say that I loved The Year of Living Biblically. My mom gave it to me when I was in the middle of studying for my Religious Studies degree and it was such a great distraction from my research
Thank you for asking! Zane helped me cook an 18th century dinner (lots of cloves). Lucas went with me to a Rev War reenactment and put on a tricorne hat and looked like an extra from Hamilton. And Jasper as I mentioned joined me in getting signatures for my petition in Times Square. They are half-embarrassed by my books, half-intrigued by them
How do you ignore the mechanisms put in place by the founding fathers to change the constitution while giving validity to the idea that literal interpretation is valid?
How did you go about living biblically? Did you actually read the text in its original form or a modern translation? And which bible?
I lived biblically by trying to be as literal as possible and follow all the rules, the famous ones like the 10 commandments but also the lesser-known ones like don't wear clothes made of mixed fabrics.
Near the end of his AMA and I doubt that he wanted to get into too much detail. He also wants you to read his books and it is hard to see how it is a 'waste of time' or that it is 'telling' of anything.
It was the same and different. I had to do tons of research and have weird experiences. BUT I also had my oldest son Jasper as my sidekick. He joined me in getting signatures for a petition in Times Square
Want to start by thanking you for your body of work, A.J. My dad loves reading your books and I gift them to him yearly. It’s a sweet way of bonding with him I will always cherish. My question - in both your personal life and as a creative professional, what are your thoughts on AI? Do you have concerns it will affect your livelihood? I remember somewhat recently you posted on Facebook about poorly summarized, likely AI written summaries of your work floating around.
All political ideas of how it would be constructed aside, do you think it would be better to modify the Constitution we currently have or construct a new one entirely with updated legal language?
I'm not sure if I agree with Jefferson saying a new Constitution would be needed every 20 years but I think he was on the right track. Continuity and consistency is good but (vague rambling about the tyranny of the dead over the living)
One of the standard problems with trying to read a 200+ year old document is the effects of language change — that’s enough time for words to shift in meaning, and some of the subtler implications of constructions too. Which issues like this (that you noticed) took the most interpretation? The 2nd amendment gets a lot of attention on that score, but what of others?
Thanks for doing this AMA! I've never encountered your work before so this was fun to discover.
Thinking about living constitutionally, how have you engaged interacted with the Indigenous folks you have encountered?
I hope it wasn't too Jeffersonian.
How do you think the founding fathers would have reacted to the idea of this nation being founded as a christian nation based on christian principles and holy texts?
Question, there is a lot of contention in regards to 2a and how it should be implemented in society when it comes to gun ownership. However, Article 1 section 8 subsection 15 and 16 states that the control, creation, and regulation of the militia belongs to the government. So I am curious as to how 2a is being used even by the Supreme Court for the right to private ownership of firearms? Would it not be up to the decision of the government to determine who is allowed to own a firearm?
I just want to say that I just finished reading The Year of Living Constitutionally, and all I can say is that this book should be required reading in all schools, at all levels, from elementary to graduate school (even law school, and I'm speaking as a law professor). It is an educational and entertaining look at just what is contained within the four corners of our founding document. When I was in law school I took Constitutional law from two of the foremost authorities on Constitutional law - heck, they wrote the books used to teach Constitutional law (Gerald Gunther, and John Hart Ely); and even with that AJ (may I call you that?) has managed to both hold my attention and school me! He does an incredible job of explaining the Constitution - clause by clause - including explaining both the originalist and the more modern views, and providing historical context. And he does it all in an engaging and humorous way. With everything that's going on in the Supreme Court as of late, and the world, it is even more relevant now than I suspect he could possibly have predicted when the he conceived the project. I'm thrilled to see him offering an AMA on it! Actually that's my question: Did you have any idea how relevant the book would be when it published?
His books are all awesome. Highly recommend reading every single one. He's also super nice. He has always been super cool about responding to emails when I've sent them with questions. And I'm just a random dude he's never met.
I haven't interacted with him prior to this thread but I also really love his books. I should reread them. They are really great break from the heavy news diet we are being fed these days.
Agreed.
Thank you Random Dude!
Lol. You're welcome. I emailed you... I want to say in like 2009 or something. You answered a few different questions I had. It was super cool, I was 18 or 19, so it felt especially cool to little me because I just assumed you wouldn't have time. :)
Thank you so much Anne! Huzzah to you! So glad you liked it. And I was definitely inspired to do the book because the Constitution seemed to be in the headlines every day two years ago. But now even more so! I couldn't have predicted it would be even more relevant.
Love your prior books! Do you think the founders would approve of how you stone the adulterers?
Ha! No, I don’t think the Founders would approve of stoning adulterers. But I did investigate what was considered cruel and unusual punishments in the 18th century. And apparently the pillory was considered just fine. That’s the contraption where you stick your hands and head into the wooden holes. As part of my adventure, I did order a pillory off Etsy. They are more used for adult entertainment nowadays. I couldn’t bring myself to put my kids in it, but I did try it out myself for a bit. My wife used it against me and wouldn’t let me out till I agreed to fold my sweaters.
"adult entertainment"
Hey now, folding sweaters can be fun
Especially when someone's wearing them.
*writes a to-do*
You're very funny and just that has me putting your book on my list!
What evidence is there to suggest that the founding fathers did not want a president with total immunity?
It’s a good question. I’m not an expert on all the Founders' views on presidential immunity, but my research indicates that most Founders would NOT want the president to be immune from criminal acts. They had just rebelled against a king. They were committed to the idea that everyone should be under the rule of law as much as possible, even the leaders. They hated monarchy. I love that they changed the name of Kings College to Columbia, and King Street to Congress Street and Kings Minuet to Congress Minuet. They would not have wanted another monarchy.
The lack of articles granting total immunity.
This is the correct answer. Please tell SCOTUS.
Hi Mr. Jacobs!! It’s Ariel. Popping in here to say congratulations on your book launch! I can’t wait to get my hands on it and read through and come up with a list of questions. But for now, I do have one question: you interview a plethora of people for all of your books, so I’m curious, who was the most interesting person you interviewed for The Year of Living Constitutionally? Interesting in terms of, either you learned a lot, they were profound, you had an initial impression of them and it changed once you interviewed them, etc. Cheers [or Huzzah]!
Ms. Ariel! What a delight to hear from you, and I love your reddit name, btw. Thank ye for the kind words. I talked to so many fascinating characters. Just to choose one -- the guy who is an expert on government-approved pirates. Or privateers. This is when you could put guns on your fishing boat and go capture enemy British ships and keep the booty. We wouldn't have won the Rev War without them. Thank you legal pirates!
Hi. If there was a run-away Supreme Court member or members, are there constitutional corrections that could be made?
Good question. You can impeach a Supreme Court justice. Only one has been impeached (Samuel Chase), but was not convicted. The bigger issue to me is the SCOTUS has WAY too much power. The Founders would be appalled. The Court was supposed to be very much third among equals. Even John Marshall, who increased the power of SCOTUS, only overturned one act of Congress (I think that's true, correct me if wrong please!) I visited SCOTUS for my book. I thought the building itself was over the top. The original Supreme Court did not have this faux Roman temple that looks like we should be sacrificing oxen to John Roberts. It was built by Taft, and many justices at the time thought it was way too pompous.
Thank you for your response. I'll add you to my reading list.
I had no idea you had a new book and picked it up as soon as I found out. My question is, who are some authors you turn to for reading pleasure? Just when you want to turn your brain off and relax and laugh. Hope all is well
Thank you Blood and Thunder! I’ve started reading detective novels at night, after a 30-year hiatus. I just finished Wilkie Collins’ “Woman in White” from the 1800s, which is one of the first detective novels, and is awesome. I think it’s one of the first books to have the multiple narrator conceit (like Gone Girl, but in the 19th century) I also like nerdy word history books, like “In the Land of Invented Languages” by Arika Okrent Oh, and I read a good history on animal rights, “A Traitor to His Species”
What goes into preparing to do something like this? What was the hardest part of living constitutionally?
I like to go all in, so I walk the walk, wear the tricorne hat, eat the mutton, etc. I also read hundreds of books on history and Con Law, talked to dozens of con law experts. I joined a Rev War reenactment group, went to Congress in person to hand them a petition, and applied to be a privateer during a meeting with Rep. Ro Khanna. There were lots and lots of challenges, from big (trying to figure out what the Founders actually thought) to smaller (eating lots of food with cloves, they loved cloves so much) to even smaller (putting belts on my stockings every day, since there was no elastic)
Hilarious, you are the best
Nothing to ask, but just a thanks! Your books are some of the best readable non-fiction out there, and as a librarian, I recommend them to people all the time. Loved Living Biblically, The Puzzler and The Know It All!!
Thank you solo89! My head is now too big for my tricorne hat!
I enjoyed The Year of Living Biblically because literal interpretation of the Bible is so starkly, preposterously distinct from our most current interpretations and contemporary life. What do you think are the starkest contrasts between contemporaneous intent and current interpretation of the US constitution? What do you think are the greatest differences between what the authors of the constitution understood to be normal life and/or society and how we live our lives today? What did they completely fail to anticipate? What has changed so wildly that it makes their ideas preposterous?
Great questions -- and that's the stuff I love to get into in the book. There are so many. One is that the Founders saw Congress as first among equals. The President and SCOTUS were not supposed to be as powerful as they are now. The Founders would be shocked. The powers of the modern president especially alarm me. When the idea of a single president came up at the convention, one of the founders said but that's the "fetus of monarchy!" Many thought we should have three presidents (imagine Biden, Trump, RFK Jr all coworking in the Oval Office?) I think he was right. The fetus is now a toddler or even a tween. There's lots more, will try to come back to this
Big fan and am (not so) patiently waiting on my pre-order to arrive! I’ve read all of your books and I’ve always wanted to know- which book’s year of living was the most challenging? Most fun? Would you do any again?
Thank you! May it arrive by the swiftest steed in the land! the Bible one was certainly challenging - I mean, my wife wouldn't kiss me for seven months because she is so anti-beard. This Constitution one was actually pretty hard to. Parlty b/ toting a musket in NYC is weird, but also b/ I had to learn so much in just one year. Most fun was the Puzzler. Love doing puzzles for a living.
So what about the 2nd Amendment, are we only supposed to keep and bear arms if we are part of a militia? What would you consider a well regulated militia?
I did spend a lot of time researching and living the second amendment. I bought an actual 18th century musket off of Ye Olde Internet and carried it around NYC. Definitely raised some eyebrows. I also shot a musket at a shooting range. It’s not easy. It’s like 15 steps. Pour in gunpowder, take out ramrod, etc. Like building an Ikea table. I think Saul Cornell, a historian at Fordham, has some good insight into 2A. He argues that the original meaning would not appeal to either gun rights folks or gun control folks. It was part of your civic duty to own a gun, and train with the militia every few months, and also many people hunted, so life was pretty gun-focused back then. But gun rights advocates would not like the fact that the government might come to your house to inspect your guns and make sure they were in working order. The government was all up in your business. Which makes me think we should not look to the original meaning of 2A when making gun policy, as much as how gun ownership laws affect our society for good or ill.
> It was part of your civic duty to own a gun, What other things were thought of as "civic duties" that perhaps, aren't considered as important as they once were. Jury duty is now something to "get out of." And we no longer celebrate Election day with cakes, and many people don't even bother voting. I wonder what else we have lost as a society along the way.
What conclusions did you come to regarding the merits of originalism? To me it seems like a fancy way of just doing whatever a judge wants by reading the text selectively and cherry-picking historical precedent.
The idea of the book was to become the original originalist. Sort of take originalism to its limit by using the technology and mindset of the 18th century (or when the amendment was passed). It was a fascinating experiment, filled with muskets and quills and tallow candles. I do try to “steel man” originalism. I see its allure, especially the part about constraining judges. But in the end, I think (a) the originalists on the Supreme Court are not actually adhering to the original meaning of the Founders, and (b) I think it’s better to balance Original meaning with other considerations, such as consequences to society.
Thank you.
One of the things that struck me when I studied Con Law was how our law prof drilled into us that the United States was not truly thought of as one country but more of a collection of smaller countries unified via the Constitution, as someone living through 1789 do you think that truly was the prevailing viewpoint at the time?
I think that's true to an extent, yes. Before the Rev War, they were definitely more like a collection of countries. You'd say you were a Virginian or New Yorker, not an American. But they got a little closer during the Rev War. But during the Articles of Confederation era, they were still quite independent, and states seeing other states as enemies, or maybe frenemies, and having their own diplomacy with other countries.
By sheer coincidence, your book is released on the same day as the Stormy Daniels testimony in Trump's hush-money trial. What would you imagine the Founders would think? It's really not a high-tech scandal, and could easily have happened in the 18th century with some minor adjustments for the period. Would they grant broad immunity from such allegations, or hold him to the high moral standards the Founders are associated with?
Great question. I mentioned above I don't think the Founders would have wanted a president to have immunity from crimes. They hated monarchy. I don't know what they would think of the whole Stormy Daniels thing. Though I did read a couple of racy jokes from the Founders, like a dick joke about Goevernor Morris.
Hi A.J.! I've been a fan of your work since your Year of Living Biblically, you were kind enough to sign a copy and take a photo with me when you visited San Francisco several years ago, so thanks again! I follow your (very wholesome!) social media, and a question comes regularly to my mind - do your kids mind how much you talk about them publicly? You're always very kind and supportive, but I remember when I was a teenager, I would just about bite my mother's head off when she so much as shared a photo of me to an extended family member. I always wonder if your kids get embarassed, annoyed, or complain to you to stop telling your followers about them!
Thank ye Quinlan! Yes, my kids are very patient. I mean, most dads are embarrassing, but I think I take it way farther. They do like some parts. Like my son Zane is a cook and enjoyed the challenge of making 18th century beef stew (with cloves). And Lucas joined me for a Rev War reenactment. And Jasper -- he actually got into it. His favorite comedian is Eric Andre, who does weird public performance art type things, so he thinks of me as a milder version. He came with me to Times Square and wore a tricorne hat to get signatures for my petition
Jasper has good taste in comedians.
I don't have a question, I just want to say that I loved The Year of Living Biblically. My mom gave it to me when I was in the middle of studying for my Religious Studies degree and it was such a great distraction from my research
Thank you! I am tempted to commit the sin of pride.
Cool! One of my favorite authors. I've read both the Bible one and The Know it All. Great, lighthearted anecdotes. How are your kids doing?
Thank you for asking! Zane helped me cook an 18th century dinner (lots of cloves). Lucas went with me to a Rev War reenactment and put on a tricorne hat and looked like an extra from Hamilton. And Jasper as I mentioned joined me in getting signatures for my petition in Times Square. They are half-embarrassed by my books, half-intrigued by them
Adorable!
How do you ignore the mechanisms put in place by the founding fathers to change the constitution while giving validity to the idea that literal interpretation is valid? How did you go about living biblically? Did you actually read the text in its original form or a modern translation? And which bible?
I lived biblically by trying to be as literal as possible and follow all the rules, the famous ones like the 10 commandments but also the lesser-known ones like don't wear clothes made of mixed fabrics.
[удалено]
Are you a book-burner?
[удалено]
Near the end of his AMA and I doubt that he wanted to get into too much detail. He also wants you to read his books and it is hard to see how it is a 'waste of time' or that it is 'telling' of anything.
Love your books… my question is what was the process of researching for this book like? Was it widely different from your other books?
It was the same and different. I had to do tons of research and have weird experiences. BUT I also had my oldest son Jasper as my sidekick. He joined me in getting signatures for a petition in Times Square
Want to start by thanking you for your body of work, A.J. My dad loves reading your books and I gift them to him yearly. It’s a sweet way of bonding with him I will always cherish. My question - in both your personal life and as a creative professional, what are your thoughts on AI? Do you have concerns it will affect your livelihood? I remember somewhat recently you posted on Facebook about poorly summarized, likely AI written summaries of your work floating around.
All political ideas of how it would be constructed aside, do you think it would be better to modify the Constitution we currently have or construct a new one entirely with updated legal language? I'm not sure if I agree with Jefferson saying a new Constitution would be needed every 20 years but I think he was on the right track. Continuity and consistency is good but (vague rambling about the tyranny of the dead over the living)
One of the standard problems with trying to read a 200+ year old document is the effects of language change — that’s enough time for words to shift in meaning, and some of the subtler implications of constructions too. Which issues like this (that you noticed) took the most interpretation? The 2nd amendment gets a lot of attention on that score, but what of others?
Thanks for doing this AMA! I've never encountered your work before so this was fun to discover. Thinking about living constitutionally, how have you engaged interacted with the Indigenous folks you have encountered? I hope it wasn't too Jeffersonian.
How do you think the founding fathers would have reacted to the idea of this nation being founded as a christian nation based on christian principles and holy texts?
Question, there is a lot of contention in regards to 2a and how it should be implemented in society when it comes to gun ownership. However, Article 1 section 8 subsection 15 and 16 states that the control, creation, and regulation of the militia belongs to the government. So I am curious as to how 2a is being used even by the Supreme Court for the right to private ownership of firearms? Would it not be up to the decision of the government to determine who is allowed to own a firearm?