TheNakedConstitution_hc_LoRes.jpg

Limited Government, in Three Minutes!

To kick off the release of my new book, The Naked Constitution, the good folks at Fox & Friends had me on this morning to discuss the role of the federal government.  The interview is only 3 minutes long, but previews some of the themes in the book. You can see the video here.

 <script type=”text/javascript” src=”http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=1887648011001&w=233&h=131″></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

  1. Gus Marvinson

    Coolness! I pray that your book floods the streets. Both for your future welfare, and for that of our country.

  2. Rob Long
    C

    Adam!  You looked and sounded splendid.  It’s a great book, one that I know all Ricochetti will enjoy.

    I especially liked the no-tie outfit you wore.  Friendly.  Approachable.

  3. Joan of Ark La Tex

    Perfect!  Adam, exactly what I have been looking for. Ordering the book today if it is available on amazon, is it on audible too?

  4. Mark Wilson

    Great concise explanations, Adam.  I hope your book has influence far and wide.

    I have a question about one of your answers though, where you said freedom of religion is “the first part of the First Amendment”, indicating its importance to the Founders.  I have always understood the order in which the amendments appear to be accidental, based on either on the order in which they were proposed or the order in which the state legislatures happened to ratify them (for example, once I ran across an old court case where the “right keep and bear arms” is referred to as the 6th Amendment based on a different numbering scheme).  Is that correct?

    So in light of that, along with the fact that many of the Founders didn’t believe the amendments were even necessary in the first place, can we really infer the Founders’ relative importance of certain rights based on their ordinal position within the text?

  5. Adam Freedman
    C

    Thanks Gus!  And Rob, you’re too kind.   Everything I know about television I learned from you!

  6. Adam Freedman
    C
    Joan Greathouse: Perfect!  Adam, exactly what I have been looking for. Ordering the book today if it is available on amazon, is it on audible too? · 4 minutes ago

    Physical book and ebook.   No audio book at this time, but fingers crossed, that should come in time!

  7. Adam Freedman
    C
    Mark Wilson:

    So in light of that, along with the fact that many of the Founders didn’t believe the amendments were even necessary in the first place, can we really infer the Founders’ relative importance of certain rights based on their ordinal position within the text? · 2 minutes ago

    It’s true that some of the Constitution’s framers did not think a Bill of Rights was necessary.  But I use “Founders” as a broader term, which includes the Anti-Federalists who were ultimately won over to support the Constitution.  For them, the religion clauses were absolutely essential.   When the Bill of Rights was first going through Congress today’s “first” amendment wasn’t necessarily first (and some thought the amendments should simply be worked into the main text rather than appended at the end).  But the consensus soon formed as to the order of the amendments, and I do think that the placement of the First Amendment is significant.

  8. drlorentz

    Nice discussion of the Commerce Clause. Though a seemingly obscure part of the Constitution, perhaps Americans will now see how important it is. I hope your book will give this issue the attention it deserves.

  9. Pseudodionysius

    I can think of no higher compliment than to say I’m making a sartorial change to implement my inner Freedman.

  10. MLH

    Adam,

    I’m enjoying the podcast and my book is on its way. 

    Now, how do we get you on a MSM channel?. . .

  11. Adam Freedman
    C
    drlorentz: Nice discussion of the Commerce Clause. Though a seemingly obscure part of the Constitution, perhaps Americans will now see how important it is. I hope your book will give this issue the attention it deserves. · 43 minutes ago

    The Commerce Clause is what got me obsessed with original meaning.  It never ceases to amaze me that so much of today’s federal government is justified by a reading of that clause that is just flat-out wrong.  By some estimates, 60% of the federal budget goes to programs beyond the enumerated powers….

  12. Adam Freedman
    C
    Pseudodionysius: I can think of no higher compliment than to say I’m making a sartorial change to implement my inner Freedman. · 32 minutes ago

    I am honored!

  13. Adam Freedman
    C
    MLH: Adam,

    I’m enjoying the podcast and my book is on its way. 

    Now, how do we get you on a MSM channel?. . . · 28 minutes ago

    Thanks! 

    Good question.  My publisher pitched every media outlet there is, but the MSM just isn’t interested (at least, not so far).

  14. Mark Wilson
    Adam Freedman

    My publisher pitched every media outlet there is, but the MSM just isn’t interested (at least, not so far). · 1 minute ago

    The Constitution, that old thing?  It’s so passé.  Plus, I heard it’s one of those things Tea Partiers are into.  Ick.  Ain’t touchin’ it, no way.

  15. MLH
    Adam Freedman

    Now, how do we get you on a MSM channel?. . . · 28 minutes ago

    Thanks! 

    Good question.  My publisher pitched every media outlet there is, but the MSM just isn’t interested (at least, not so far). · 32 minutes ago

    Bread and circuses. . .

  16. PJS
    Pseudodionysius: I can think of no higher compliment than to say I’m making a sartorial change to implement my inner Freedman. · 1 hour ago

    Pictures please.

  17. PJS

    I would highly recommend Adam’s “Naked Constitution” podcast.  I just finished the second one, which had a great discussion of the Commerce Clause with Paul Rahe (our very own!) and Randy Barnett from Georgetown University.

  18. Chris Johnson

    “The Commerce Clause is what got me obsessed with original meaning.  It never ceases to amaze me that so much of today’s federal government is justified by a reading of that clause that is just flat-out wrong. ”

    Regulating commerce between the states, as in making it regular, normal, and predictable.  Just the opposite of how the phrase is interpreted today!  Sorry if that was already brought up in the podcast, but I haven’t gotten to it, yet.  Podcasts are for working on cars/equipment, or riding the lawn tractor, and we’re so flooded out with rain around here I am too much blessed with the close companionship of family. I see blue sky, so perhaps tomorrow!

  19. Pseudodionysius
    PJS

    Pseudodionysius: I can think of no higher compliment than to say I’m making a sartorial change to implement my inner Freedman. · 1 hour ago

    Pictures please. · 3 hours ago

    Alas, commercial imperatives always interfere with artistic ideals.

  20. PJS
    Pseudodionysius

    PJS

    Pseudodionysius: I can think of no higher compliment than to say I’m making a sartorial change to implement my inner Freedman. · 1 hour ago

    Pictures please. · 3 hours ago

    Alas, commercial imperatives always interfere with artistic ideals. · 0 minutes ago

    A likely story.

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In