his adversary thomas marshall. and had seen him as a fanatic as a connection to the founding documents and principles, more than that, of what those principles were. what did high treason he now went on to advocate the dissolution of government never mind the declaration had been written to justify the dissolution of colonial dominion, the real danger for the republic came not from petitioners but slaveholders. there was a concerted system and purpose to destroy the principles of sublimity in the free state, the right of habeas corpus and trial by jury, the right of petition. admittedly the most biased of spectators wrote that old nestor had demonstrated a calm fearlessness and majesty that furnished highest illustration of the moral sublime that i ever witnessed in the secular assembly. now henry wise rose to deliver a rebuttal. wise was a temperate man, and he delivered a fiery blistering ugly attack on adams's personally, on his father who he called -- where they were from. very violent. adams is cool for two da

and so they chose thomas marshall. thomas marsh was the nephew of john marshall, a great supreme court chief justice. he was also a highly regarded lawyer, and order, a member of the week party. and so the perfect person to represent their point of view so it didn't seem to seem like slavery against anti-slavery. so several days later i think was probably january 25, marshall began to speak. it was an astonishing spectacle, this was. crowds filled the galleries of the house long before the noon opening of the session. foreign ministers, attaches and others persons filled the lobby and out of space in the hall and outside the speaker called on marshall who read a resolution to censure adams. in his version had raised the stakes considerably, where as, he asserted, a dissolution of the union necessarily implied the destruction of the constitution. the overthrow of the republic and the violation of the legislators on both. the petition adams had presented compelled the members to purchase themselves and evolve the crime o

thomas marshall was vice president for woodrow wilson. neither were heard from again. thank you both. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] c-span, landmark cases and supreme court decisions. this explores real life stories and constitutional dramas. caseis is a story and a during times of war. it puts before the courts .everal themes it limits what the congress can place on it. he says that the case has come to be a hectic right of -- accepted by the coulter. >> it isolated the

one that comes to mind is thomas marshall, vice president the woodrow wilson -- two woodrow wilson told the story of two brothers. 112 -- one went to sea and one became vice president and neither were heard from again. [laughter] thank you both. >> also trying to chronologically think about what was medicine encountering at the time and keeping those two america's straight was quite tricky for a while. on q&a, boston college law school professor discusses her book, madison's hand, which takes a critical look at the notes madison wrote during and after the convention of 1787. >> he took those sheets of paper and folded those in half right across in the middle and on two pages on the backside. at some point, little piece of paper together into a manuscript. one of the wonderful things we notice when we were down there is that the last quarter of the manuscript, and the holes he had sewn did not match with the earlier one. it confirms my suspicion that the end of the manuscript had been written later. it is a really wonderful thing to get to see that in person. >> sunday night at 8:00 :00

one that comes to mind is thomas marshall, vice president the woodrow wilson -- two woodrow wilson told the story of two brothers. and oneone went to sea became vice president and neither were heard from again. [laughter] thank you both. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> coming up next your calls and comments live on washington journal. a consumer financial protection bureau richard cordray testifying at a senate oversight hearing. after that a discussion about training the workforce for jobs in the digital economy. >> a signature feature of both tv on c-span2 was taking you to book fairs and festivals across the country. this weekend we travel to the university of southern california for the 21st annual los angeles times festival of books, one of the most celebrated festivals in the west. our live coverage starts today at 1:30 p.m. eastern featuring national security with author sarah chase in her book "these of st

rosen talks about the ideological differences between marshall and president thomas jefferson, and marshall's influence on later supreme court justices. the supreme court historical society and john marshall foundation cohosted the event in the supreme court chamber. this is about an hour. >> we are delighted to welcome you here to join us in celebrating the 215th anniversary of the appointment of john marshall to the supreme court of united states. this evening is a joint venture between the supreme court historical society and the john marshall foundation. this is not the first time that those two organizations have partnered. as an example, they joined forces to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the appointment of john marshall to the supreme court. the capstone of that particular evening was a rousing lecture by justice scalia about the importance of john marshall to the history of the court and the history of the country. justice scalia was a grand friend of both the marshall foundation and the supreme court historical society. i hope you will join me in just a moment of silence to reme

thomas marshall was vice president for woodrow wilson. neither were heard from again. thank you both. [applause] smoke-field room, meet silicon valley. we had been looking into this story. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having me. >> all eyes will be on cleveland for what may be a historic convention. how does technology play into this? >> these candidates need to find that as much as they can about every possible delicate, particularly the ones up for

we'll give you indiana's votes if you put thomas marshall on the ticket down the line if you get the nomination. it would be that sort of arrangement. once -- after 1940, after the presidential candidate really started taking a major role, for the period of time there would still be meeting at the convention with the leading party official and the candidate would meet with people and so it was a democratic process in the sense that there was some consultation and deliberation and so forth although ultimately it was the candidate's decision. but i think as it's moved away from the convention beginning in 1976 it's been a process that's been focused much more on the presidential candidate and the people around the presidential candidate. they still consult with the party leaders, go to capitol hill and talk to the figures. they talk to governors. they solicit input. but ultimately the circle of people in the room when the decision is made tends to be the presidential candidates and a few people who are close to them. >> i'm going to get our questioners ready. a couple more questions to

we'll give you indiana's votes if you put thomas marshall on the ticket down the line if you get the nomination. it would be that sort of arrangement there would still be meetings with the leading party officials and the candidate would meet with people so it was a democratic process in the sense that there was some consultation and liberation and so forth although ultimately was the candidate decision but as it's moved away from the convention beginning in 1976s been a process focused much more on the presidential candidate and the people around the presidential candidate they still go to capital hill and talk to governors and solicit input but ultimately it tends to be the presidential candidate and the few people close to them. >> i'm going to get our questioners ready and throw in a couple more questions and then we'll turn to the audience again we referred to we might have a different kind of a year. especially on the republican side. we made recommendations that all the candidates should start now. start doing things now it takes time and it's helpful to take the time to do the

we need indiana's votes completely indiana's votes if you put thomas marshall on the ticket down the line if you get the nomination. that sort of arrangement. after 1940 after the presidential candidate really started taking a major role, for the time they would still be meetings at the convention with the leading party official. that candidate would meet with people and so it was a democratic process in the sense there was some consultation and deliberation and so forth. although ultimately was the candidates decision. but i think as it has moved away from the convention began in 1976, it's been a process that's been focused much more on the presidential candidate and the people around the presidential candidate. they still consult with the party leaders, still go to capitol hill and talk to the figures. .. you can't wait until the last minute and it helpful to really take time to do a good process. that being said, there might be some amendments to that in certain candidates as to how much they can get going. some of the discussion will probably be the republican side thinking abou

rosen talks about the ideological differences between marshall and president thomas jefferson and his influence on later supreme court justices. the supreme court historical society and john marshall foundation cohosted the event and the supreme court chamber. this is about one hour. >> we are delighted to welcome you here to join us in celebrating the 250th anniversary of the appointment of john marshall to the supreme court of united states. venturening is a joint between the supreme court historical society and the john marshall foundation. this is not the first time that those two organizations have partnered. they joined forces to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the appointment of john marshall to the supreme court. the capstone of that particular evening was a rousing lecture by justice scalia about the importance of john marshall to the history of the court and the history of the country. justice scalia with a grand friend of both the marshall foundation and the supreme court historical society. i hope you will join me in just a moment of silence to remember justice scalia.

we need indianas votes to put thomas marshall on the ticket down the line. so that type of arrangement. after 1940 after the candidate started to take a major role is still had the leading party official end with the democratic process and the candidate's decision but as this moves away for mechanician -- convention on the presidential candidate and they still go to capitol hill to talk to those figures thank governors can the circle of people in the room with the decision made and a few people who were close to them. >> and i will throw out a couple more questions. we refer and made recommendations that all candidates should start doing things now. it takes time. to take the time to do a good process. that being said there may be some amendments how much they can get going. what are some of the considerations out there we don't have as normal a situation in? how do we get going with that process so they are left with a last-minute process at the end? what can we tell them to get the most out of the recommendations? >> with up five step process you can get t

marshall on the ticket down the line if you get the nomination. that sort of arrangement. after 1940 after the presidential candidate billy started taking the major role, for a period of time there's to be meetings at the convention with the leading party official. the candidate would meet with people and so it was a democratic process in the sense that there is some consultation and deliberation and so forth. although ultimately it was the candidates decision, i think as it has moved away from the convention, beginning in 1976, it has been a process that has been focused much more on the presidential candidate and the people around the presidential candidate. they still consult with the party leaders, they still go to capitol hill and talk to the figures, they talk to governors and solicit input. ultimately the circle of people in the room when the decision is made tends to be the presidential candidate and a few people who are close to them. >> i'm going to get our questions ready and then we will turn to the audience. we have referred to in ter

rosen talks about the ideological differences between marshall and president thomas jefferson, and marshall's influence on later supreme court justices. the supreme court historical society and john marshall foundation cohosted the event in the supreme court chamber. this is about an hour. >> we are delighted to welcome you here to join us in celebrating the 215th anniversary of the appointment of john marshall to the supreme court of united states. this evening is a joint venture between the supreme court historical society and the john marshall foundation. this is not the first time that those two organizations have partnered. as an example, they joined

one that comes to mind is thomas marshall who was vice president to woodrow wilson told the story of two brothers leaving the village. one became vice president and neither were heard from again. that is obviously not the case. thank you does. -- thank you both. [applause] >> as a recruiter and an officer, you know that these standards -- she said you would not have gone until last year. what stopped you from being a good shot? >> i was convinced it was a shot. when i told myself i would hold myself to a higher standard is to do with me. i forced myself to go to the electronic pistol range for a month so i could become more confident with my weapon and it worked good for the first time i shot expert. so it can be done. almost 20. >> 20 years of service and it took you that long because we went to the basic school together. we all qualified right then and there and there is no one telling you at the time you couldn't shoot. >> clearly you >> clearly you are not familiar with language expectancy. you can roll your eyes, sir. the point is if women are told through language within tissue

rosen talks about the ideological differences between marshall and president thomas jefferson and his influence on later supreme court justices. the supreme court historical society and john marshall foundation cohosted the event and the supreme court chamber. this is about one hour. >>

describe his arch rifle who is thomas jefferson as crazy. his distant kouz cousin. tell us about marshall's vision of unimity and how he was able to pull it off. >> guest: i don't know how many of you have read a case and then been told tell me what you read here. if you have seven opinions, you count four of them say this, but they don't all say it the same way so we think that this guy won, but then we are not sure. so that in terms of a common law tradition where you can use a case for precedent, you know this case will affect others similarly situated, these cases don't help a lot. it was oliver elsworth who was the predecessor first tried to get the court to deliver an opinion of the court. marshall believes in it the same way chief justice mansfield believed in it in england. that is where they got the idea because mansfield instituted the notion of the opinion of the court. there are a lot of people that don't believe in dissent and think the court should speak in one voice. this was marshall's view. not so much it should be squashed but there were not many i

marshall on the court. and i want us to take a look at the poll at the time. and this will shock some people who don't remember it. african-americans 70% in favor of clarence thomas. white americans half and half. part of this was a desire to see an african-american on the court. i remember having epic fights with even over this. black people wanted him on the court. the reality is, at the time, we were in a different times in terms of gender and women, whether or not they are believed when they make these allegations. you can't just say she was not credible. there was more to it. >> i don't believe she was credible. look, there were 12 women who testified for clarence thomas. former co-workers, right? none of them supported anita hill. five or six specifically said they didn't believe her allegations. so not a single co-worker supported anita hill. clarence thomas had been through four fbi background checks. there had never been a hint of this kind of conduct. and, in fact, nobody to this day under oath ha

had been nominated by president bush with daysnsultation just four after the great thurgood marshall retired, i took to the senate floor to speak about the supreme court nominating process. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and other republicans today have been quoting selectively from the remarks that i made in an attempt to justify refusing chief judge garland a fair hearing and a vote on the floor of the senate. a completely ignore the fact that at the time, i was speaking of the dangers of nominating an extreme candidate without proper senate consultation. they completely neglected to quote my unequivocal bottom-line , so let me set the record straight. i said and i quote "if the president consult and cooperate with the senate or moderates is selections, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did justice kennedy and justice souter." i made it absolutely clear that i would go forward with the confirmation process as chairman. even a few months before presidential election. if the nominee were chosen with the advice and not nearly the consent of the senate, just as the cons

, who had been nominated by president bush with daysnsultation just four after thurgood marshall retired, i take to the senate floor to speak about the supreme court nominating process. leader, mymajority friend mitch mcconnell and other republicans today having quoting selectively from the remarks i made in an attempt to justify refusing chief just -- chief judge garland a fair hearing on the floor of the senate. they completely ignore the fact that the time i was speaking of the dangers of nominating an extreme candidate without proper senate consultation. neglected toly quote my unequivocal bottom line. so let me set the record straight. i said and i quote, "if the president consult and cooperates with the senate, or moderates nomineestion, then his may enjoy my support as to justice kennedy and justice souter." i would golear forward with the confirmation even if youhairman with a four presidential elections if the nominee were chosen with the advice and not merely the consent of the senate. just as the constitution requires. advice toent presidents of both parties, including this pr

just four days after the great thurgood marshall retired. i took to the senate floor to speak about the process. senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell and other republicans today have been quoted selectively from remarks that i made in an attempt to justify refusing chief judge garland a fair hearing and a vote on the floor of the senate. they ignore the fact that at the time i was speaking of the dangers of nominating an extreme candidate without proper senate consultation. neglected toly quote my bottom line. let me set the record straight. i said and i quote "if the president consults and cooperates with the senate, or moderates his selections, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did justice kennedy and justice souter. ". i made it clear that i would go forward with the confirmation process. even a few months before the presidential election. if the nominee were chosen with the advice is not merely the consent of the senate, just as the constitution requires. advice toent presidents of both parties, including this president, has b

. >> back in 1992 in the aftermath of the polarizing confirmation process involving clarence thomas who had been nominated by president bush with no consultation just four days after the great thurgood marshall retired i took to the floor to speak about the supreme court nominating process. the senate majority leader coming it he's my friend, mitch mcconnell and others today have been quoting selectively from the remarks and attempt to justify refusing the chief judge garland did a fair hearing and vote on the florida senate. they completely ignore the fact that at the time i was speaking of the dangers of nominating an extreme candidate without proper consultation. they completely neglected to quote the bottom line, and i quote come if the president consults and cooperates with the senate come if moderates the selections then he is nominees may enjoy my support as did justice kennedy and justice souter. i made it absolutely clear that i would go forward to the confirmation process even a few months before the presidential election. if the nominees were chosen with the advice and not ne