00:01 - I found this

00:03 - all. Hello.

00:04 - Good afternoon everyone. Welcome.

00:05 - Thanks for your patience.

00:07 - We are just holding a little bit for some rain, folks

00:11 - and traffic and all that, but, really appreciate your being here.

00:15 - Thank you for coming. My name is Michael Norris.

00:18 - I'm the executive director of Carpenters Hall.

00:20 - Carpenters Hall's a National Historic Landmark, in Philadelphia.

00:24 - And we played, a significant role in the founding of our country.

00:28 - Most people know that we hosted the first Continental Congress, in 1774,

00:33 - where folks like George Washington and John Adams and Patrick Henry met

00:37 - and formed a unified American identity

00:40 - that, really led the way for independence.

00:43 - But a lot of people don't know that.

00:45 - We also played a really important role in Pennsylvania history specifically.

00:48 - And that's what we're here for, to talk about, today.

00:52 - In June of 1776, Carpenters Hall hosted an event

00:56 - called the Pennsylvania Provincial Conference.

00:59 - And that was in response to a resolution that had been passed

01:02 - at the Second Continental Congress meeting right up the street from us,

01:06 - at Independence Hall.

01:08 - And two things happened at the Pennsylvania.

01:10 - Well, two major things happened at the Pennsylvania Provincial Conference.

01:13 - One was the colony of Pennsylvania declared independence from Great Britain,

01:18 - and two, they, authorized the creation of a new state constitution.

01:23 - That constitution was later adopted, in a few months and in September of 1776.

01:29 - And those two things together really marked the transition

01:33 - from Pennsylvania being a colony to being a state.

01:37 - The Pennsylvania General Assembly has actually recognized Carpenters.

01:41 - Hall as the official birthplace of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

01:44 - For that reason,

01:46 - the actions of the provincial conference had a really significant impact

01:50 - on the Second Continental Congress, which, as I said, was meeting

01:53 - right up the street only eight days later, on July 2nd, the Continental Congress

01:57 - passed its own resolution for independence.

02:00 - And then, of course, on July 4th, they adopted, the Declaration of Independence.

02:05 - We all know, I hope, that this year is the 250th anniversary

02:08 - of the Declaration of Independence.

02:10 - But of course, it's also the 250th anniversary of the Pennsylvania.

02:13 - Provincial Conference, which has mostly been forgotten.

02:17 - And because that event took place in our building,

02:20 - we've made it a really a keystone.

02:22 - Good.

02:22 - Nice pun, of our, educational, and engagement efforts.

02:28 - During this, semi Quinn centennial year.

02:31 - And your being here today helps us achieve that goal.

02:34 - So so thank you again.

02:35 - Today we have an amazing panel.

02:37 - You're going to hear a discussion about both the historical significance

02:41 - of that 1776 Constitution, but also and just as important, of course,

02:47 - what is the current relevance of our state constitution

02:50 - today and the issues that that it has jurisdiction over?

02:54 - If you have questions for

02:55 - the panelists, you could have, hopefully picked up an index card.

02:59 - We'll have those around to during the conversation.

03:02 - But you can write out your question on a note card will gather those up

03:06 - and pass them, along, to our moderator.

03:10 - I, I wanted to just let people know we are,

03:14 - live streaming and recording this program, for PCN.

03:17 - So just be aware of that.

03:19 - I'm now, going to introduce our moderator, Amy Coco.

03:23 - Amy is an attorney here in Pittsburgh.

03:25 - Her legal practice focuses on, the professional responsibility of lawyers.

03:30 - And she's also, as I'm sure

03:32 - many of you know, the current president of the Allegheny County Bar Association.

03:36 - So, Amy, take it away.

03:39 - I'm probably the only one up here that actually needs an introduction.

03:44 - Thank you all for coming here.

03:45 - The SBA is, really excited to be part of this program.

03:51 - And we thank Carpenters Hall for helping us put it together.

03:55 - I also want to, take a moment to thank the Commission on,

04:00 - Judicial Independence and, of course, Judge Mary Jane Bowes

04:03 - for their support in putting this program on.

04:09 - As I said, our our panelists,

04:11 - all of their bios are in the materials,

04:14 - and I'm just want to quickly introduce each of them.

04:18 - To my immediate right is Chief Justice

04:21 - Thomas Saylor, who is, Justice emeritus.

04:25 - He is the former, just chief justice

04:28 - of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

04:31 - And he joined the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on January

04:35 - 1st, 1997, and became chief justice in 2015.

04:41 - He authored more than 400 majority opinions before retiring December

04:46 - 31st, 2021.

04:48 - He is now a Judicial Scholar in Residence at the Thomas R Kline Center

04:53 - for Judicial Education at the Klein Duquesne Law School of Law.

04:59 - And I will tell you, he teaches some amazing programs on constitutional law.

05:05 - They're magic classes.

05:07 - And I'm going to sign up for one,

05:10 - to his

05:11 - immediate right is Justice Christine Donoghue.

05:14 - She has been a justice of the Supreme Court since January 2016.

05:20 - She practiced as a trial lawyer and a litigator

05:23 - here in Allegheny County for nearly 30 years.

05:28 - Was a shareholder at Buchanan, Ingersoll and in,

05:33 - she was elected to the Superior.

05:35 - Court of Pennsylvania in 27, 2007 and,

05:40 - taking the bench in January 20 or 2008.

05:44 - She is a former member of the Pennsylvania Court

05:47 - of Judicial Discipline, the Board of Law Examiners,

05:50 - the Judicial Conduct Board, and the Disciplinary Board.

05:54 - To her immediate right is, Justice David and Wecht,

05:59 - who said I could say anything about him that I wanted.

06:04 - And he's he was a Court of Common.

06:06 - Pleas judge here in the fifth Judicial District.

06:10 - Including administrative judge of the Family Division

06:13 - and a Superior court judge from 2012 to 2016.

06:18 - And last

06:19 - but certainly not least, is Dean Jerry Dickinson,

06:23 - who is the current dean of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Hale Pitt.

06:29 - He is a proud Pittsburgh native.

06:32 - And he is,

06:35 - it joined the Pitt law faculty in 2017,

06:38 - was appointed vice dean in March of 2023.

06:43 - He is a constitutional law scholarship,

06:47 - and he sought the Democratic nominations for Pennsylvania's

06:51 - 18th and 12th congressional districts in 2020 and 2022.

06:56 - Those of us who are Pitt alumni and, actually

07:00 - current Pitt staff are very glad he didn't win.

07:05 - And and with that, I think we'll get started.

07:08 - We're going to start with, the person who I am

07:12 - told is the most knowledgeable

07:16 - on constitutional history, Justice Saylor.

07:19 - Perhaps you could say a few words about the formation

07:22 - and the form of Pennsylvania's first constitution.

07:27 - Thank you, Amy.

07:28 - And, welcome to everyone.

07:31 - In a nutshell.

07:33 - On May 15th, 1776,

07:37 - the Second Continental Congress meeting in.

07:40 - Independence Hall in Philadelphia

07:43 - issued what it called a resolve

07:45 - to the 13 Colonies.

07:48 - This resolution, authored by John Adams,

07:52 - urged the colonies to create new, independent governments

07:57 - which would, in the words of the resolution,

08:00 - the best conduce to the happiness and safety

08:03 - of their constituents in particular,

08:06 - and America in general.

08:09 - Pursuant to this call from the Continental Congress.

08:13 - The Pennsylvania Provincial Conference was held

08:16 - June 18 to 25.

08:19 - In 1776.

08:21 - As you've heard, at Carpenter's Hall in Philadelphia,

08:26 - attended by delegates from the ten Pennsylvania

08:28 - counties that in existence,

08:32 - the provincial conference adjourned

08:35 - after having both adopted a provision

08:39 - for a provisional convention

08:41 - to draft a new state constitution

08:45 - and a declaration of independence from Great Britain,

08:49 - a pronouncement

08:50 - which would be nationalized nine days later

08:54 - in the form of the Declaration of Independence.

08:59 - The Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention assembled in Philadelphia

09:03 - on July 15th, 1776,

09:07 - with Benjamin Franklin presiding, and completed its work on September

09:12 - 28th, 1776, when it issued.

09:16 - Pennsylvania's first constitution.

09:19 - Considered by some as one of the more radical

09:22 - and democratic documents of the founding era,

09:26 - the new constitution expanded the franchise by allowing

09:31 - non landowning, taxpaying men to vote

09:35 - and created a strong declaration of rights

09:38 - featuring robust guarantees of protection

09:42 - for life, liberty and property,

09:44 - a religious liberties, freedom of speech

09:48 - and the right to bear arms, among others.

09:52 - Fairly short in form.

09:54 - It consisted of a preamble followed

09:56 - by two parts a declaration of the rights

10:00 - of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

10:05 - and the plan

10:05 - or frame of government for the Commonwealth.

10:09 - The legislative power was vested

10:11 - in a unicameral House of Representatives,

10:15 - the executive power, and a plural executive

10:18 - consisting of a president and 12 member council and the judicial power

10:23 - and a Supreme Court with the Judges Commission for seven years.

10:28 - With the right of reappointment.

10:31 - Although the legislature was institutionally the more powerful

10:35 - of the three branches, no person was capable of being elected a member.

10:40 - More than four years and seven and aspirationally

10:45 - the General Assembly was two.

10:48 - In the words of the Constitution, consist of persons

10:51 - most noted for wisdom and virtue.

10:55 - Also of historical note, section 11

10:59 - of the Constitution provided that delegates to Congress

11:03 - could serve no longer than two years successively,

11:06 - or be capable of reelection for three years afterwards.

11:10 - So that in a nutshell,

11:12 - a little bit about the formation

11:15 - and form of our first constitution.

11:18 - Thank you.

11:20 - We'll move down to we'll start with Justice Donoghue.

11:23 - Did the Constitution represent the will of the people

11:26 - living in Pennsylvania at the time?

11:29 - Well, I don't know.

11:30 - Maybe just to say it could be better to answer that question.

11:35 - I think that,

11:37 - that would we'd be stretching the point to suggest that, all inhabitants

11:42 - of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will were able to participate,

11:48 - in, either.

11:50 - Of course, not the drafting, but even the adoption of that Constitution

11:54 - and in fact, just say or maybe you could give me or clean up my

11:58 - numbers on this, but my understanding is they were probably 6000 delegates.

12:04 - Am I correct?

12:07 - And of course, what was excluded,

12:09 - for the most part, were about, 250,000

12:16 - people who lived within the Commonwealth who,

12:20 - let me see if I could look at my notes here.

12:23 - Maybe 275,000, individuals who were,

12:28 - Quakers and Tories who were excluded,

12:32 - from participation in the adoption.

12:34 - Am I am I pretty accurate on my numbers on that time?

12:37 - So I'm not quite sure of the numbers.

12:40 - Justice.

12:40 - And maybe the dean knows,

12:43 - and some scholars would know, but I think to the point

12:47 - that this the first Constitution,

12:51 - unlike some subsequent constitutions, wasn't ratified by the people.

12:56 - So it was submitted as a fait accompli.

13:00 - So, Amy, to to respond to your question,

13:04 - it's this was the organic document of the Commonwealth, but it's, you know, query.

13:08 - Did it represent the will of the people because of the way it was formed

13:13 - on like for example, the United States Constitution,

13:16 - where they decided to submit it not to the people, not to the state

13:21 - legislatures, but to conventions assembled in the various states of,

13:26 - there's various

13:27 - methods of, adopting constitutions.

13:32 - And in this case, as, as as was mentioned,

13:35 - it wasn't submitted for ratification.

13:37 - But unlike the United States Constitution, which came

13:43 - ten years later,

13:46 - state constitutions are.

13:50 - Significantly easier

13:52 - to amend or change.

13:57 - And so and the Dean can speak to this said

14:00 - that we've had five iterations,

14:04 - constitutions in Pennsylvania,

14:08 - to reflect

14:09 - the exigencies, you might say, of a particular time,

14:12 - although the one thing that's remained constant, it

14:16 - throughout that 250 year history is the Declaration of Rights,

14:20 - which continues to be embedded

14:23 - at the first part of the organic document.

14:26 - There's been some changes, some additions.

14:28 - You'll hear about that as as the speakers move to the more contemporary subjects,

14:33 - which emanated mostly from the declaration as additions,

14:37 - some morning was changed, but essentially, it's still,

14:44 - what was implanted in

14:46 - the Constitution in 177618.

14:52 - I want to just follow up and, you know, build off of,

14:55 - with just a saying or just a Donoghue had mentioned about, the, the

14:59 - whether or not the constitutional convention,

15:02 - for Pennsylvania was all encompassing was inclusive or not.

15:05 - And justice, Donoghue mentioned Quakers and the oath of allegiance

15:10 - that anyone who was going to vote or participate in the convention

15:14 - had to take an oath of allegiance to effectively the revolutionary government.

15:18 - But that meant that they would also be willing to serve and defend the state

15:23 - from outside threats and for Quakers, pacifist,

15:27 - they were not, in the position to want to engage in warfare.

15:31 - And so they were effectively Disenfranchized

15:34 - loyalists to the British crown, were also decent brand, but they could not

15:38 - participate because of their, feelings towards the British crown.

15:41 - And then also, which is, I think, very fascinating, is actually moderate,

15:46 - Whigs, who supported,

15:48 - the idea of independence but thought that the Constitution itself was too radical.

15:52 - They were effectively disenfranchized as well.

15:54 - So yes, there is this sort of,

15:56 - democratic, nature of the structure of what was created,

15:59 - but the actual involvement in those who participated.

16:03 - There was significant number of people, as Justice.

16:05 - Donoghue mentioned, who were not involved and were not part of that, orchestration.

16:09 - So it also didn't last very long.

16:13 - Am I not correct?

16:14 - I mean, the structure of the first constitution was such as I understand

16:20 - it, that it created, essentially many deadlocks

16:24 - in trying to operate, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

16:28 - I mean, for example, there was something akin

16:32 - to, a, a, an executive branch.

16:35 - It was called the Council of Censors.

16:38 - The problem with it is it had no veto power.

16:42 - And it was a unicameral legislature.

16:46 - And, of course, you know,

16:46 - there were judges who were appointed, but they could only serve for seven years.

16:50 - So, I mean, it was really not it was not a, a government

16:55 - with any of the components of what, we now know to be,

17:01 - a, a lasting,

17:04 - type of, government

17:06 - that had the ability to actually move along with the times,

17:10 - which is why we had a new constitution in 1790.

17:15 - So, and as,

17:18 - Chief Justice Emeritus Taylor pointed out, I think something that,

17:22 - most people don't quite realize is that we've had five constitutions,

17:27 - and many of you in this room might, you know, people

17:30 - who may be watching this on PC and may not be aware of that.

17:34 - And I'd really like to thank PC and again for once again,

17:39 - helping to cover the important,

17:42 - events that happened in the legal community.

17:44 - But, so we've had five different constitutions.

17:47 - And I'll just get back to my point, and I'm sure Dean Dickinson knows

17:50 - no, knows much more about the lack of, cohesiveness,

17:56 - under the first Constitution.

17:58 - But it really didn't last very long time.

18:01 - So what led to the rewrites?

18:03 - And, what were the processes that guided the rewrites?

18:07 - Why do we end up with five,

18:11 - well, I can say that the unicameral structure

18:14 - that was started and I think just it's on here was getting to this is that,

18:18 - it didn't work.

18:19 - It gave rise to deadlocks, gridlocks, and nothing could get done.

18:24 - So that was certainly problematic.

18:26 - By 1790, of course, the federal convention

18:29 - had just closed essentially by 1787.

18:32 - And what's interesting is that the the moderate Republicans,

18:37 - within the Pennsylvania politics, had finally regained power

18:41 - away from the Whigs.

18:42 - And so when you got to the 1787 federal Constitution, Benjamin Franklin,

18:47 - you had Gouverneur Morris, you had these more moderate

18:50 - individuals who hated the Pennsylvania Constitution.

18:53 - They hated what was drafted in 1776.

18:56 - They effectively said, let's do away with it.

18:59 - We have the federal version now we can copy the federal version.

19:02 - Let's amend our state constitution to effectively comport

19:07 - or comply with the federal Constitution.

19:08 - So there was a political realignment between 1776 and 17871790,

19:14 - which then led to effectively, at least the first rewrite

19:18 - of the Pennsylvania Constitution to just to say, we'll get back to you.

19:23 - What are some of

19:23 - the structural similarities and differences between the Pennsylvania

19:27 - and the federal Constitution, and how did those come about?

19:32 - Well,

19:33 - when you look at the

19:35 - federal Constitution, which obviously came later, but,

19:39 - and, and the

19:41 - I mean, at the Constitutional Convention in

19:46 - 1787 had recourse to the state constitutions because they were familiar

19:51 - with them, and many of them had been instrumental in drafting them.

19:55 - But but they they came up with it was basically a,

20:00 - a plan of government that the United States Constitution

20:04 - and, it created the three separate branches and assign

20:08 - functions to each and that was pretty much it.

20:12 - Whereas I'll make two points,

20:14 - state constitutions of practical necessity

20:19 - have to cover more subjects should you have to deal with the day

20:22 - to day business of governing.

20:24 - So state constitutions would deal with education, they'll deal with election,

20:29 - they'll deal with taxation, you know, deal with political subdivision.

20:33 - All the things that the national framers didn't need to deal with.

20:38 - But the other interesting aspect, when you compare Pennsylvania's

20:42 - constitution, for example, with the federal constitution,

20:47 - with the federal constitution, is that,

20:51 - one of the,

20:55 - Debates during

20:55 - the federal Constitutional Convention was

20:59 - do we need, as many of the states now have, the Declaration of Rights?

21:05 - And there were mixed opinions that the convention Alexander Hamilton,

21:10 - for example,

21:12 - didn't believe that a bill of rights was necessary.

21:16 - And he tried to explain why in Federalist 84.

21:18 - And I don't want to paraphrase that.

21:20 - But he said, essentially, right.

21:21 - You're talking about are baked into this federal Constitution.

21:26 - But when they submitted the Constitution for ratification,

21:31 - in September of 1787, it

21:33 - fairly quickly became apparent

21:36 - that it was going to be ratified without a bill of rights.

21:39 - So James Madison did what

21:44 - today would be astounding.

21:47 - He promised the states

21:49 - that if they would please ratify this Constitution

21:51 - so it could go in effect, he would give them a Bill of rights.

21:56 - They ratified it nine states.

21:58 - It became effective.

21:59 - And he kept his word.

22:00 - And the first

22:02 - bill in the first Congress is the First Amendment to the Constitution.

22:08 - But I guess I could make a final point.

22:11 - And that is,

22:13 - when you look at the Declaration of Rights and you,

22:18 - you compare that to

22:20 - what's called the Bill of rights,

22:24 - in the, U.S.

22:25 - Constitution there.

22:28 - Have a different character,

22:33 - the Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights.

22:38 - Is first part of the organic document, but it sets forth

22:42 - the inherent rights of a free people,

22:46 - whereas the so-called Bill of rights

22:49 - is it based?

22:51 - Nothing but restraints on legislative power.

22:55 - So if you look at the verbiage of the.

23:00 - Bill of rights, the first ten amendments,

23:03 - Congress shall make no law,

23:06 - respecting an established religion.

23:09 - Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or press.

23:14 - Congress shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of the people to assemble.

23:19 - Whereas in Pennsylvania, the Constitution,

23:23 - if not

23:25 - posited as a restraint on legislative power,

23:29 - but as an affirmative right.

23:31 - For example, the section seven of our current.

23:34 - Constitution says freedom of press and speech.

23:37 - The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable

23:41 - rights of man, and every citizen may speak freely

23:45 - same of the right to petition and assemble.

23:47 - So these are positive rights versus

23:51 - the restraints on legislative power.

23:54 - If I could just add,

23:57 - those of you who follow,

23:59 - the writings, on our court,

24:02 - we actually discuss a lot

24:05 - this concept of the inherent rights of mankind

24:10 - that are recognized in, article one of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

24:15 - And, it makes a difference

24:18 - in terms of interpreting,

24:21 - the Pennsylvania Constitution versus the federal Constitution.

24:26 - Our, article one rights,

24:31 - are inherent rights, which means,

24:33 - in essence, what article one does is a secure rights

24:39 - that are rights that exist as part of natural law.

24:43 - Much of our, article one right, one right here, based upon,

24:49 - French, philosophical writers at the time.

24:52 - And so, we, we, we recognize natural rights that exist

24:57 - and what our article one does is secure with those rights.

25:01 - It doesn't bestow them and is as,

25:05 - chief justice emeritus, just so,

25:09 - pertinently pointed out,

25:11 - our, our Constitution is individual directed,

25:15 - it's rights that are secured to the individual under article one.

25:20 - And, you know, what is,

25:23 - article one, section 25, I think

25:25 - probably best describes

25:28 - what article one does because,

25:32 - what it state is,

25:34 - to guard against transgressions of high powers,

25:38 - which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article

25:43 - is accepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever

25:48 - remain inviolate and, the article one writes that were part

25:54 - of our earliest constitutions remain part of our Constitution.

25:58 - Now we have added article one rights, by amendment over the years.

26:04 - But I think that's an important, thing to keep in your mind

26:09 - when you're thinking about the predicate, of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

26:13 - It's very much geared toward recognition of the fact that,

26:18 - individuals are

26:20 - bestowed with certain rights, which are inalienable,

26:24 - and they have endured and, our courts through the years.

26:29 - Particularly within the last 50 years or so,

26:33 - have spent, a

26:36 - tremendous amount of time expounding upon,

26:39 - the, article one rights that we have, like, for example,

26:43 - our right to privacy, which is inherent, in our Constitution.

26:46 - So I know justice whacked, has,

26:51 - some particular, insights on our article one.

26:54 - Right.

26:55 - We've all written, concerning it over the years,

26:58 - but it is it is a very unique,

27:03 - perspective.

27:03 - I think that the Pennsylvania Constitution flows from well,

27:08 - I would add, just like the the points that my colleagues have made,

27:12 - very valuable.

27:13 - And I,

27:15 - with respect to the structural similarities and differences,

27:19 - the, the one thing I think that ought to be added

27:23 - to my colleague's points is that,

27:28 - the the greater length

27:30 - of our Commonwealth's constitution,

27:35 - is, it should not be counter intuitive because,

27:39 - it is consistent with our system of federalism.

27:42 - Right.

27:43 - So the, the, the states preexisted the union,

27:48 - and we think of the union,

27:52 - as a, as a singular

27:54 - we think of the United States of America as a unity.

27:57 - And of course it is.

27:59 - But remember that when the

28:02 - the colonies came together and formed the States, they were plural,

28:06 - in Congress assembled.

28:08 - And these are were 13

28:11 - separate sovereigns that that preexisted,

28:14 - each of which had its own judicial system,

28:17 - its own traditions, its own laws, frames of government,

28:22 - as has been discussed with respect to our own and,

28:27 - the over time, of course,

28:31 - the Articles of Confederation were a, an imperfect model

28:35 - later improved in our, in our constitution, our national constitution,

28:40 - that through the growing pains and the evolutions,

28:45 - with ebbs and flows over time, the national government,

28:48 - you know, grew more more robust and institutionalized. But,

28:53 - the the model remains, the template remains so that

28:58 - structurally, you,

29:00 - you, you you should not be shocked at all,

29:03 - that the state, our state constitution and indeed all state constitutions,

29:07 - so far as I know, are longer than the US Constitution.

29:11 - And think about this.

29:13 - Not only is that consistent with federalism, it is

29:17 - it is consistent with the 10th Amendment itself, ratified in 1791,

29:22 - which provides that all rights not assigned by the Constitution

29:26 - or laws to the national government reside with the states or the people themselves.

29:31 - Right.

29:31 - So when you pair the 10th Amendment with the Ninth Amendment, which embraces

29:37 - the natural rights philosophy, you know, you have you have a set piece there,

29:42 - an abundance, you know, obviously bundled for ratification, purposes.

29:46 - And, and, and in turn, this, this model also

29:51 - then is, is faithful

29:55 - to what Brandeis would later recognize

29:58 - about the, the,

30:01 - flexibility built into our rubric that the states were free to experiment

30:07 - themselves, the laboratories of democracy and that that over time,

30:12 - a a reform or a, an initiative,

30:18 - might taken by an individual state

30:21 - might prove worthwhile and be adopted on the national level.

30:25 - And the last thing I'll say that

30:26 - I just wanted to add to my, to my colleague's statements is,

30:31 - lest anybody lest anybody be

30:33 - wondering about this, that the provision

30:37 - in our 1776 Constitution, the House of representatives

30:41 - of the freemen of this Commonwealth, shall consist of persons

30:45 - most noted for wisdom and virtue that did not remain,

30:50 - in our Constitution.

30:54 - Such a mistake.

30:55 - So I was actually going to ask you to.

30:58 - And this is your, comments were a good lead in.

31:02 - Let's get down to some of the nitty gritty.

31:04 - What rights do we have under our Pennsylvania state constitution

31:09 - that are not in the US Constitution?

31:11 - Well, there are great there are great many, for example,

31:15 - free and equal elections.

31:16 - Justice Todd's majority opinion, chief Justice Todd's

31:19 - majority opinion for our court in League of Women Voters.

31:23 - There is no free and equal elections clause in the US Constitution.

31:27 - You can't find those words.

31:29 - The environmental Rights Amendment, that appears in

31:32 - our Constitution has no corollary.

31:36 - In the US Constitution, the word environment does

31:39 - not appear in the Constitution of the United States.

31:42 - The thorough and efficient system of Public Education.

31:45 - Clause guarantee in our Constitution does not appear in the US Constitution.

31:52 - The word education does not appear in the US Constitution,

31:55 - and the US Supreme Court has held there is no federal constitutional right

32:00 - to a public education.

32:02 - There is here, in Pennsylvania, we are the first state,

32:06 - I believe, in 1970 or 71 to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment.

32:10 - There is no Equal Rights Amendment in the US Constitution.

32:13 - It failed of ratification.

32:15 - I recommend Mrs. America on Amazon.

32:17 - Great show about that.

32:19 - About that drama.

32:21 - We have a right to reputation in our article one section one.

32:26 - There is no right to reputation in the US Constitution.

32:29 - And the word reputation, does

32:33 - not appear, and we have a whole bunch of,

32:37 - of, legislative

32:39 - adjacent, I

32:40 - should say, rules in our Constitution, they are constitutional requirements

32:45 - that we have written about that don't appear in the US Constitution,

32:50 - like the single subject rule, the three day consideration, rule.

32:56 - The the original purpose

33:00 - rule, and others which were, were designed, I believe,

33:05 - in the 18, 1894, whatever that was,

33:08 - that post, the post bell um constitution

33:12 - that sought to eliminate,

33:15 - some of the what were called the evil practices.

33:17 - And of course, all those things prevent log rolling.

33:22 - And of course, the Congress of the United States operates on the log

33:25 - rolling principles.

33:26 - So that's a very distinct,

33:29 - I should say. Right.

33:30 - You enjoy here in Pennsylvania is we have these anti log rolling, protections.

33:36 - And can I just add one more to that, which is the right to privacy.

33:41 - And it's been often said by many scholars

33:44 - that the right to privacy is probably the most discussed,

33:49 - right within the Pennsylvania Constitution.

33:52 - And the one word that does not appear anywhere in the Pennsylvania Constitution,

33:58 - but the right to privacy itself is embedded in article

34:02 - one, section one and article one, section eight of our Constitution.

34:08 - The right to privacy is not a right

34:10 - that exists under the United States Constitution.

34:14 - And the right to privacy in Pennsylvania plays a large role

34:18 - in the jurisprudence of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

34:22 - And I'll just follow up on the comments,

34:27 - by Justice Wecht and Justice Donoghue.

34:30 - You know, we were talking about

34:31 - how Pennsylvania Constitution has this percolation effect

34:35 - and that it actually influences how the federal constitution was drafted.

34:39 - But, Justice Wecht mentioned, the League of Women Voters

34:43 - decision in 2018, written by Justice Todd.

34:48 - And, you know, I think there's also a way to look at the Pennsylvania Constitution

34:52 - as having an immense influence on other state constitutions today.

34:57 - And what I mean by that, there was a, footnote, Justice

35:01 - Todd wrote in this opinion that where she's effectively said

35:04 - in that opinion, Partizan gerrymandering and free and equal elections,

35:09 - we as a state Supreme Court can review these challenges

35:14 - and where proper invalidate, Partizan gerrymandering maps.

35:18 - But in a footnote,

35:19 - she also said there were other state constitutions across the country

35:22 - with very similar language that we have in our state constitution,

35:26 - where those state supreme courts, if they wanted to

35:30 - roll on and and interpret their constitutions similar to ours.

35:34 - And so I think that is that is also an important part that many state

35:37 - constitutions, many state supreme courts, will look to our Supreme Court.

35:42 - Thank you, to find new rights, or at least to understand

35:46 - and better understand their own constitutions.

35:47 - So I think is a really important part of our constitutional history.

35:51 - And that goes hand in hand with this notion that,

35:54 - you know, the states are places to experiment.

35:58 - We look to the constitutions of other states,

36:02 - when we interpret our own constitution,

36:05 - not because we're bound by them, but we get insight

36:10 - into how other states have dealt with similar situations.

36:16 - That was true. When we,

36:19 - when we

36:20 - decided, the breath of the free and equal elections clause in Pennsylvania,

36:25 - we looked to other state constitutions to see,

36:29 - what was being done in those states

36:31 - when we more recently, talked about the Equal Rights Amendment.

36:37 - We have two equal rights amendment one ensures equal rights,

36:41 - between the sexes and the other is an equal rights

36:45 - amendment that prohibits any discrimination

36:48 - based upon sex,

36:51 - creed, ethnicity.

36:53 - So we have two Equal Rights amendment, generally

36:55 - speaking, what we have written on and what comes up most, frequently

36:59 - is the, the Equal Rights Amendment that protects,

37:04 - rights, between the sexes.

37:07 - But when we when we decided what it meant in Pennsylvania

37:10 - very recently, we looked to other states,

37:14 - who subsequent to our adoption, also, had an equal rights amendment.

37:19 - So, I mean, there is, a symbiotic kind of relationship

37:23 - with what goes on, in the state, now.

37:27 - And as it did as it did in the beginning, it continues, and,

37:32 - I think it's, a healthy way to really sort of,

37:38 - conceive of,

37:40 - the how, how the breadth of,

37:44 - the United States and the

37:47 - there may be a lot of differences, but there are an awful lot of similarities.

37:51 - And so, it's helpful in the development of our why

37:55 - to look at those other state constitutions.

37:58 - I'll mention one other.

37:59 - Right, which I think is really fascinating.

38:02 - It didn't come into fruition until 1850.

38:05 - The 1850 amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution.

38:09 - But that is the right to elect judges.

38:14 - That, you know, there aren't

38:17 - increasingly less states that have that right,

38:20 - regardless of how you feel about judicial elections,

38:23 - that I think is an important part of the Pennsylvania history,

38:27 - and that that was a concerted effort by the people

38:31 - in 1850 leading up to that, to bring judges closer to the people

38:37 - as part of elections rather than further from them from the appointment.

38:40 - Again, this is an argument for one or the other,

38:42 - but just giving the history behind this that I think

38:44 - that's another really interesting right, that we have in the Pennsylvania.

38:47 - Constitution, wasn't there in 1776, wasn't there in 1790,

38:51 - but it made its way there, and it's still there today.

38:54 - And you know, what's interesting about that is there has always been a fight,

38:58 - even at a constitutional level, about whether or not we should continue

39:03 - to elect judges in Pennsylvania, which we have been doing since 1850.

39:08 - And those of us who have been part of this process appreciate

39:12 - the fact that citizens in Pennsylvania like to elect their judges.

39:16 - They like to know, who their judges are.

39:18 - But in 1968, it came within 20,000 votes

39:24 - of not being the case any longer, because there was

39:27 - a constitutional amendment proposed,

39:31 - that would have, made, judges

39:35 - appointed as opposed to elected,

39:38 - and it only lost by 20,000 votes.

39:41 - And so, you know, every 15, 20 years or so,

39:44 - there is a move afoot to not elect judges anymore.

39:48 - And 68 wasn't the first time.

39:49 - It also happened back in the 1950s.

39:52 - But, it is it is something that is really unique

39:56 - in Pennsylvania because we elect all of our judges.

39:59 - Yeah, I think there are only seven states, that elect all their judges.

40:05 - So we're, you know, one of a small minority.

40:07 - And it it is interesting.

40:09 - And perhaps my colleagues here know more about this, that

40:12 - the fact that, unlike most states,

40:16 - we never lost our Jacksonian impulse, because, you know, that,

40:21 - that, during the course of the 19th century

40:24 - and perhaps early in the 20th states that had moved, in the Jackson and post

40:31 - Jackson era to electing their judges

40:34 - reverted to an appointive judiciary,

40:37 - and certainly at the, at the appellate levels.

40:40 - And yet, Pennsylvania has steadfastly retained this.

40:44 - And of course, at that sixth, at that 68, in that 68 Constitution, the

40:50 - the compromise reached was the system you're familiar

40:53 - with for retention of, judges after ten years.

40:57 - So it is an interesting, featured.

41:00 - I'm not sure.

41:01 - Maybe my colleagues know the, the historical explanation for why

41:06 - Pennsylvania, perhaps alone

41:09 - among northern states, retained a Jacksonian impulse.

41:13 - And, of course, Jackson was a Southerner, so

41:16 - I don't I'm I don't know more about

41:18 - why we're grouped with Texas, Mississippi,

41:22 - and the other four, others

41:25 - I don't recall the, it may go back to 1850.

41:29 - I mean, you may know this, but,

41:32 - appellate court judges were,

41:35 - elected for 121 year term.

41:40 - So there were no retentions.

41:43 - And it was actually a pretty good system because you were elected,

41:46 - you served for 21 years, which is a lifetime

41:50 - on the bench.

41:53 - And then there were no retentions.

41:54 - And then you were done. And then there were new elections.

41:56 - Something happened in 68.

41:58 - And maybe Tom sailor knows more about noses today.

42:01 - New at the, at the trial conference.

42:04 - Did you speak on this subject? Yes.

42:07 - So how did we come up with the ten years and the recounts?

42:11 - But I mean, as to why you shift, why they really wanted to start electing judges.

42:16 - It had to.

42:17 - Yeah, it had to do to counterbalance the legislature.

42:19 - Yes, it did.

42:20 - So leading up from 1830 to 1850, the state legislature

42:25 - hopefully has no legislators in the audience.

42:28 - Plummeted the state into catastrophic debt due

42:33 - to, speculation, speculations around canal building and railroads.

42:38 - And that had a ripple effect across Pennsylvania and affected Pennsylvanians.

42:43 - And what was concerning at the time

42:46 - was that at that point, judges were appointed

42:49 - and many of the judges that were sitting at the court, common pleas and appellate

42:53 - levels were very, very sympathetic to the state legislature.

42:57 - And so they had a lot of rulings

42:59 - in favor of the state legislature, even though the state legislature had,

43:04 - thrown the state into,

43:05 - economic crisis and voters and constituents,

43:09 - they grew very angry

43:12 - about the idea that these, judges who had been appointed

43:15 - by the legislature were essentially doing the bidding for the legislature.

43:19 - And so there was a movement to essentially say these judges were bought

43:24 - by the elected or by the legislature, and they wanted to take back that power.

43:30 - And they did.

43:32 - They essentially said having the judges

43:34 - further from the elected officials

43:37 - was safer for for judicial independence, and that having the judges

43:42 - closer to the people was a better way to promote, independence.

43:47 - And Chief Justice John Bannister Gibson,

43:51 - he was an appointed judge for many years.

43:54 - By 1850, they had passed the constitutional

43:58 - amendment, and they had judicial elections.

44:00 - And prior to that, 1850,

44:03 - Gibson was very averse to judicial review.

44:06 - He did not like the idea of judges overruling the state legislature.

44:11 - Go figure.

44:12 - He was appointed, and by the time the election came around

44:16 - for the first time, he had, an epiphany.

44:19 - They say.

44:21 - And he

44:21 - really liked the idea, that he was elected because he then felt freer

44:28 - to invalidate state laws that he felt were unlawful.

44:33 - And in fact, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court increasingly thereafter

44:37 - and the decades thereafter were, invalidating and striking down state laws.

44:42 - And so, in other words,

44:42 - the idea was that now that they were free, they were elected by the people.

44:46 - They felt that they had more judicial independence.

44:49 - And fascinating history for Pennsylvania.

44:51 - Yet again, another example of why I love Pennsylvania, but I love our Constitution.

44:55 - I love our system because it's just fascinating.

44:57 - And I think in so many ways,

44:58 - we're sort of the trailblazer for much of the rest of the country.

45:02 - And, that makes me proud as a home grown Pennsylvanian. So.

45:05 - And another point, Justice Wecht

45:08 - touched on it,

45:08 - the unique in Pennsylvania's Constitution as a uniformity provision

45:13 - so that all laws have to be uniform as to that clash of cases.

45:18 - And again, you know, this is all historical,

45:21 - but that emanated again in the 1800s

45:25 - with the reform Constitution and there were excesses.

45:29 - The legislature was giving privileges.

45:32 - They were granting divorces, they were selling contracts.

45:37 - And so they put in a uniformity provision

45:41 - that, all laws have to be uniform across all classifications.

45:45 - Again, unlike the United States Constitution,

45:48 - where you could have a bill of Congress that granted citizenship to one person,

45:53 - a standalone bill, there's no prohibition

45:56 - at the federal level, but there certainly is at the state level.

46:00 - And then you couple that with the process protections

46:04 - that Justice Wecht mentioned in terms of how laws are made.

46:08 - All the U.S.

46:09 - Constitution says it's signed by Congress and

46:13 - or passed by Congress, both houses said to the president.

46:16 - And, you know, you can argue, should a court be involved in that

46:20 - or not?

46:21 - You know, you do a lot of branch conduct its own affairs.

46:24 - But in Pennsylvania's Choice, because it's baked into the Constitution

46:28 - and there are these process protections

46:31 - that,

46:34 - constrain the legislature in making laws,

46:37 - that it falls of necessity to the court to enforce that.

46:43 - All right.

46:43 - We were talking about Chief Justice Todd's opinion,

46:46 - and I was remiss in not thanking her for attending today.

46:52 - And recognizing that she is here and also thanking her

46:56 - for allowing us to use this beautiful courtroom for this program.

47:00 - So let's move into some of the more,

47:04 - air quotes, controversial stuff.

47:06 - What role has the state constitution played in recent election

47:10 - disputes or redistricting fights?

47:15 - You're looking at me.

47:16 - I. We look at everybody else, lean backwards.

47:22 - You know, after after we decided the League of Women Voters

47:25 - case, efforts were made to impeach some of us.

47:28 - So, yes, this was quite a controversial, decision.

47:33 - And, we had the, the the,

47:38 - most flamboyantly.

47:40 - Jerry, it's not a Partizan comment.

47:41 - It could be Democrats or Republicans.

47:43 - It, you know, can both parties are capable of doing this.

47:47 - Any party is,

47:49 - we happen to have the most flagrantly gerrymandered map in the country.

47:54 - And, so in the 2018, in a 2018 case of League of Women Voters,

47:59 - we struck down that flamboyantly gerrymandered map.

48:03 - Remember the exhibit A?

48:05 - There was the map in southeast Pennsylvania of a district

48:09 - that was called goofy kicking Donald Duck because it actually looked like

48:13 - goofy kicking Donald Duck.

48:14 - The only contiguity was achieved in, in like,

48:18 - where in other words, where Goofy's toe impacted Donald Duck's

48:22 - derriere was like a parking lot

48:24 - in a corner of Chester County or something like 30ft wide.

48:28 - So anyways, we struck that down and we ordered compliant

48:32 - maps and the legislature thumb their nose at us.

48:36 - So we we hired an expert and drew the maps ourselves. So,

48:41 - the, the Supreme Court,

48:46 - sure enough, a year later in the show versus Common Cause, case

48:50 - finally settled, a,

48:54 - a question that had been a live question

48:56 - for years since the band America's the Veith versus Jubilee year

48:59 - case out of Pennsylvania and others as to whether, it would be able

49:04 - to find a yardstick by which to assess

49:08 - the federal constitutionality of,

49:12 - of Partizan gerrymandering.

49:14 - And finally, in ruscio versus common cause,

49:17 - by 5 to 4 margin, Scotus said, no, we we have no yardstick.

49:22 - And the states, you know.

49:23 - And in her dissent, Justice Kagan noted

49:27 - explicitly that states are free under their own constitutions,

49:31 - to, you know, to find there is such a yardstick.

49:34 - And she noted our decision, in the year prior

49:39 - and, and, since that time, consistent with the,

49:44 - provisions of our state constitution,

49:47 - we've had to pass upon the maps

49:49 - that ensued after the decennial census,

49:53 - that followed the 2020 census.

49:56 - The, the the maps that, sorry, the census results

50:00 - that required us required a redrawing,

50:03 - as they do in every state of the state,

50:07 - legislative maps in the U.S. House maps.

50:08 - So we had decision in the Carter case, and,

50:12 - other decisions where we've had to deal,

50:16 - with,

50:18 - constitutionality of maps.

50:20 - And then we've had, decisions.

50:22 - We had a challenge to the, mail

50:25 - in vote, the no excuse mail in voting that,

50:29 - that is available now after act 77 was passed.

50:32 - And, Justice Donohue wrote the majority opinion in

50:35 - in that case where we upheld the constitutionality

50:39 - under Pennsylvania state constitution of the mail in voting.

50:43 - And it was a very interesting issue.

50:46 - It's reasonable people could disagree about it.

50:48 - And did, and, and,

50:51 - so we've had a number and we've had a number of cases,

50:55 - since that, that time.

50:57 - And, and let me just say one more thing on this topic.

51:02 - And that is that, often

51:05 - not you, but a lot of folks who are,

51:10 - consuming news on social media are,

51:15 - you know, encouraged by the reporting there,

51:18 - if I can call it reporting, to think that everything is, you know,

51:22 - is ensuing along Partizan lines, like when the courts,

51:27 - when courts decide things, they decide them on a Partizan basis.

51:30 - And that that,

51:34 - what we're doing is just figuring out what we think is right and wrong.

51:37 - And both of those things are incorrect, as you know, you know,

51:41 - we don't decide these, these, voting

51:45 - and election cases on any Partizan rubric.

51:48 - Number one and number two,

51:51 - often in these cases, as in all manner of cases,

51:56 - among the seven of us,

51:59 - all seven of us could be reaching a result or some of us could,

52:02 - depending on the case, could be reaching a result that we think stinks.

52:06 - But that's what the Constitution or the law requires.

52:09 - So, I'll stop there.

52:11 - Can I just go back for when I sort of an ironic point, the Carter decision that,

52:17 - Justice Wecht mentioned, which is, we were

52:21 - we were called upon again, to,

52:25 - get involved with, the drawing of the maps

52:29 - after the last census.

52:32 - But, as much of an uproar

52:35 - as there was when we decided League of Women Voters,

52:40 - and the impeachment proceedings that followed, and died.

52:44 - But, what was interesting, and Carter is essentially the governor

52:49 - and the legislature decided to agree to disagree.

52:53 - And they brought the case to us to decide what the map should look like.

52:58 - So, I think, I don't know what to tell you.

53:01 - I mean, one thing, you know, for those of you who don't recall,

53:05 - before League of Women Voters, the, the,

53:11 - the manner in which, the,

53:13 - Congress, was divided in Pennsylvania

53:17 - was essentially ten, 13 to 7, 13 to 7.

53:22 - So, and it was 13 Republicans, seven seven Democrat.

53:26 - It could have been the other way, but it wasn't, after League of Women Voters,

53:31 - the divide was nine nine.

53:34 - Yeah.

53:34 - It's because Pennsylvania is a purple state, as we all know.

53:38 - And so I guess it occurred to me when Carter came up,

53:42 - maybe they decided that we didn't do quite a bad job.

53:45 - Well, I think the notion I think just on to you,

53:48 - there's a more simple metaphor to explain that phenomenon is that

53:52 - when we decide a League of Women Voters, it was this, you know, incredible uproar.

53:58 - But then 2 or 3 years later, when we decided Carter

54:02 - also dealing with the same issue of US House maps, there wasn't.

54:05 - And it's akin to this when you have a small child,

54:10 - with a, with a prized plaything and you take it away,

54:14 - that child is going to scream and yell and cry and moan and throw things.

54:20 - But like after a little while, that child, once you've taken that

54:23 - plaything away, the child gets used to not commanding that plaything anymore

54:28 - and no longer is complaining and shrieking as much.

54:30 - So that's just sort of a metaphor you can use if you want

54:34 - for explaining that. Or if they liked what we did.

54:39 - I want to I just want to point out

54:40 - and this is fascinating to hear, from Justice Whacking Justice Donohue.

54:45 - But you mentioned something that I think also goes

54:48 - to the uniqueness of the Pennsylvania Constitution in our Supreme Court.

54:54 - It's hard to fathom the United States Supreme Court

54:57 - taking hold of a gerrymandered map

55:00 - and redrawing it.

55:03 - That that doesn't have that power.

55:06 - However, under the Pennsylvania state Constitution and how it would be

55:09 - interpreted, the state supreme Court can and that's not like every other state.

55:15 - Many states, the Supreme Court cannot and does not have the power to effectively

55:20 - insert themselves into such a, you know, politically volatile, legal challenge.

55:25 - And I think that's also very,

55:27 - very fascinating about, our, our, our Constitution and our Supreme Court.

55:31 - The other thing I want to sort of note is what I think

55:34 - in light of the League of Women Voters, decision.

55:38 - What I anticipate and I don't like the typically speculate

55:42 - in terms of what happens into the future for purposes of constitutional law.

55:46 - But in the Russo decision, justice what you mentioned, federal courts

55:50 - are now out of the game of reviewing Partizan gerrymandering.

55:55 - They just are not permitted to anymore.

55:57 - Justice Roberts said that in his opinion.

56:00 - And so it's now left to the states as of yesterday.

56:03 - Today, they're pretty much out of the pretty much

56:05 - gerrymandering, racial gerrymandering as well.

56:07 - And so but I think, you know, nothing stays stagnant forever.

56:13 - And constitutional law,

56:14 - the court will at some point in the future take up Partizan

56:18 - gerrymandering as an issue. I have no doubt,

56:20 - the personnel on the court will change in some way, shape or form.

56:23 - And I think what's interesting is that when it does do that, since

56:27 - federal courts will be have have been out of the game for a long time,

56:30 - all the Supreme Court will have to look to to make a decision on Partizan.

56:34 - Gerrymandering is state supreme court decisions.

56:37 - I have very little doubt that the Supreme Court, at whoever

56:40 - the justices at that point will effectively borrow and copy and emulate

56:45 - perhaps Justice Todds opinion,

56:48 - and really lift it into the federal Constitution.

56:50 - So I think that's the other federalism dynamic

56:53 - that I think is really interesting,

56:54 - as we always think about constitutional law as being top down.

56:56 - Supreme court says something and everyone else follows suit here.

57:00 - I have very little doubt

57:01 - that Partizan gerrymandering comes back to the Supreme Court,

57:03 - and it looks to the state Supreme Court and says,

57:05 - what have you been doing over the last ten, 20 years with these decisions?

57:08 - And perhaps we ought to follow the states rather than the other way around.

57:13 - I have a kind of a query, Dean, and also for Justice Donohue and justice work, but.

57:20 - You know, I said, we're done.

57:23 - We struggle with this.

57:24 - It's up to the States.

57:27 - And then more versus Harper comes

57:29 - along and says, look, the state

57:32 - it's the legislature's to do this, but they're not

57:36 - lone operators. The state is a state.

57:38 - And you have the,

57:40 - the gubernatorial veto,

57:43 - and you have,

57:45 - the Supreme Court superintending.

57:47 - What's going on?

57:47 - Yeah, but he left a little wiggle room at the end.

57:51 - There's a there's a sentence or two.

57:52 - And he said, but remember, federal courts still have jurisdiction,

57:57 - and there may be a special case, where we may have to be involved.

58:01 - But I posed this query, and this is just a pure hypothetical, but

58:06 - let's say you have a hypothetical state that has 20 representatives

58:11 - and they're split 12 and eight.

58:14 - And now some states are doing

58:16 - they don't wait ten years

58:19 - and they create a delegation.

58:21 - It's 18 to 2 either way.

58:25 - And the Supreme Court of that state

58:26 - cannot do that.

58:29 - Do you think there'll be federal

58:31 - intervention under that opening in Moore versus Hartford?

58:35 - Well, I would just say that Justice Kavanaugh's

58:38 - I think it was a concurrence by Justice Kavanaugh, which, shot

58:42 - fired, that shot across the bow and gave that warning,

58:47 - in principle, you could envision,

58:51 - that kind of extreme outcome generating,

58:57 - for, for justices willing to grant cert in such a case,

59:02 - but under the, under the syllogism of Moore versus Harper

59:06 - protection, life in that state Supreme court,

59:11 - is that not correct?

59:11 - It is accepted,

59:13 - except that, according to Kavanaugh, concur say that we can't countenance

59:18 - a legislative overreach like this.

59:20 - And that's probably what the Virginia Supreme Court dealing with.

59:23 - Now, I would think they are.

59:25 - I think it's probably exactly what you're dealing with.

59:27 - Yeah.

59:29 - You know, where the demographics just couldn't support,

59:33 - it where you make it

59:36 - 22 zero. Yeah.

59:38 - Well, Chief Justice Saylor, I,

59:40 - my law students have their final exam on Friday.

59:44 - Constitutional law.

59:45 - And that hypothetical is fantastic.

59:48 - I think, oops.

59:50 - I shouldn't have said that.

59:52 - This is televised, isn't it?

59:53 - In the final paragraph of Moore versus Moore Harbor.

59:56 - Yeah, well, that's in the Moore versus Harper decision on the independent,

01:00 - 02.942 state doctrine and legislative state doctrine.

01:00 - 06.211 It was interesting because Roberts effectively

01:00 - 12.475 looked to the founding generation and the pre republic state supreme courts.

01:00 - 15.521 And we all think of Marbury versus Madison

01:00 - 19.158 as the quintessential judicial review decision.

01:00 - 21.126 That is, judicial review flies

01:00 - 25.121 from the pen of John Justice Marshall in Marbury versus Madison.

01:00 - 29.792 And what Roberts says in More decisions is, well, actually, that's not correct.

01:00 - 34.807 It was actually the pre republic state supreme courts that have been engaging

01:00 - 38.143 in judicial review and invalidating state laws

01:00 - 41.170 long before Justice Marshall.

01:00 - 45.317 And so I think in the Moore decision, it's even more than that,

01:00 - 48.687 not just the question about legislative power and Supreme Court

01:00 - 51.914 power, state Supreme Court power, but it's also looking back and saying,

01:00 - 56.195 the the antecedents to judicial review and what the justices

01:00 - 59.222 do every day and what the Supreme Court does, judicial review,

01:00 - 04.761 it came from those colonial state courts, which is that really fascinating history.

01:01 - 08.464 There's at least five, maybe more. I think,

01:01 - 11.377 you know,

01:01 - 14.346 real but constitutional historians like you have these.

01:01 - 17.316 But at the pre, pre the U.S.

01:01 - 22.145 Constitution, there's 5 or 6 cases where Pennsylvania courts ruled over Rhode.

01:01 - 23.289 Yeah.

01:01 - 26.315 And there's many cases between

01:01 - 30.362 1791 and 1803, Marbury

01:01 - 33.966 versus Madison where state courts overrule.

01:01 - 36.969 So this didn't bring wellspring from the bench.

01:01 - 37.470 Right.

01:01 - 40.496 Chief Justice Marshall state.

01:01 - 41.641 Yeah.

01:01 - 44.701 In in in the nature

01:01 - 48.514 of the constitutional arrangement.

01:01 - 49.615 That's right.

01:01 - 53.643 You know, I, I think it was Huxley's it stayed in

01:01 - 57.923 it was at least seven years before more very, very Madison.

01:01 - 01.417 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared that they had the right to,

01:02 - 06.589 review the constitutionality of the acts of the legislature that was

01:02 - 10.369 at least seven years before Marbury versus Madison.

01:02 - 15.531 But on this issue of, this independent legislative, doctrine,

01:02 - 19.736 that that theory is alive and well,

01:02 - 24.407 recently, I mean, I say within the last three years or so,

01:02 - 28.244 our court, decided that,

01:02 - 32.124 individuals who voted by mail

01:02 - 35.094 and had their mail ballots

01:02 - 39.098 voided for lack of following some technicality

01:02 - 42.658 on the, instructions on submitting their ballot.

01:02 - 47.029 We ruled interpreting the Pennsylvania election code,

01:02 - 51.877 the Pennsylvania Constitution, we wrote that those individuals

01:02 - 56.906 had the right to file a provisional ballot on Election Day.

01:02 - 01.086 And so we waited and waited, and sure enough,

01:03 - 06.115 a certain, petition was filed, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

01:03 - 09.652 based upon the independent legislature doctrine.

01:03 - 14.466 The the United States Supreme Court did not accept cert, on it,

01:03 - 18.470 but it stayed up there, through at least three of their sessions

01:03 - 22.040 for reviewing, you know, their cert request.

01:03 - 24.977 So, I mean, that doctrine is alive and well.

01:03 - 27.613 Well, I mean, it's not alive and well in the Supreme Court,

01:03 - 30.949 but it's alive and well, in the minds of individuals

01:03 - 35.178 who know of that concurring opinion and its potential implications,

01:03 - 36.956 of course,

01:03 - 41.827 you have the the additional complication in in getting cert granted,

01:03 - 45.764 in any such case of the independent inadequate state ground doctrine.

01:03 - 48.791 I mean, there there even if, even if,

01:03 - 54.907 if even if four justices on Scotus are skeptical

01:03 - 59.101 of one of our decisions, you know, they're going to be hard pressed to,

01:04 - 02.948 grant cert when there's an independent, adequate state ground.

01:04 - 06.809 And and by the way, when we decided legal women voters,

01:04 - 11.180 we had been briefed and had argued in front of us,

01:04 - 16.686 not only our state constitutional, free and equal elections clause, but,

01:04 - 21.657 at least three different additional federal constitutional theories

01:04 - 24.927 equal protection, due process, First Amendment,

01:04 - 28.231 and we did not treat those at all in our decision.

01:04 - 31.267 We didn't even touch them. Right. And, and,

01:04 - 34.379 arguably,

01:04 - 36.715 even if we had,

01:04 - 39.117 Scotus still would been unlikely

01:04 - 42.721 to grant review there being an independent, inadequate state ground.

01:04 - 46.082 But certainly it might have been catnip for some justices,

01:04 - 50.353 you know, had we had we chosen to address any federal issues.

01:04 - 54.399 And I think that just goes to the the power and the strength

01:04 - 55.701 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,

01:04 - 58.728 those provisions that Justice Wecht mentioned earlier about,

01:04 - 01.874 you know, unique rights that are in our Constitution

01:05 - 06.602 allow the state Supreme Court to interpret it in a way that is different

01:05 - 10.773 than the federal Constitution and and independent state grounds situations,

01:05 - 14.286 has a way of foreclosing,

01:05 - 16.121 review by the Supreme Court at some point.

01:05 - 20.082 And so that's another, you know, again, there are so many unique aspects of our,

01:05 - 22.027 of our Constitution and the way the Supreme Court has

01:05 - 25.998 interpreted it, that I think it's a it's a real goldmine for these discussions.

01:05 - 29.959 And it's interesting, you know, we really encourage litigants,

01:05 - 33.963 to assert independent state grounds in,

01:05 - 38.267 the cases that they bring first in the trial courts and then up,

01:05 - 41.570 you know, through the intermediate appellate courts, because,

01:05 - 45.174 it is, just such fertile ground,

01:05 - 49.721 because our Pennsylvania Constitution, in many circumstances,

01:05 - 53.582 provide broader rights than the federal Constitution.

01:05 - 57.119 And so, you know, we we have been,

01:05 - 01.590 fairly assertive in our writing, indicating that,

01:06 - 05.661 litigants, lawyers in Pennsylvania should be cognizant,

01:06 - 09.975 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which is why programs

01:06 - 14.804 such as this and the 250th anniversary of our first Constitution is,

01:06 - 19.642 such a wonderful opportunity to just bring to everybody's mind,

01:06 - 23.012 that's the brilliance of the structure that we have.

01:06 - 26.191 One of those rights that we have in

01:06 - 29.218 Pennsylvania is the right to a clean environment.

01:06 - 34.566 Would one of you comment on whether our, constitutional right to a clean

01:06 - 39.095 environment protects us from having massive data centers in our backyard?

01:06 - 42.274 Does anybody want to go take that one on,

01:06 - 45.410 as opposed to just a little data set as opposed to the little, little one?

01:06 - 46.434 Okay. Yeah.

01:06 - 48.413 This is a data.

01:06 - 49.349 Isn't this a data center?

01:06 - 50.882 It is a data center.

01:06 - 54.419 Well, without really reference to your data center, our Pennsylvania.

01:06 - 01.350 Constitution, has an extremely robust, environmental Rights Amendment.

01:07 - 04.896 And, it's it's very unique.

01:07 - 10.268 It's unique, among other environmental rights amendment that have popped up

01:07 - 14.473 across, the United States and other state constitutions.

01:07 - 16.475 Ours was the first,

01:07 - 20.545 Environmental Rights Amendment, as was our Equal Rights Amendment.

01:07 - 23.315 But back to the Environmental Rights Amendment.

01:07 - 26.184 And through the course of the years,

01:07 - 29.021 that our court has been looking at it,

01:07 - 33.682 we have really developed a, fairly now refined,

01:07 - 36.962 idea of not only what

01:07 - 40.098 it protects, but what the duties of government are,

01:07 - 43.292 because under our environmental rights Amendment,

01:07 - 46.271 the people of Pennsylvania,

01:07 - 49.565 this generation and generations to come,

01:07 - 53.545 are actually the holders of the rights

01:07 - 57.573 to all of the natural and esthetic resources in Pennsylvania.

01:07 - 58.451 Now, think about that.

01:07 - 01.053 That's a very big deal.

01:08 - 06.024 And the Constitution is not specific in what those natural

01:08 - 11.353 and esthetic rights are, because they can yet to be identified.

01:08 - 15.991 The early cases they came up to, our court dealt with,

01:08 - 21.363 drilling for natural gas, Marcellus

01:08 - 26.135 shale gas on state, forest land and game lands.

01:08 - 29.815 So your own state game lands, obviously

01:08 - 32.842 part of the environment that's to be protected.

01:08 - 38.290 And the natural gas is also a natural resource

01:08 - 41.550 that is owned by the people of the Commonwealth.

01:08 - 45.864 And the challenge that was brought was based upon the fact,

01:08 - 49.859 not so much that the drilling was taking place,

01:08 - 53.229 but what was happening with the proceeds

01:08 - 56.708 of the drilling that was taking place

01:08 - 01.537 and what the General Assembly was doing is they were taking the revenue,

01:09 - 06.642 both from the leasing and from the sale of the gas itself

01:09 - 10.012 and putting that money into the general fund.

01:09 - 14.750 So you have a natural resource

01:09 - 18.063 that is for the benefit of all of the public.

01:09 - 22.291 And yet the challenge was the legislature is taking that money

01:09 - 25.170 and using it for general purposes.

01:09 - 29.841 And in a series of decisions that started in the court that preceded

01:09 - 33.536 the one that David and I said on Justice Todd was on, on the court,

01:09 - 37.473 then Chief Justice Castillo wrote,

01:09 - 41.520 an opinion called Robinson Township, and he did a magnificent job

01:09 - 45.814 in developing the background and the theory behind the, Pennsylvania.

01:09 - 47.626 Equal Rights Amendment.

01:09 - 51.687 He didn't have the majority of the court at that point in time

01:09 - 54.666 to put meat on the bones of what it meant.

01:09 - 59.161 And so, over the course of, 4 or 5 years,

01:09 - 03.942 we fleshed out what it meant and what what the Environmental Rights.

01:10 - 09.247 Amendment means is that the government, the Commonwealth, is a trustee

01:10 - 12.274 and only the trustee of all of those rights.

01:10 - 16.821 The government, the Commonwealth does not own anything.

01:10 - 20.125 They are to the trustee for the people of the Commonwealth.

01:10 - 23.152 And so when there is,

01:10 - 27.356 this opportunity to gain revenue from,

01:10 - 32.394 selling the natural gas, when that revenue is generated,

01:10 - 38.300 it has to be put back into environmental protections and preservation.

01:10 - 41.613 And so it's a concept

01:10 - 45.784 that takes the trust that set up under the Equal Rights Amendment

01:10 - 51.523 and, and imposes on it all of the law that existed and still exists,

01:10 - 55.284 said, deals with how private trusts are supposed to operate.

01:10 - 00.422 And so, we have very active environmentalists in Pennsylvania

01:11 - 04.660 who keep a very close watch on what the Commonwealth does

01:11 - 07.739 with the natural resources in Pennsylvania.

01:11 - 09.241 And that's a good thing for everyone.

01:11 - 14.436 And so, as our Environmental Rights Amendment is designed,

01:11 - 18.316 it is there to protect all of those resources,

01:11 - 20.485 not just for everybody who's living now.

01:11 - 24.556 There are no beneficiaries under the Equal Rights Amendment.

01:11 - 27.125 There are no income beneficiaries.

01:11 - 30.128 People who exist now and generations to come

01:11 - 33.856 are all the beneficiaries of those natural resources.

01:11 - 37.660 And the Commonwealth has the obligation to preserve it

01:11 - 41.530 and to make certain that those resources are not denigrated.

01:11 - 44.867 So, I mean, it's really a big deal,

01:11 - 48.113 in a generation in which there's

01:11 - 52.984 a lot of sensitivity to climate change and things that derive from it.

01:11 - 58.380 And Pennsylvania was absolutely, positively on the forefront

01:11 - 02.661 of adopting an environmental rights amendment in the form that it's in,

01:12 - 04.119 in any form, for that matter.

01:12 - 07.966 So we have some questions.

01:12 - 11.236 So, and I'm reading them

01:12 - 14.572 and we could probably go another hour answering these questions.

01:12 - 19.144 So PA was the first constitution to have a right to free speech

01:12 - 23.148 and expression, but the early courts interpreted very narrowly.

01:12 - 27.419 Why was it a matter of ideology of the justices at the time,

01:12 - 31.380 or did it reflect the prevailing view of expressive rights at the time?

01:12 - 34.859 Anybody want to,

01:12 - 37.886 I'll just I'll just say that in general, of course.

01:12 - 40.899 Free speech jurisprudence,

01:12 - 43.535 didn't didn't begin to mature

01:12 - 46.562 until the cases that,

01:12 - 50.566 developed, in, in the toward the end of the First World War,

01:12 - 54.336 and and of course, there were, there were,

01:12 - 57.082 free speech cases, but I think,

01:12 - 02.253 most of the scholarship will, support the idea that the, the,

01:13 - 07.549 the jurisprudence was, was, not that robust, in this area,

01:13 - 10.028 until the, the, you

01:13 - 13.322 know, the big cases, Deb's framework,

01:13 - 17.393 Schenck Abrams at all, Holmes, Brandeis, etc.,

01:13 - 21.906 and then developing their I don't know if I'm, if I'm right about that, but

01:13 - 25.434 I don't I don't remember because I think the, the notions

01:13 - 29.004 about about free speech,

01:13 - 34.476 are, are consistent

01:13 - 37.846 with the language that you read,

01:13 - 40.916 in, in the early constitutions that,

01:13 - 45.864 you can, you can speak freely, being responsible for the abuse thereof.

01:13 - 48.199 Right. Which, which,

01:13 - 51.169 was consistent with the idea that you could be held civilly

01:13 - 56.331 and perhaps criminally liable for matters that we would regard now as,

01:13 - 59.601 free speech and even,

01:14 - 03.281 As you know, Justice Holmes switched.

01:14 - 06.475 Yes. And, he really struggled for years

01:14 - 11.580 with speech in any almost to shift 180 degrees for the reasons.

01:14 - 13.315 That's right, that you that

01:14 - 17.319 and all it basically

01:14 - 20.956 turned on the concept of prior restraint

01:14 - 25.093 and the conversation he had on the train with, with,

01:14 - 29.107 the mass for a Rhode Island guy.

01:14 - 32.100 It he, he had no Chafee with Chafee. So,

01:14 - 36.948 a lot of it was Holmes was on his way to Beverly, Massachusetts,

01:14 - 41.877 for the summer recess when he happened to be seated on the train

01:14 - 45.881 heading north, with Professor Zechariah Chafee,

01:14 - 48.860 who had just,

01:14 - 51.887 written,

01:14 - 52.898 an article

01:14 - 56.191 or book, a treatment I can't remember, that,

01:14 - 00.071 did a lot of thinking about,

01:15 - 03.098 judge learning hands decision in the, this case.

01:15 - 06.768 And, this caused a, a rethinking,

01:15 - 10.748 on the part of Holmes or at least contributed to it.

01:15 - 14.652 So the the evolution that Chief Justice Maria Saylor was talking about

01:15 - 18.213 from where Holmes was in Deb's and fro work,

01:15 - 21.759 and Shenk to where Holmes ended up in Abrams

01:15 - 27.389 in later cases was affected by that, by that thinking from hand in and Chafee.

01:15 - 28.701 Yeah.

01:15 - 32.494 I think just the the thin body of doctrine at that point,

01:15 - 33.905 probably contributed to it.

01:15 - 35.406 The, the,

01:15 - 39.611 unwillingness of judges to, to go and to interpret it broadly, that is

01:15 - 42.213 and concerns were being overrode and that the safest approach

01:15 - 46.184 was to be a narrow conception of it until, of course, you get into the early 20th

01:15 - 49.211 century. So.

01:15 - 51.055 So here comes another one.

01:15 - 54.359 Recent, Scotus jurisprudence has had

01:15 - 57.452 a significant focus on the power of the executive.

01:15 - 59.497 Many of these federal decisions

01:15 - 03.559 arise from executive orders, which have some force of law.

01:16 - 06.828 How does the largely symbolic

01:16 - 11.700 executive order power held by the Pennsylvania governor

01:16 - 17.181 differ from the federal power, and what consequence does this, power

01:16 - 22.411 differential have on the development of Pennsylvania constitutional law?

01:16 - 25.256 So I'll,

01:16 - 28.483 answer that in part and then turn to the illustrious,

01:16 - 32.564 justices on the bench on the, Pennsylvania version of that.

01:16 - 37.693 But for the executive branch, you know, it's been probably over the last 80 years

01:16 - 43.908 in American history that the, the aggrandizement of of, executive power

01:16 - 47.345 into the into the president in article two of the Constitution.

01:16 - 50.014 And it has only increased over time.

01:16 - 54.719 It's not just the current president, it's presidents prior to Democrat Republican,

01:16 - 56.487 who have effectively enlarged

01:16 - 00.758 and forced and pushed the boundaries on executive power, whether it be through

01:17 - 04.929 executive orders or other forms of article two, powers.

01:17 - 09.091 And so I think that's as a long, long, long line of efforts by,

01:17 - 13.095 by presidents, in the executive branch to, to push the bounds,

01:17 - 17.108 the boundaries of that power as it relates to the state level.

01:17 - 18.743 I'll, I'll I'll leave it to the justices.

01:17 - 22.880 I'm going to leave the fill in the blanks on this to Justice Wecht.

01:17 - 27.151 But, my recollection is, we had a governor

01:17 - 31.813 who used an executive order power during the pandemic.

01:17 - 34.926 And that was not

01:17 - 37.953 an executive order without teeth.

01:17 - 42.133 As you will all recall, it essentially shut down

01:17 - 46.528 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in many of its businesses for months.

01:17 - 50.666 That was challenged in our court.

01:17 - 56.304 And both Justice Wecht and I had the opportunity to write opinions,

01:17 - 57.982 on that power.

01:17 - 02.911 Now in Pennsylvania, there was a way in which the legislature

01:18 - 06.581 could have superseded that executive order,

01:18 - 10.686 and it was spelled out very clearly,

01:18 - 14.122 within statute and in part under,

01:18 - 17.359 article three of our Constitution.

01:18 - 20.304 The legislature just did not follow it.

01:18 - 26.868 And, that was, an extremely controversial decision that came from our court,

01:18 - 29.914 maybe more so than the,

01:18 - 32.941 gerrymandering case in large extent.

01:18 - 37.512 So much so that our decision in that case ended up

01:18 - 41.592 with a constitutional amendment being put to the citizens

01:18 - 46.521 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to make it much easier,

01:18 - 51.593 much easier for the legislature to overcome executive orders.

01:18 - 57.108 So I mean, executive orders have, have, have teeth in Pennsylvania more.

01:18 - 02.037 So, I think if I'm right, David, prior to the most recent amendment,

01:19 - 06.884 there was a way for our legislature to have overall, but it took, a

01:19 - 11.012 two thirds vote, if I recall correctly, and it just didn't happen.

01:19 - 16.585 And so, you know, executive orders in Pennsylvania are something that,

01:19 - 22.257 at least in our tenure, played a significant role in a huge,

01:19 - 27.229 you know, societal, event, within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

01:19 - 30.031 Well, to to just to add two things to that,

01:19 - 34.112 is, in, in

01:19 - 37.139 one or more of those Covid era cases,

01:19 - 39.617 the General Assembly members,

01:19 - 42.644 some members of the General Assembly were screaming

01:19 - 48.784 about the consequences of authority that they had delegated to the governor.

01:19 - 52.187 In other words, they had delegated by legislation

01:19 - 56.725 power to the governor that he chose to exercise, whether it was wise or stupid,

01:19 - 57.336 what he did.

01:19 - 58.770 That's not the issue.

01:19 - 00.805 The issue was, did he have the power?

01:20 - 03.608 And, in at least one of the cases to which Justice.

01:20 - 07.111 Donahue's referring, they had actually delegated it.

01:20 - 10.138 So it was a buyer's remorse situation.

01:20 - 13.175 There was one other case where,

01:20 - 16.120 the court had approved,

01:20 - 17.955 an order that justice that.

01:20 - 21.125 I'm sorry that the governor Wolf, had, then Governor.

01:20 - 25.353 Wolf had issued where he had restricted, gun sales.

01:20 - 30.025 And I dissented on that because I thought it violated the right to bear arms.

01:20 - 34.930 And, and Governor Wolf did rescind immediately did rescind,

01:20 - 38.066 even though the the majority of the court approved what he did,

01:20 - 40.511 allowed what he did.

01:20 - 44.782 He did rescind that, I guess I don't know what convinced them to rescind it,

01:20 - 48.176 but maybe it wasn't me, but maybe it was just his own reading of the Constitution.

01:20 - 52.681 So my my point is, with respect to both things I've just said is,

01:20 - 57.052 the the General Assembly has robust authority,

01:20 - 01.556 to do stupid things or wise things.

01:21 - 05.493 As long as they're not violating the Constitution and,

01:21 - 09.731 so you see both aspects of that in the Covid era cases.

01:21 - 11.409 But, but and then I'll go ahead.

01:21 - 11.844 I'm sorry.

01:21 - 14.870 On the national level where the dean started.

01:21 - 18.440 And you're right, it's it's it's going back 40 years.

01:21 - 22.978 I view it as a complete abdication by Congress,

01:21 - 26.057 of their constitutional responsibility.

01:21 - 30.352 You know, when we were talking historically in modern times. But,

01:21 - 34.265 Alexander Hamilton, for example,

01:21 - 37.459 during the constitutional debates, wanted an imperial presidency.

01:21 - 40.838 And I'm not sure he didn't finally get it

01:21 - 44.966 because the Congress has abdicated its responsibility.

01:21 - 47.745 And it all stems on this delegation.

01:21 - 50.047 A lot of these are delegations.

01:21 - 53.074 They'll delegate their constitutional,

01:21 - 57.088 article one powers to the president,

01:21 - 00.115 and then they won't place to send the delegations.

01:22 - 03.551 So, unfortunately

01:22 - 06.364 or fortunately,

01:22 - 10.101 it occasionally falls to the Supreme Court in this case, the United States.

01:22 - 15.697 Supreme Court, to say where the line is, where the balance of power is crossed.

01:22 - 16.807 Yeah.

01:22 - 19.801 But but it's intrinsically tied up

01:22 - 24.406 with this notion of Congress delegating its article.

01:22 - 27.685 One powers.

01:22 - 31.980 And it's also tied up with the fact that Congress has abdicated

01:22 - 37.352 its responsibility for legislating because it's too difficult.

01:22 - 40.932 I, I'm reticent to call time

01:22 - 43.992 on, several justices, but,

01:22 - 47.696 I'm going to give Dean Dickinson the last word

01:22 - 52.133 because I think you can find more information from him.

01:22 - 55.313 Can I just to add one more thing afterwards?

01:22 - 56.281 Absolutely.

01:22 - 00.518 Point of privilege for those of you who are really into the Pennsylvania.

01:23 - 04.221 Constitution, mark your books now, because on

01:23 - 07.983 November 4th, in Pittsburgh, at,

01:23 - 11.419 the power center at Duquesne University,

01:23 - 15.457 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in conjunction with the,

01:23 - 18.669 Cline Judicial Education Center,

01:23 - 21.696 will be holding a full day program

01:23 - 26.368 on the 1776 Constitution

01:23 - 29.880 and subsequent iterations of it.

01:23 - 32.016 It's going to be a fabulous program.

01:23 - 33.784 Every member of the Pennsylvania.

01:23 - 36.811 Supreme Court will be participating in the program.

01:23 - 39.457 Dean Dick and said, will be there.

01:23 - 43.051 We have Dean's, from, Villanova,

01:23 - 44.763 Duquesne.

01:23 - 47.264 I mean, it's a fabulous program.

01:23 - 50.291 Scholars, from Penn,

01:23 - 52.870 and, Dickinson.

01:23 - 54.972 And I urge you to mark your ballot.

01:23 - 59.210 Also, the keynote speaker that day is, Judge

01:23 - 03.004 Sutton from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, who's

01:24 - 07.776 who is absolutely marvelous to listen to

01:24 - 12.356 on the importance of state constitutions, their role

01:24 - 15.793 in the development of the United States Constitution,

01:24 - 18.462 and the incredibly important role that they now play.

01:24 - 22.266 So November, for full day program, please,

01:24 - 27.204 if you can, save that day because I think, you won't be disappointed.

01:24 - 29.407 It's going to be a really tremendous program.

01:24 - 31.242 So thank you for letting me do that.

01:24 - 33.210 Thank you. Justice.

01:24 - 37.314 Dean Dickinson, can people get more information

01:24 - 40.542 from you with an upcoming book, perhaps.

01:24 - 46.657 Forced me into self-promotion.

01:24 - 47.858 Well, thank you. Amy.

01:24 - 53.197 Yes, I, I have a forthcoming book entitled The Bottom Up Constitution States

01:24 - 56.858 and the Evolution of American Constitutional Law in 2027.

01:24 - 59.904 Which in many ways, much of what we talked about

01:24 - 02.931 today is sort of in that book, but it really,

01:25 - 06.634 sort of looks at the history of how state constitutions,

01:25 - 11.039 state legislatures, and state courts have had an enormous influence

01:25 - 15.286 over how the federal constitution has been interpreted and constructed

01:25 - 19.256 over, the 250 years or so of our great nation.

01:25 - 22.083 So, there you have it. Thanks, Amy.

01:25 - 26.030 Mr. North.

01:25 - 27.865 Well, thank you, Amy. Thank you. Panelists.

01:25 - 29.934 Can we give them a round of applause?

01:25 - 32.961 Thank you.

01:25 - 38.075 Just a few closing remarks before we close out.

01:25 - 39.877 We have one more of these town halls.

01:25 - 40.911 This is our third one.

01:25 - 43.114 If you know anyone who is in Erie,

01:25 - 47.408 we will be at the Jefferson Educational Society tomorrow night at 7 p.m..

01:25 - 49.887 Tell them to come also free.

01:25 - 52.356 On May 13th, we're going to have a virtual program.

01:25 - 55.416 So online, anyone in Pennsylvania can attend?

01:25 - 00.030 Marie Miller of the Institute for justice will talk about the increasing

01:26 - 04.292 importance of state constitutions in our current, jurisprudence.

01:26 - 06.704 You can find out more all about that on our website,

01:26 - 08.906 which is Carpenters hall.org.

01:26 - 12.476 We have a digital component to this program as well, with a QR

01:26 - 14.145 code on the table out front.

01:26 - 16.313 We're asking Pennsylvanians across the state.

01:26 - 19.016 This includes you, two questions.

01:26 - 20.918 One, if there's,

01:26 - 25.413 an amendment to the state constitution that you favor, what would it be?

01:26 - 28.125 And to of some of the rights that we talked about today

01:26 - 31.352 that are in the Constitution but aren't in the federal Constitution,

01:26 - 35.466 which of those should be considered for inclusion in the federal Constitution?

01:26 - 38.693 If we want to hear what Pennsylvanians have to have to say about that.

01:26 - 41.705 So, then.

01:26 - 44.732 Oh, sorry. Breeze here.

01:26 - 48.203 I want to give a special shout out to our state rep,

01:26 - 52.516 in Philadelphia, Mary Isaacson, who is responsible for these copies

01:26 - 54.385 of the state constitution. There's more out front.

01:26 - 56.921 Please take them, if you would like.

01:26 - 01.115 And also, just a quick thank you to some of our, sponsors and partners,

01:27 - 05.420 America for the Land and Burger Family Foundation.

01:27 - 10.568 The, Pennsylvania Humanities Council, the Historical Society, Pennsylvania,

01:27 - 14.195 and the Pennsylvania Commission on Judicial Independence.

01:27 - 17.274 I have to give a special shout out, to Judge Bowes,

01:27 - 20.811 who was so helpful to me personally in making this event happen.

01:27 - 22.546 And so very thankful for that.

01:27 - 23.681 And finally,

01:27 - 26.984 one of you is going to go home tonight with a pair of tickets to one of the World.

01:27 - 30.545 Cup games, that is happening in Philadelphia in June.

01:27 - 33.915 This prize also includes a hotel stay,

01:27 - 39.563 in, Philly and a private tour of Carpenter's Hall led by me.

01:27 - 42.666 So, let's, let's draw a winner.

01:27 - 46.160 Amy, do you mind if you do you want me to pull it?

01:27 - 47.928 I don't know.

01:27 - 52.176 Maybe we'll have justice.

01:27 - 55.203 Because if I don't call Dean Dickinson to me right.

01:27 - 59.049 I've got an eight year old daughter who loves soccer.

01:27 - 02.076 So if we can rig this, that'd be great.

01:28 - 04.855 Do you want me to read that number? No.

01:28 - 07.758 Okay.

01:28 - 08.360 There it is.

01:28 - 11.686 Number 443986.

01:28 - 17.669 Good.

01:28 - 18.669 Good. Right.

01:28 - 19.037 All right.

01:28 - 22.063 Anyway, all right, folks, thank you for being here.

01:28 - 24.708 And enjoy your evening.

01:28 - 27.735 And I'm sure I'll pay you $1,000.

01:28 - 30.914 I'm sorry I didn't get to the other

01:28 - 34.242 two questions because they were also very good questions.

01:28 - 39.347 Maybe Dean Dickinson will stay around and answer the other two questions for

01:28 - 43.584 in exchange for those tickets that have.

01:28 - 45.463 Okay.

01:28 - 47.298 Thank you.

01:28 - 48.990 We are adjourned. We are adjourned.