Trump Sends Troops to Portland & Shootings Trigger Left-Right Blame Game | Jill Lepore

Summary

The Daily Show: Ears Edition

Episode: Trump Sends Troops to Portland & Shootings Trigger Left-Right Blame Game | Jill Lepore
Air Date: September 30, 2025
Host: Jon Stewart
Guest: Jill Lepore (Historian & Author)

---

Overview

In this episode, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show team deliver their trademark blend of satire and sharp critique as they dissect two major stories: President Trump's unexpected deployment of troops to Portland, Oregon, and the media's polarizing response to a series of mass shootings across the U.S. The second half features a thoughtful, witty interview with historian Jill Lepore, who discusses the complexities and myths surrounding the U.S. Constitution and her latest book, "We: The History of the U.S. Constitution."

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump Sends Troops to Portland (00:00–05:00)

• Six Mass Shootings in 24 Hours: Jon Stewart opens with the grim reality of ongoing gun violence in America, listing shootings across several states (02:06).
• Trump’s Response: President Trump reacts by announcing the deployment of troops to Portland, supposedly to quell “war-ravaged” conditions.
• Media Reality vs. Actual Reality: Jon Stewart lampoons Trump for confusing television dramatizations with real events, noting the president's reliance on TV reports rather than on-the-ground facts (03:11–05:00).

"There is reality and then there's this. My people tell me different. They are literally attacking and there are fires all over the place and dragons. Let her be dragons."
— Jon Stewart (04:01)

2. The New Post-Shooting “Blame Game” (05:00–13:00)

• The Political Gender Reveal: Stewart observes that after each shooting, discussion rapidly shifts to whether the shooter aligns with the political right or left—turning it into a spectacle more than a somber reckoning.

"It's America's new gender reveal tradition. Boom. It’s blue. Ha ha. I'm so happy to blame the left for the violence."
— Jon Stewart (07:36)

• Media & Social Media’s Role: News outlets and online influencers scramble to uncover any political affiliation or cultural clue from shooters—contributing to public confusion, scapegoating, and polarization.
• Absurdity of “Evidence”: Jon mocks the extent to which media and commentators hunt for meaning in the most tenuous connections (donations, cars, social media photos, even furry subculture references).

"Maybe he just wanted the PBS Ken Burns tote bag. I don't know. I don't know who to hate."
— Jon Stewart (08:14)

• Irony & Cynicism: The internet’s sarcastic and meme-heavy culture blurs lines between sincerity and trolling, making it ever harder to understand motives (18:39).

3. The Futility of Left-Right Framing in Mass Shootings (13:00–18:00)

• False Binary: Stewart argues that mass shootings don’t fit neatly into a left-right political paradigm; the persistence of such framing distracts from harder questions and solutions (12:25–13:17).
• Complex Causes: Factors behind these tragedies include mental health, easy access to weapons, and digital-age nihilism—but nuance is lost in a binary-obsessed media ecosystem.

"These mass shootings don’t fit neatly into our left-right paradigm. Mass shootings are probably caused by a complex fusion of mental health and access to weapons and attention seeking delusional nihilism married to an algorithmic underworld..."
— Jon Stewart (12:44)

• Dysfunctional Solutions: Media and politicians pretend changing rhetoric will “fix” the issue, sidestepping structural societal problems (13:37–17:00).

4. Historical Perspective on Media & Political Discourse

• Reminder of the Past: Stewart reminisces about media’s former (brief) commitment to refusing to sensationalize mass shooters, contrasting it with today’s Twitter-fueled rumor cycles.
• Calls for Maturity: Draws a parallel to early American political discourse—petty, vicious, and far more chaotic than founding myths suggest (20:00).

---

Interview: Jill Lepore on the U.S. Constitution

[22:09–42:47]

Jill Lepore’s Insights

The Constitution Was Not “Divine” – It Was a Messy Human Process (22:59–26:25)

• Long, Bureaucratic Genesis: Lepore and Stewart expose the drawn-out, improvisational, and often chaotic process through which early American constitutions were drafted—full of logistical mishaps and disagreements.

"We think of it as something that is almost divine, inspired on Mount Whatever and handed down to people. It’s not. It was a series of like zoning board meetings."
— Jon Stewart (22:59)

Voices Out of Doors: Inclusion, Exclusion, and Activism (26:25–29:07)

• Who Got a Say: Debates raged over who could participate—property owners, tax-payers, men, women, the enslaved—and Lepore shares stories of agitation, petitions from the enslaved, and women’s conventions.
• Women’s Role: Engages with the historical reality that women shaped the discourse, even if formally excluded, often expressing themselves directly via correspondence and grassroots organizing.

"All men would be tyrants if they could. That's the principle on which the country's founded, right?"
— Abigail Adams (quoted by Jill Lepore, 29:07)

The Amendment Process: Forgotten Cornerstone of Democracy (30:52–35:00)

• Amendment as a Moral Fulcrum: Lepore sees regular, participatory amendment as central—a “mending” process that connects democracy to hope and improvement.
• Loss of Grassroots Organizing: Stewart and Lepore lament that Americans now look to the Supreme Court for change rather than persistent, grassroots demands for constitutional amendment.

"The philosophy of amendment, the idea that we can make our lives and our government better and more responsive to the needs of the people is actually the foundational principle of written constitutionalism… and it’s hard."
— Jill Lepore (31:14)

Originalism and Judicial Interpretation (35:40–38:58)

• Originalism’s Modern Origins: Lepore traces originalism as a judicial philosophy to the 1970s and 80s—a strategic product rather than an enduring, “original” view of legal interpretation.

"Originalism is not original. It's not the original method of interpreting the Constitution. It's a political product of the 1970s and 1980s."
— Jill Lepore (35:59)

• Marbury v. Madison: The practice of judicial review, enshrined in 1803, has made true originalism impossible, as it’s not itself in the document.

Why Know the Messy Past? For a More Democratic Future (40:11–42:47)

• Democratic Self-Understanding: Jill Lepore closes with a call for historical literacy—arguing that appreciating the complexity, contingency, and openness of America’s constitutional past allows for imaginative, participatory, and responsive democracy today.

"It is actually our Constitution... Most Americans don’t even know the U.S. Constitution can be amended. It hasn’t really happened lately. Even state constitutions... the things that people fought and died over a revolution for... we just need a better account of that to get our bearings."
— Jill Lepore (40:11 onward)

• Participatory Democracy: Stewart praises the book as an energizing reminder that democracy is a participatory sport, not a passive inheritance (41:56).

Memorable Moment

• Federalist Society Silhouette: Stewart’s amusement that the Federalist Society altered James Madison’s silhouette for cosmetic reasons, exemplifying how even “originalism” bends to present concerns (42:38).

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• "There are fires all over the place and dragons. Let her be dragons."
  — Jon Stewart (04:01)
• "It's America's new gender reveal tradition. Boom. It's blue."
  — Jon Stewart (07:36)
• "These mass shootings don't fit neatly into our left-right paradigm."
  — Jon Stewart (12:44)
• "All men would be tyrants if they could. That's the principle on which the country's founded, right?"
  — Abigail Adams, via Jill Lepore (29:07)
• "Originalism is not original. It's not the original method of interpreting the Constitution. It's a political product of the 1970s and 1980s."
  — Jill Lepore (35:59)
• "It is actually our Constitution... Most Americans don’t even know the U.S. constitution can be amended."
  — Jill Lepore (40:11)
• "Democracy is a participatory sport. And the more people that participate, we won't always be pleased with the outcome, but you have to be invested in the process."
  — Jon Stewart (41:56)

---

Additional Context

• Tone: As always, the episode balances irreverence and incisive analysis. Stewart’s style is satirical, quick-witted, and disarmingly self-aware; Lepore is scholarly, personable, and plainspoken.
• Structure: The first half lampoons current political/media dysfunctions; the second half offers historical context as a grounding antidote.
• Memorable Exchange: Stewart and Lepore’s banter about originalism, Supreme Court decisions, and the very human roots of America’s “sacred texts.”
• Takeaway: The show urges listeners to break free of simplistic binaries (political, legal, or historical); understanding America's past as fluid and participatory offers hope and agency for the future.

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Segment | Timestamp | |--------------------------------------|----------------| | Opening Satire & News Recap | 00:00–05:00 | | The Shooter “Blame Game” | 05:00–13:00 | | Media Framing & Futility | 13:00–18:00 | | Historical Media Perspective | 18:00–21:00 | | Jill Lepore Interview Start | 22:09 | | Messy Constitution Creation | 22:59–26:25 | | Inclusion/Exclusion in the Founding | 26:25–29:07 | | The Amendment Process | 30:52–35:00 | | Originalism & Judicial Review | 35:40–38:58 | | The Need for Historical Literacy | 40:11–42:47 |

---

Summary

This episode deftly weaves current events with historical perspective, using satire to illuminate both the absurdities of America's political/media culture and the enduring, hopeful potential of its democratic traditions. By skewering the lazy binaries of modern coverage and recalling the contingent, participatory nature of the Constitution’s origins, Stewart and Lepore urge Americans toward curiosity, engagement, and reform—reminding us that the future of democracy depends on understanding and participating in the work of self-government.

Transcript

[Jon Stewart]

ABC Wednesday. Shifting Gears is back. He has arisen. Tim Allen and Kat Dennings return in television's number one new comedy.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

What what?

[Jon Stewart]

With a star studded premiere including Jenna Elfman, Nancy Travis and. Hey buddy. A big home improvement reunion.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Welcome.

[Jon Stewart]

Oh boy, that guy's a tool. Shifting Gears season premiere Wednesday, 8, 7 Central on ABC and stream on Hulu. This episode is brought to you by Greenlight. Get this, adults with financial literacy skills have 82% more wealth than those who don't. From swimming lessons to piano classes, us parents invest in so many things to enrich our kids lives. But are we investing in their future financial success? With Greenlight, you can teach your kids financial literacy skills like earning, saving and investing. And this investment costs less than that. After school treat start prioritizing their financial education and future today with a risk free [e-mail] Spotify greenlight.com Spotify. You're listening to Comedy Central from the most trusted journalists at Comedy Central. It's America's only source for news. This is the Daily show with your host, John Stewart. No, man. Thank you so much. Wow, that is. Let me tell you something, ladies. I don't know what's happening. Say what? Say it. Welcome to the Daily Show. How many people think I'm Kimmel? What's going on here? They're just trying to cheer up an old Mets fan. That's what's happening. You poor bastards. Welcome to the Daily Show. My name is Jon Stewart. We have a fabulous show for you tonight. Historian and professor Jill Lepore will be here later. She's going to be discussing her latest book, discuss the Constitution of the United States or what remains of it. Boy, we should have laminated that thing, huh? Because, well, as many of you know out there, we had another just blessed weekend in America of chaos and carnage. There were six mass shootings in 24 hours. Two in North Carolina, two in Louisiana, one in Texas, and the terrible scenes out of Michigan. But fear not, because the president is on the case.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

This morning, President Trump declares he's deploying troops to Portland, Oregon.

[Jon Stewart]

No, Portland. You just missed it. You're going to want a little to the. You're going to. You've got the right country, but you're going to want to shift the. Why Portland Trump posting. I'm directing Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

To provide all necessary troops to protect war ravaged Portland.

[Jon Stewart]

Hey, stop it. No, no, no. Uncontrollable. These people and the orgy of mass shootings in America. Portland. Did I miss Vancouver attacking Portland in a fierce battle of mellow art. Shoot till you see the whites of their cold foam half caf latte art. Not sure what that accent was. Here's the craziest part. The people of Oregon, Portland in particular, were also caught off guard by this. And the governor of Oregon tried to explain to the President that they were not in a state of war. And the President's response was, well, it was telling. President Trump in an interview with NBC on Sunday morning, said a phone call with Governor Kotak showed him a different perspective, saying, I spoke to the Governor, she was very nice, but I said, well wait a minute, am I watching things on television that are different from what's happening? A, I don't think any of us know what you're watching on television, but if it's Game of Thrones, I'd say yes. Conditions in Portland may vary. And B, this explains so much about the governing philosophy of the Trump administration. There is reality and then there's this. My people tell me different. They are literally attacking and there are fires all over the place and dragons. Let her be dragons. So the President of the United States, alone in his bescreened bunker sees reports of conflict in Portland on tv. His lackeys reinforce the chaos and rather than take a breath, rather than take a beat, rather than not acting rashly, rather than using the resources available to him as the President of the United States to find out what the realities on the ground are, he just goes code red. Red team gold. Cause he sees it on TV and acts impulsively. He sends out the National Guard the same way you or I might make a late night shamwow purchase. I saw it on tv. It looked it was on tv. In reality it's just a rag. But at three in the morning it's magic. Meanwhile, the non Portland area of the country is going through some shit. As we mentioned, there's a mass shooting now like every couple of hours previously. The routine would be we express our shock, we express our sadness, we offer our thoughts and prayers. We spend a day, maybe two, arguing about the appropriateness of bringing up guns at all. And then we do nothing until the next time. But as our politics becomes more polarized, even that learned cycle of helplessness has been replaced by a new post shooting pastime. That new pastime is was this one of yours? The shooter was a radical leftist. The guy is a right wing Trump supporting evangelical Christian.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

He is a Biden supporter.

[Jon Stewart]

Case closed. We know the suspected shooter is maga.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

The shooter a leftist whack job.

[Jon Stewart]

It's America's new gender reveal tradition. Boom. It's blue. Ha ha. I'm so happy to blame the left for the violence. The game is so ubiquitous now, we often play it before we even know who the perpetrator is. The killer's identity may be unknown, but his point of view seems pretty clear. That's why I'm calling it political. And from the left. That's Kudlow's lock of the week. Lock it up. Next. Murder rate in Chicago next weekend. Well, it's getting cold there, so I'm taking the under. By the way, playing was this one of yours? Is also certainly a speculative endeavor. So we are treated in the aftermath of these horrific crimes to the news media's active politicized scavenger hunt. Which piece of inconclusive arcana proves which half of the country is to blame? The shooter reportedly voted in the 2020 Democrat primary. The Butler, Pennsylvania shooter was a registered Republican. The suspect wasn't registered with either party. He grew up in an area of Utah that is mostly Republican. The shooter was a registered Republican while election records show that in 2021 he gave $15 to a Democratic aligned organization. He's a Republican but cheap Republican but donated to a Democrat. Maybe he just wanted the PBS Ken Burns tote bag. I don't know. I don't know who to hate. Sometimes the clues aren't even expressly political, but live politically adjacent in the culture. Social Media photos show Mr. Robinson shooting and posing with guns. There's his pickup truck, the huge American flags. This person was a gay man who was in a relationship with another man who believed he was a woman. And they were both into a phenomenon that can only be described as furriness. I love that this dude has to pretend like he doesn't know what furries are. I mean, it could be only. I don't know. Can only be described as a sexual costume party with animals. I mean, I mean, if you were even to do something like that, how would you even get the stains out of the costumes? I mean, especially if they had set for three days. What would you use? Club soda? Lemon? I'm just asking. Or do you just throw the costume out after each experience? Now, call me old fashioned, but I miss the good old days of mass shootings when networks took a principled stance to not shower attention on acts designed to get attention. We will not say the gunman's name or show his photograph.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Fox News will not show you his picture or give him any attention by repeating his name. We don't like naming the Gunman. Because so often they do things just to get attention.

[Jon Stewart]

Don't want to bring more undue attention. That is absolutely necessary to the cowards that bring out carry out these types of attacks. That's right, boys and girls. You know, when I was a boy, there was a brief period in American media where not only wouldn't they say the suspected killer's name, they wouldn't constantly show the suspected killer's only fans, hotshots. They wouldn't do it. They wouldn't. Oh dear Lord. Oh. Oh my God. He could have done so much good with those. And yet he chose the dark side. So why has the news media become obsessed with right left framing of violence? Well, part of the reason is they are following the lead of social media. Social media is doing it crazier and faster than anybody else. So the media is trying to keep up. The fire in the church in Michigan was still burning when online influencers were inferring that the number of Muslims in Michigan are what obviously made this attack happen. Until police released the suspect's photo which looked like it came from a Duck Dynasty fanfic account. And then the left got to celebrate. And then they found a Trump Vance sign on his house. Case closed. Except that sign was placed near a stop sign. So some on the right said, no, no, no, he's saying stop Trump Vance like it's some leftist rebus that he was creating. But here's the thing. Who the cares? These mass shootings don't fit. Who honestly cares? These mass sh do not fit neatly into our left right paradigm. Mass shootings are probably caused by a complex fusion of mental health and access to weapons and attention seeking delusional nihilism married to an algorithmic underworld that set these horrific acts in motion. But unfortunately, right left paradigm is the only way our narcissistic media ecosystem sees anything anymore. That's the system they built. So it must fit into the right left paradigm because that binary is the foundation of all of their programming. So that helps them pretend that the solution to this violence is a simple change in our right left rhetoric.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

The violent rhetoric that is coming from.

[Jon Stewart]

The extreme right wing Democratic party. They are not just tolerating political violence, they are cultivating it.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

The right wing has gotten so incensed, so dangerously violent, at least in its.

[Jon Stewart]

Rhetoric is your message to your fellow Democrats in Congress.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Stop with the rhetoric. You're getting people killed.

[Jon Stewart]

I don't think the rhetoric is getting people killed. Honestly, I don't think any of these psychotic mother that are doing this are watching msnbc. I mean, I'm only. Judging from the ratings, I'm almost positive they're not watching it. To suggest that we don't need to tackle any complex, deep rooted issues haunting American society, we just need to stop. Saying a few choice bad words and all our mentally broken young men will be fine is not realistic. And I'm pretty sure that these people don't believe that either. When you equate federal agents with literal Nazis, you're no longer offering an opinion. You are giving permission to escalate. Permission to escalate. Right. So dangerous. So this is what Hitler did with the ss. This is what Nazi Joseph Goebbels said about the Hitler Youth. Nazi tactics are progressive tactics first. Permission to escalate. Granted. Look, in America, we disagree, that's fine. That's the democratic process. But your political opponents are not Nazis. Except when the Democrats. They are authoritarians. They are jackbooted thugs. No, no, he's not calling them Nazis. I'm sure that's just a fashion critique. Jackbooted thugs? I mean, those boots and white pants in October? Are you mad? Only Hitler would pull something like that. Look, getting our arms around why this is happening is maddening and scary. But the media's ability to memory hole mass shootings that they can't neatly fit into right left is almost as maddening as not really knowing why these killings are really happening. Even when the suspected killers leave supposedly explicit cues on their bullets. One inscription read, hey, fascist. Catch giving some indication about the mindset of Tyler Robinson. Oh, right. No, it's very clearly anti fascist. Very clear. Unless. Was there anything written on the other bullets? If you read this, you are gay. Lmao. Okay, that seems kind of homophobic to me. If you read this, you're gay. I don't know what that means. Well, read it again. It means. Yeah, it's gotta mean something. New York City College meme and digital culture researcher we spoke to said could refer to a video game called Helldivers 2. The same for other inscriptions found on an up arrow, a right arrow, and three down arrows, which is how you drop a bomb in that game. What the. Are we even? The world that these kids now live in is so cynical and impermeable. This online netherworld. If only there were a man, one man. A man who looks square but is hep to what these kids are laying down. Man, there's a lot of talk about.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

The chat platform discord, and Kurt the Cypher guy joins us now to tell us what discord is.

[Jon Stewart]

Oh, Kurt the cyber guy has shown up, fresh off of doing the weather in Sarasota. Thanks for the lowdown, Kurt the cyber guy. You old cyber dog. Say hello to your partner in crime, meme maven Gary. Meanwhile, why are we all just taking the bait from these psychos? Authorities have not released the motive, but.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Of course, here's the ammunition. The words Anti Ice.

[Jon Stewart]

That phrase hyphenated written on one of the bullet casings.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

We just had the facts laid out for us. This was an individual motivated by Anti Ice. He wrote it on a bullet. We saw the bullet yesterday. Anti. Ice.

[Jon Stewart]

Case closed. He wrote Anti Ice. Doesn't anybody think it's weird that these people just started writing on bullets all of a sudden? Like that's the most effective way to get out their deeply held political beliefs? Anti. Ice. Nuff said. Or is there the slightest possibility that these people are with us?

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

According to his friends, the alleged gunman was not overly political and was mainly interested in video games and Internet culture.

[Jon Stewart]

Clearly, it's anti Ice. Right? And his friends say, I wouldn't interpret it that way. He was never a sincere guy. Everything he said was laced with irony and sarcasm. What kind of psychotic Internet culture? What's happening? Can't we just go back to the Cinnamon Challenge? Is that so hard? What is wrong with you? Look, we would definitely have a healthier political discourse if we weren't constantly calling each other fascists and communists and Nazis. But we are the only place in the world where this shit happens all the time. But we're not the only place in the world that name calls. So what is this? Perhaps we need to look back at our founders, who, through their infinite wisdom, designed and operated a more mature system with checks and balances and a respect for all that prevented this kind of corrosive infighting and radicalization. John Quincy Adams, take an aim at Jackson, asserting that Jackson didn't know how to spell, was too uneducated to become president, while newspapers portrayed his wife, Rachel, as a short, fat dumpling. A delicious dumpling, indeed. When we come back, Jill Lepore will be joining us. Don't go away. Today's video is sponsored by Strawberry Me. If you're feeling stuck in your career, or if you're unsure about your next move, now is the time to take action. Strawberry Me connects you with certified career coaches to help you gain clarity, build a plan, and actually follow through. You'll take a quiz and get matched with a coach based on your goals and preferences. The sessions are virtual and designed to fit your schedule. This isn't therapy or mentoring. Coaching is action oriented and collaborative. You can message your coach between sessions for ongoing support and motivation. You don't need to be an executive to benefit. Coaching is for anyone who wants to grow. Go to Strawberry Me daily and claim your $50 credit. That's strawberry.me daily. Go to www.strawberry.me daily to connect with a certified career coach. Today mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should. 1. It's $15 a month. 2. Seriously, it's $15 a month. 3. No big contracts.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

4.

[Jon Stewart]

I use it. 5. My mom uses it.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Are you.

[Jon Stewart]

Are you playing me off? That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a try.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

@Mintmobile.Com Switch upfront payment of $45 for three month plan. $15 per month equivalent required. New customer offer first three months only. Then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.

[Jon Stewart]

Hey, what about Dale's show? My Harvard professor, staff writer at the New Yorker and best selling author whose latest book is called we the history of the U.S. constitution. Please welcome to the program. Jill Lepore.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Secured.

[Jon Stewart]

What are you trying to do to me? This is. Yeah, I'm going to show you something. 600 pages. Look at the font. What do you got? I'm an old man. I had to pour over this with a magnifying glass and a microscope just to be able to see. And I only got up to reconstruction. You know what? Can I tell you why? Normally I get the books from the authors that are coming on the show and they're dry and I can skim them. Your writing is so vivid and so interesting that I actually had to pay.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Attention and it slowed me down.

[Jon Stewart]

I'm really sorry.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

I'm really sorry. I could do an alternate account. That's just the dry version.

[Jon Stewart]

Do not. Because what I learned, it's fascinating to me the process of just writing the Constitution was far. It was this 20 year meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting, which we think of it as something that is almost divine, inspired on Mount Whatever and handed down to people. It's not. It was a series of like zoning board meetings.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Yeah, it really was. It took a long time to figure out the whole premise of constitutionalism. I mean, we, we think, you know, next year we're celebrating the nation's 250th anniversary because we're marking the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, 1776. But that's also the year the first constitutions were written in. In what was the United States. And it's not until 1787 that we get the constitution that we haven't inherited as the federal constitution. But all those years in between are just people. Like, what if we didn't have a governor? Or, you know, what if we elected our state supreme court? Or what if we granted the right to vote to everybody? Like, people are just debating and trying out different things. Or what if we let the people write the constitutions? What if we wrote them ourselves but told them they had to agree to them? No, that's not gonna work. Like, it's just a series of experiments.

[Jon Stewart]

Right? And by the way, not on zoom. Like these guys. Like, everything is like, what if we did this? And then they put in 50amendments and did it? And then like, they'd send a guy in a wagon and it would take them like eight weeks to go. Like, yeah. They said no.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

There was one time there was a constitution. Maybe it was Pennsylvania where there was a draft.

[Jon Stewart]

Have you not read this?

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

No, I forgot about it.

[Jon Stewart]

How far did you get in this book?

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

No, no, no. There was a state constitution that was written and then it went into the towns for ratification. Ratification. But by the time they called for the vote, there hadn't. The printed copies of the constitution hadn't reached the towns yet. Like, it's actually just really hard to travel. Like, think of western Pennsylvania or western Massachusetts. Sure, it just takes a long time to get around.

[Jon Stewart]

And also there was a discussion, as you lay out, of who was even allowed to weigh in. And should it be property owners or just white gentry or people who paid enough in certain taxes and all these different things? But what it does is it, I don't want to say humanizes, but it's a product of administration and it was almost a bureaucratic process, whereas I viewed it more as a moral process previously. And I think it was infused with morality. But even then, boy, they're very aware of slavery's shadow and they make no bones about it.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Yeah, I think it's far more sort of contingent and accidental than we probably carry around in our head. The idea of, you know, there was this bunch of guys in knee breeches in Philadelphia and the sun came through a window and George Washington said, ta da. And there was the Constitution. And it's like there is that moment, right? There's famous speeches at the end where, you know, Franklin says, like, I consent to this constitution, sir. Because although I don't think it's the best, it's the best that we have. And you know, there is that. There are a lot of, like, iconic moments in the history of the Constitution.

[Jon Stewart]

Right.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

But there's just a mess all before it that involves a lot of things, like people who are enslaved sending petitions to their state legislature saying, oh, when you're writing the Constitution institution, by the way, please end slavery. It is completely inconsistent with the philosophy on which this country is being founded. So, like, just. I wrote the book because I just wanted to recover this, like, much messier, more contingent, like a lot of agitation. Like, there's a bureaucratic part of it. But then, you know, these guys are meeting in conventions and like, at the time, they called everybody who was agitating who's not in the constitutional conventions in the states and in Philadelphia, the people out of doors. And it's like, we are the people out of doors.

[Jon Stewart]

We are all out of doors.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

We are the outdoors.

[Jon Stewart]

The other thing is there are a lot of women's conventions.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Yeah.

[Jon Stewart]

Who get together and they draw up their own things and they talk about how this Constitution. I thought there's a really interesting area in here where you talk about the protection of women and sort of they discuss it as literal rape. As though, because British soldiers who had been in there and had been quartered in Americans houses would. And so they viewed this as a way of protecting women and viewing the country in that same way.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Yeah, yeah. There's this whole. I mean, the reason we have like Lady Liberty or, you know, there's also Britannia. Right. We have these allegorical women that represent the nation. There is a way in which, in the Revolutionary era, women were always figured as the victims of British oppression. Allegorically like the rape of America, but by Parliament. Is this like the most popular woodcut of the time or engraving of the time? But there also was a lot of rape that women dealt with during the Revolutionary War, as is the case in all wars.

[Jon Stewart]

Right. As a weapon of war. Right.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

And so when you read, okay, so there were no women at the Constitutional Convention, but all those guys had wives and sisters and mothers and daughters who were writing to them and expressing their views. Like, one of my favorites is Benjamin Franklin's sister, who writes. Who writes to his. Writes to Franklin and says, like, I hope while you're down there in Philadelphia with those wise men, she's being a little bit ironic.

[Jon Stewart]

Right.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

I. I hope you remember to turn the swords into plow. Turn. Turn the swords into plowshares. Like, I'm not down with, like, celebrating war in your new code of laws.

[Jon Stewart]

I thought Adams writes To his wife. Yeah, he gets a little cheeky.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Yeah, he's a bit of a git.

[Jon Stewart]

He's a bit of a git. But he does he almost in some ways, because she's very clearly pushing for, I guess, what you would imagine to be maybe not the rights of women. I don't know.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Yeah. Well, she says, look, like, all men would be tyrants if they could. That's the principle on which the country's founded, Right?

[Jon Stewart]

That's right.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Like power corrupts.

[Jon Stewart]

That's right.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

So we have to have checks and balances. We have to write down our laws that limit the role of government and document the rights of the people. Because left to. Left to nature, all men would be tyrants if they could. So she's like, also, husbands are also going to be tyrants. So we need to have rights. Please don't forget to grant rights to women. And he writes back, you know, as to your new code of laws, madam, I cannot but laugh.

[Jon Stewart]

Yeah, Yeah, I bet she wanted to hit him in the face with a frying pan.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

She writes to her friend Mercy Otis Warner, like, let's. What about if we wrote a petition to Congress? Like, let's do this together.

[Jon Stewart]

Right.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

And I found that really tantalizing. I'd never come across that, but I always. Everybody knows the kind of Abigail Adams letter to John that exchange is.

[Jon Stewart]

Everybody. No, Harvard professors know that. No, here's what everybody knows. The founders created three co. Equal branches of government, and then there was Vietnam. Like, nobody has any idea about any of this. That's. I think that's the point. Point. And the point is there is a danger in not knowing this because it allows us to make presumptions and assumptions that. That lessen the work that we have to do to make change. You know, you talk a lot about this in terms of amendments that the founders put into place through Article 5. The idea that this was not the end all, be all document that it was going to have to be changed. And by not understanding what their thought process was leading up to it, I think we've lost sight of what that amending process should be.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Yeah. And just the commitment to it. I mean, I was really struck. I hadn't thought that much, honestly, about amendment. I, like most people, to the degree that I had a kind of history of the Constitution in my mind, is really a succession of Supreme Court cases. Oh, well, there was Dred Scott. I know about that one. You know, there's Lochner, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe.

[Jon Stewart]

Oh, my God, I could teach At Harvard.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Right. Like, those are. You're like, okay, I got those.

[Jon Stewart]

I know those too.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

That's right. That's what you kind of think. Like, okay, the Supreme Court just decides. And that's what the Constitution is. That's kind of how it's taught too, right? Law school. That's how it's taught. Like just a sex list of cases. But when I went back and did this research, it's like, wow. Like, they're all the. The philosophy of amendment, the idea that we can make our lives and our government better and more responsive to the needs of the people is actually the foundational principle of written constitutionalism. If you're going to write it down, that's great. Then everybody can read it. That's really important. But you have to have a way to change it. And there really was no provision that the Supreme Court would be changing. I mean, that's a practice that evolved and is now considered standard and part of our constitutional tradition. But the philosophy of amendment is the thing that we abandoned. And it's hard. But even if you didn't have a list of amendments you wanted, the idea of it is actually so beautiful. That is the moral idea. It's like this commitment to mending. The word itself, kind of the 18th century meaning of it is inseparable from mending, like repairing the textile and convening, like making amends, mending your ways. These. These kind of deep ways of thinking about, shouldn't we be able to make things better? Just because we've written them down, does that mean we can't still aspire to make things better?

[Jon Stewart]

Do you think that we have grown to use the Supreme Court as a moral crutch because the process of amending is so arduous? You know, it took the Civil War for them to decide that black people should be able to vote. And then certainly, you know, Jim Crow south pulled that all back, you know, and women at the time were like, wait a minute, so black men get to vote, but women don't get to vote? And then it took till the twenties till that happens with suffragette movements. Have we lost sight of what it takes to organize in a meeting? Meeting to meeting, grassroots, relentless effort to create a lasting. Because an amendment, you can pass a law, but a law can be repealed. An amendment is different. Is that what we've lost?

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

An amendment is different. And many of our amendments overrule Supreme Court decisions. That's why. That's what they were for in the first place. Like the Supreme Court strikes down a congressional law to Establish a federal income tax, says that's not in the Constitution. Congress doesn't have that power. Ultimately, we've got the 16th Amendment in 1913 that says, okay, Congress can have this power. And without an amendment, many gains are just reversible. They can be overruled by the Supreme Court. They can. Like, if you think about like Environmental protection, right. 1970, Nixon says it's the environmental decade. I'm going to be the environmental president. And we get the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species act, in Species Act, National Environment Protection Act. All those things are being rolled back. Like, those were not constitutionalized. They're really important laws and they had really important consequences. But there was a proposal for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing environmental protection as a constitutional right. And it doesn't get anywhere. There's time. That's sort of the last moment when we really were able to still amend the Constitution. So you think about that like, would it be a different world if that had been constitutionalized?

[Jon Stewart]

And probably goes both ways. I mean, I would imagine it goes really both ways that, you know, look, we could argue Roe v. Wade did a similar thing, which is why I think people now view those, what they might have considered to be rights as being vulnerable. Because I think they're realizing, oh, the Supreme Court, I mean, look at the shadow docket that they're literally like on one page thing going like, yeah, the president can just take billions of dollars and as long as it's for like foreign money, he can just take.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

I mean, it's a little bit like you're, you're, you know, the reductionism of the mass shooting analysis where you're going to just say, was it a red shooter or a blue shooter?

[Jon Stewart]

I'm sorry, I don't watch this show. I don't care for it. So I don't know what you're referring to.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Well, I think, you know, it's reductive. It's reductive. It's like, okay, so it's just generally the case. Sadly, people aren't as principles as you'd wish. Like, if, if conservatives are not in power in the court, then they, they seek constitutional amendment and they think the court shouldn't be making decisions. When liberals are not in power in the court, they suddenly want to talk about constitutional amendments and they don't think the court should be making decisions.

[Jon Stewart]

Are we all originalists when we're not holding the power? Is that how originalism works?

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

No.

[Jon Stewart]

Oh, okay. All right.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

All right.

[Jon Stewart]

I wasn't sure. No, all right.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

No, we can be intellectually inconsistent without being originalists.

[Jon Stewart]

Oh, okay. All right.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Those are two different forms.

[Jon Stewart]

They are. Because that's what the originalists would say, is it not? Is that the amendment? Because they placed it in there. If you don't use the amendment, you can't do anything.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Yeah. So the original. So originalism is not original. It's not the original method of interpreting the Constitution. It's a political product of the 1970s and 1980s.

[Jon Stewart]

The term, maybe.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

The term, no. But also the idea.

[Jon Stewart]

Even the thought process.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Yeah, even the thought process. Earlier courts didn't really say, let's go back and consider what Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention said in order to understand whether there could be aching systems.

[Jon Stewart]

So they understood themselves as living in a time and being politically part of the moment.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Yeah, yeah, they were working. I mean, there are a lot, again, like, it's brand new, like they're working out, well, how are we going to interpret this thing? Like they're working it out. There's different kind of competing theories, and they change over time. But the originalism that dominates the Supreme Court today really begins around 1971. And it is fiscal and social conservatives who opposed to the decisions of the Warren Court, like starting with Brown v. Board of education in 1954, and they've said, oh, that's judicial. This is like judicial activism. Judicial activism. They're legislating from the bench. You should never do that. You should never do that. If you want to change the Constitution, you should try to amend it. And they try to amend the Constitution, but they don't have the votes. They want a right to life amendment. They want a balanced budget amendment. They don't have the votes. So then they were like, oh, you know what? We do want to change the Constitution. We're going to take over the federal judiciary. But we've been saying for decades that you can't legislate from the bench. So we have to have a way to have our new judiciary appointment, our new judiciary appointees be able to change the Constitution without seeming to be changing the Constitution. So they said, well, what we're doing is right. We've devised this new judicial interpretation that is we're not changing the Constitution, we're restoring it to its original meaning. So it's a way to change the Constitution while pretending that you're not disguising it as restoration.

[Jon Stewart]

What's so interesting about that, too, it seems, is, so if you say, well, there is a. An amending process. Right. That allows us to change the Constitution, so you have to use that because that's what the founders put in there. But as you show in the book, the amendment process wasn't something that they held sacrosanct. Again, the amendment process was born of a very messy, sometimes conflicting administrative and bureaucratic process. Even that was compromised for a variety of different reasons. So I don't even know that you can point to the amendment process. It seems like the Supreme Court, Marbury vs Madison was the moment they went. There is no originalism because in the Constitution there is no. Only the Supreme Court gets to interpret constitutionality. And there certainly is no amendment in the Constitution that suggests that. So didn't we leave that ship in 1803? Or is that the wrong way of thinking of this?

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Yeah, I mean, I don't think there's no pulling back judicial review. I don't like there's.

[Jon Stewart]

Maybe I just mean by doing judicial review, you've removed yourself from originalism, because that's not in there.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Yes. Fair enough.

[Jon Stewart]

Good night. For real? Yeah, for real. Did I just get a B? No.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

You know, no one gets B's anymore, John. I don't know.

[Jon Stewart]

Oh, that's right.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

I forgot paying attention.

[Jon Stewart]

I forgot about that. That's when the parents come in. How dare you. I spend 300,000 dol at this stupid company.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

I don't know the letter B anymore. My outfit stops with A.

[Jon Stewart]

It's. It's really. You know what? It's awful, isn't it?

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

It's awful. Yeah. It's embarrassing and inexcusable.

[Jon Stewart]

Do you. Can you even write see me on the thing or. No, even that's over.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

No, that's sort of suggestive, I think, is the problem.

[Jon Stewart]

It is, Right. You can't do anything anymore. Oh, poor Democrats. Is the idea of putting this out there, then to give us a sense of the roadmap and the inconsistencies so that we no longer view things through a more orthodox or fundamentalist lens. Like it. Is this as opposed to. No, it became that because of all these other tributaries. And is that instructive, people as we move forward?

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Yeah, I think it's. First of all, it's important to have a more democratic past if you want to have a more democratic future. Right. You have to see, like, there's a world of people who are agitating for different kinds of change. Like, not. Like all change is great. Like, a lot of the people that I write as character sketches in this book have constitutional ideas that I think are horrible. Right. But they really worked hard on them and they really Influenced the. The court in doing so. Even if, you know, they didn't get their amendments through, or maybe they did, some of them, they did. We just actually need a more complex and richer account of how Americans have viewed the Constitution so that it doesn't seem immutable. Not to say to, we shouldn't care about it, we shouldn't value. We shouldn't want to uphold it, we shouldn't want to hold our leaders accountable to it. But that, at the end of the day, it is actually our Constitution. And I think we have really. I would say most Americans don't even know the U.S. constitution. Constitution can be amended. Like, it hasn't really happened lately. And even state constitutions, like, we don't hold conventions anymore. I think that the things that people fought and died over a revolution for, you know, the 750,000Americans who died in the Civil War were fighting a constitutional argument, too. Like, I think we just need a better account of that to get our bearings in the same way. Like, you know, in a marriage, you kind of need to know, like, your family history. Like, you have, like, an account of the past.

[Jon Stewart]

Wow, that took a weird turn, Jennifer. Okay, that took a super. Is there anything else you want to talk about?

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Just in your daily life, like, you think historically all the time about how did, like, how did I get there with this friendship? Like, oh, my God, this person. You know, 20 years ago we had this fight, and we're still fighting over that.

[Jon Stewart]

Sure. No. Yep, we all think that way.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

Okay, maybe that failed. I'm sure.

[Jon Stewart]

I love it because it reminds me, people, that democracy is a participatory sport. And that when you go through that, you see this is about. And the more people that participate, we won't always be pleased with the outcome, but you have to be invested in the process. And, boy, what a valuable thing. Although still, my favorite piece of information in this entire book is that the Federalist Society, which are generally the legal theory of originalism, altered the logo of James Madison. That is their logo, because they thought the nose looked too big.

[Guest/Co-host (possibly Jill Lepore or a show contributor)]

It's kind of awesome. Also, it was Robert Bourke's son, I think, who was like this silhouette. He's a fairly unattractive man.

[Jon Stewart]

I love it. The book is called we the People. It's available now and again. I can't tell you, just, the writing is so vivid and engaging and wonderful. It would have been so much easier to skim this bad boy if you were a lesser writer, but you are not, and it is fantastic, and I thank you for that even taking the time. Jill Lepore. We're going to take a quick break and be right back after this. Jill. Hey, everybody, that's our show for tonight. Before we go, we're going to check in with your host for the rest of the week, Mr. Ronny Chang. Ronny, my man, talk to us. What's on deck for the rest of this week, Ronnie? Well, big news out of dc, John. The federal government might be headed towards a shutdown, which means all of us have to step up. This is not a drill. We need all hands on deck to fulfill the vital government job of shredding all the Epstein files. Wait, you said you need everyone to step up to help shred the Epstein files? Yeah, yeah, it's a lot of files, John. It's a lot. What about the, like, government? Like Social Security and cleaning national parks? The government does stuff other than Epstein files. Okay, okay. I'll put on my tinfoil hat and talk about all the things the government does. Grow up, John. It's Epstein files. Ronny Chieng, everybody. Here it is your moment of death. That's not true. I have no idea what is going on. This cartoon is very significant in the community, so I found another guy to explain the whole situation. Again, this is on the side of the bullet. This is like the one of the motive. Who knows? But I want to know. Explore more shows from the Daily show podcast universe by searching the Daily Show. Wherever you get your podcasts, watch the Daily show weeknights at 1110 Central on Comedy Central and stream full episodes anytime on Paramount. Plus, this has been a Comedy Central podcast.