AJ Jacobs: The Constitution Comes Alive

Here's something remarkable and not in a good way. Disengaged employees cost US companies almost $1.9 trillion a year. That's a lot of zeros. Why? Because when teams lack the right skills, productivity declines, turnover increases, and strategies stagnate. But it doesn't have to be that way. At Project Management Institute, home of the PMP and globally recognized certifications, your people can learn to collaborate, deliver on time, and actually get things the cost of not upskilling way higher than the investment. Project Management Institute. Find the answers@pmi.org.

I'm Guy Kawasaki and this is remarkable, people. We are on a mission to make you remarkable. And today we have a second mission, which is to make you laugh. Because helping me in this episode is AJ Jacobs. He is an author and journalist known for his, shall I say, immersive experiments as well as his New York Times best selling books. His first book, the Know it all, chronicled his quest to read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. Another New York Times bestseller, the Year of Living Biblically, detailed his experience following the Bible's rules for a year. AJ's other books include Drop Dead Healthy, My Life as an Experiment and It's All Relative. But today we're talking about his very latest book. It's called the Year of Living Constitutionally. Which means, and I'm not making this up, that he tried to live one year within the context of the Constitution's original meaning. By the way, he did not take any private plane rides because that in the original Constitution. Let's just say that it gets very interesting when he carries around a musket. You don't want to miss this episode. And when I heard this story of AJ Jacobs, it was so strange and so funny. I had to talk to his wife because, oh my God, I wanted to hear what she says about living constitutionally and biblically. And. And then I suggested that he take one year and live magaly, but I don't think he's gonna take me up on that challenge. So I'm Guy Kawasaki. This is remarkable, people. And now here's the remarkable and extremely funny AJ Jacobs. Do you still have the pillory?

I do, I do. It is under my bed and it is very well crafted. It's made of wood and you are welcome to borrow it anytime you want.

For those of you listening who don't know what a pillory is, because I didn't until I read AJ's book. This is the stockade thing where you put your head in and you put your arms in and you're locked in a stockade.

Exactly. They have gone out of style in the United States, thankfully. But since I was writing a book about trying to live like they lived in the 18th century, I figured I should try to get one. And you can still buy them on Etsy. They are handmade and I thought I would try one out. And it's not my favorite, it's not my thing. I'm not going to continue using it, which is why I offer it to you, Guy.

But this may seem like a dumb question, but why would you keep something like that?

Well, it is very well crafted and it is funny because it was sold on Etsy for adult entertainment purposes. So it's not really a punishment device, or at least in the traditional sense. When I commit to a project, I commit, as my son says, I commit to the bit. So I had everything. As you can see, I'm wearing my tricorn hat. I carried a musket around New York City city, because that's my Second Amendment right. So the whole idea was to live by the Constitution as it was Originally written in 1789. And part of that is to explore punishment. And so I. I did end up buying one off of Etsy. But I do use my quill. I'm holding it right here for you. See that? And it is well used. I love writing with a quill because it changed the way I thought. I honestly believe it made me a more subtle thinker because when I'm on the Internet, I'm getting all these dings and chimes and it's very hard to concentrate. It's much better for cold takes versus hot takes. And you don't have to go with a quill, just a pen or a pencil or even a computer that's cut off from the Internet. So that was one of the takeaways of my project.

Madison and I both have fountain pens and I feel the same way about fountain pens.

Oh, yes.

I have a suggestion for your pillory. I think you could send it to Lauren Boebert and say, the next time you go to a Broadway musical, take this. And then you will be safer from video and other kinds of criticism on cnn. If you use this at the next time you go to a play.

A brilliant idea. If you have her address, then I will send it off.

Okay. Now, this is a semi serious thing, and I think we can have a breakthrough here, right? I. I read because of your book, the Preamble, and it says, we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility. Okay, the OCD grammarian in me says, ensure I N S U R E is the wrong word. Unless they were referring to State Farm and Allstate. Shouldn't it be ensure, not insure, domestic tranquility?

Well, that is a fascinating question. And I actually ran the Constitution through the Grammarly software, and it found over 600 mistakes, including that the words Pennsylvania, the state, Pennsylvania spelled two different ways, Penn and pen. Now, I say this because I think the Constitution is an amazing document, and it does contain greatness, and it planted the seeds of equality and our nation, but it was also written by human beings, and it had flaws, and they knew it had flaws. So one of the messages of my book is that they wanted us to improve on the Constitution. They did not think it was a static document for all time.

I could tell you that probably if there are any originalists listening to this podcast, they're now saying, no, the letter of the preamble is ensure. So that means that we cannot regulate Allstate and State Farm and Geico. It would be unconstitutional to regulate insurance companies.

Guy, I know you went to at least a year of law school, so I think you have got an excellent point. I'm not going to argue with you.

I hate to burst your bubble, but it was two weeks, not a year. But.

Okay, I've forgotten that. Okay, you must have learned something in those two weeks.

I learned that I hate law. Yeah, I learned something. Okay, so listen, you have a checkered past. You've lived both biblically and constitutionally. So which was harder?

Oh, that's a good question. They were both incredibly challenging and both incredibly rewarding because I do these immersive projects where I live like someone for a year. And it's not only because it's weird and strange and delightful, which it is, but also my hope is that I get something out of it that improves my life and improves the reader's life. So each of them had their wonderful parts and their terrible parts. So the wonderful parts of the Bible where I really learned a lot about gratitude, because that's a big part of the Bible. The less wonderful parts were I had a huge beard because the Bible says you cannot shave the corners of your beard. So I looked like Gandalf or ZZ Top. You're old enough to remember ZZ Top. And my wife would not kiss me for seven months, so it was a balance. Same with the Constitution. I think there were amazing parts. I learned a lot about virtue and self sacrifice and cold takes writing with a quill pen. But on the other hand, I had to carry a musket around New York, which got some strange looks. I will say it did come in handy once when I arrived at a coffee shop with my musket at the same time as another customer. And. And he said, you go first, I'm not cutting you in line. That was helpful.

You mentioned it. But listen, if you were black and carrying a musket, you would have had a very different experience, right?

Absolutely. Yes. I was nervous about the reaction. But as you say, and as I say in the book, if I had been black, then who knows what would have happened? And that is a big part of American history. And a big part of my book is how does the Constitution deal with race? And it is a fascinating and complicated issue.

Listen, if all of a sudden people of color were out and buying 30 shot clips and buying automatic weapons, it would be interesting to see what the GOP thought of the second Amendment. Or there must be some, like, doing backflips because Hunter Biden's ability to bear arms is being restricted because he filled out the application inaccurately. So what if Donald Trump's son went and tried to buy a gun and had a drug problem? Would they be saying, oh, no, the second Amendment trumps any restriction on people with drug problems buying guns? Or yeah, no, the restriction is top priority. I don't know what they would say to that. That'd be very interesting.

It is a fascinating issue to read about the history of the Second Amendment because it is very different than what I have thought, and it was at the time. Some of the great work on this was done by Saul Cornell, a historian, and he argues both the left and the right get the Second Amendment wrong, or at least the original meaning of it. Because the idea was that it was your civic duty to have a musket in case you needed to defend your state or your country. And so the left would not like the fact that it was such a pro gun society. But the right would be apoplectic because it was very highly regulated. They had government. People would come to your home and make sure that your gun was working properly because you needed to defend it. So it was not one or the other. And that's why I think when it comes to the second Amendment, we should not be looking to the past. We should be looking to what's going on now and what is best for society now, as opposed to trying to figure out what. What was the correct thing to do in 1789.

So you actually bought A musket with your buddies in the reenactment stage. And you say something like if you really got good at it, you could fire a musket three or four times a minute, which is, let's just say a little slower than a automatic weapon today.

That is true. And yes, I bought an actual musket off ye olde Internet and it is from the 1790s. And then I bought another replica because the old one is hard to shoot. But I went to a range. I had joined The New Jersey 3rd Regiment of Revolutionary War reenactors. Wonderful people. We had a great time fighting some battles and we went to a range to shoot a musket. And like you said, it was a vastly different experience than shooting a modern gun, which I've also done because it's so many steps. It's like 15 steps. You have to take out the ramrod, you've got to take out the gunpowder, pour the gunpowder in, pour the gunpowder there and it's like 15 steps. It's like building a desk from Ikea. So it is not easy. And it took me several minutes to fire one lead ball. But the real sharpshooters in the war could fire three per minute. But even that, as you say, is much slower than current semi automatic guns which can fire. So the big question is, and I'll present both sides because I do like to steel man. You know that phrase steel man as opposed to straw man. So you try to present the strongest argument from both sides, which I think is a very good thing, and that is something I think the founders did right, is that they were much more open minded. We are very intransigent. So anyway, one side would say that this law of the Second Amendment was from 1789 with muskets, totally different machine than what we have now. So imagine if you had a law written in 1800 that said on this quiet country lane it's okay to have wheeled vehicles because wheeled vehicles meant a wheelbarrow or a bicycle. Now we have 18 wheel trucks. So is the same law, does it need to be revised? Progressives would say yes. On the other hand, the gun rights folks would say no, the right to bear arms is for all arms. It's about self defense. And it would be like if you said the first amendment of free speech and free press only applied to Ben Franklin's wooden printing press. It should apply to everything. Now as you might imagine, I lean more towards the former argument that it is a very, very different machine. And that because it's so different, we do need different regulations.

Can you tell us about the people in this New Jersey regiment? If you didn't know that they do this reenactment and you just met.

Would.

It be like screaming to you that, wow, these people are, like, a little bit nuts. They're, like, reenacting the Revolutionary War. They're shooting muskets. They're wearing hats like you're wearing. Or would you just say, huh, nice guy. We got along just great. I mean, you would have a beer with them.

More than a beer. I would have Madeira and some ale. And I will say, and I feel you have this, too, that you try to go through life with an openness and a curiosity and try not to prejudge. So they will admit it's a weird hobby. And some of them are excessive. There are some that they call stitch counters because they are so obsessed with having exactly the way it was, the correct number of stitches on each pair of pants. One guy in my regiment lost a toe to frostbite because he walked barefoot in Valley Forge in the snow. Because that's what they did in the Revolutionary War. So sometimes, yes, they can be a little overly committed. But I will say I became friendly with a lot of them. They were thoughtful. They were interested in honoring these people who had made sacrifices in the fight for democracy. And I do think it's an interesting question because one of the big questions of the book is, what is the glue that holds America together? I love America, but I'm very worried about it. It is not doing very well. We are fraying. So what is the glue? And there can be several different glues. One way countries hold together is through nationalism, that they all have the same ethnicity. I think that's a bad way to hold a country together. That leads to all sorts of horrible things like Nazism. So, no, I say no to that. Another way is through a founding myth. So this is the way that they're trying to do it. The founding myth of the documents and the fight against monarchy. Of course, that is a complicated one because many of the founders were incredibly flawed. Some of them were slave owners. So some people object to the founding myth. One way to rectify that is to make it a little broader, to be more inclusive in the founding myth and include people like Frederick Douglass in the founding myth, which I love. And another way to bind us together is through culture. Maybe Thanksgiving, maybe the Super Bowl. Maybe these are what can keep America together. I don't have the answer, but I explore all these things. What is your thought? I'd be interested You're a wise person. How can we keep America? Assuming you do think America is worth keeping together, how are some strategies that can help us make that real?

We had a guest, I can't remember who, maybe it was Leon Panetta. But one of our guests told us in the old days, all the members of Congress lived in the same area. So you know, you may be across the aisle during the day, but on the weekends your kids played on the same little league teams and you were sitting in the same stands and all that. And so it was a lot more civil and there was a lot more crossing the aisle. But now everybody lives separately. And so you develop these little kind of conclaves of self reinforcing beliefs. And that has created a lot of problems. So I agree with you that the third solution is the only way to go. And like you, I am very worried. Beginning on November 6, it may be the end of America. We don't need to go that deep right now.

I was just going to say, I think that is such an important point that we need to get out of our little echo chambers and our little bubbles. And I think one way to do it is back in the 1700s, in addition to individual rights, you had responsibility, whether it was the bucket brigade and you were putting out fires or you were in the militia. Now, I don't want to return to the days of the militia where everyone had to be, but I like the idea of national service or everyone trying AmeriCorps even for a month or I love that my kids are going to college, but I'm worried because when I went to college, it was a lottery. You got stuck in a room with people maybe of completely different backgrounds. Now you can go on Instagram and find someone who's like you and then room with them. So that is just one symptom of the problem of we're not mixing together like we used to. We are really separating like oil and water.

I have to say that I think, and I am willing to bet a lot of money that I am hardly the first person to say this, but I just want to add one more voice that you definitely have to do a book about a year of living maga. Like just go MAGA for a year. I think that would be just fantastic.

You know, I have not had that many people say that. I've had a few, but not that many. That would be interesting.

We'd be bigger than the guy who ate at McDonald's for 30 days. You gotta do this. Buy your Ford 150, start going to NASCAR and, like, going on all the rallies, I would pay.

Listen, it is not a bad idea, because I do think it is important. Some people say we are so far gone that you can't even communicate with the other side. And maybe that's true. Maybe that's true. But I actually love trying to talk to people of completely different backgrounds, and I think that is something we need to try to do. And actually, speaking of my book, I think that the founders were better at that because they did have vast disagreements, but they had a lot more epistemic humility. So my favorite is Ben Franklin. And during the convention, he said, the older I get, the less certain I am of my own opinions. And then he told this story. He said there was a French lady who said to her sister, why is it that I'm the only person I've ever met who is right on every single issue? And his point was, we're all the French lady. The MAGA people are the French lady. But so are a lot of us on the left are the French lady. We think we are absolutely right, and we need to be open to changing our mind. Not willy nilly, not based on occult is changing your mind, but you've got to change your mind by looking at the evidence and having a civil discussion. So, anyway, that is to say, maybe you're onto something. Maybe I should try it.

Listen, A.J. if I could see Jordan Klepper interviewing you during your year of being maga, that would be. We're talking Pulitzer Prize level. That would be freaking amazing.

But I don't know if my wife would go for it. We'll see. I'll bring it up to her.

Yeah, since you brought it up, I was gonna ask you at the end, but from time to time on this podcast, we have brought in cameo appearances. And so we had Sal Khan's niece. She was the genesis of Khan Academy. So we had her on for about 60 seconds. And then I had Josh Peck, who mother talked about what it was like for him to be a childhood actor. So I'm leading up to this request that. Could you just consider if I could get your wife on the phone for about 60 seconds and say, julie, do you think your husband is absolutely nuts? He's got the pillory, he's got the hat, he's got the musket. He wanted to buy a second musket. Julie, tell me.

Oh, okay. Absolutely, of course. No, she gets a lot of emails from readers saying that she is the most patient woman in the world. And I appreciate that because that allow.

Me to do myself on a more serious note. Listen, I'm from Silicon Valley, so I've been around many foundings of many companies and I was at Apple and at Google and Wikipedia and all that. So I scratch my head. I mean, I just cannot conceive of an organization that writes a business plan and then 250 years later, the people who work for that organization are saying, 250 years ago, Steve Jobs said all mice have to have one button. So we need to have one button. I'm an originalist of the Apple business plan. We cannot have a multiple button mouse. We cannot have a trackpad. It has to be a one button mouse. So can you just explain to me, like, what goes through their brains when they think that something that's 250 years old should be applied to modern society?

Well, that is a fascinating analogy about the Silicon Valley. I would say a couple of things. First of all, the founders, I do believe were very entrepreneurial. They were like some of the brilliant people in Silicon Valley now, and that they would not want the Constitution to be stuck in time. And they made it an amendment process, which was a real big breakthrough because they said, we know this is an imperfect document and we know that times evolve. So you have this way to change the founding document. The problem is they made it too hard to change. They didn't think that they were making it that hard. They didn't want it to be easy. They don't want to be able to change every day. But you need 2/3 of Congress to make an amendment. Back then that was possible. Now we have two rigid parties split down the middle. The founders did not see that coming. They would be appalled. We have not had an Amendment since 1992, and I don't see one coming for several decades. And this would be very disturbing to the founders. So that's the first point. The second point is, as I say, I do like to steel man both sides, because I think that's the way progress is made, is if you do understand the other side and then are able to have a civil discussion. So let me try to steel man originalism for you. Originalism, which is an incredibly powerful movement right now in how to interpret the Constitution. And the majority of the Supreme Court are originalists. And a lot of the decisions, like Dobbs about abortion and Bruin about guns are originalist decisions. And the theory is that the most important thing when interpreting the Constitution is that meaning from the original public, meaning from when it was ratified. And you can say, yeah, that's crazy. It was 230 years ago. But think about this. If you sign a contract, you're a businessman. You sign a contract, say you hire a contractor for your home and say, can you please install a new sink? And the contractor comes back a month later and says, okay, put in the sink, but I also put in a chandelier and I did a couch and a little water fountain for you. And you're like, I didn't ask for that. And he said, yeah, but it's a living contract. And I thought that would be helpful for you. So I did it. So their argument is we need to have stability. Society is built on stability and rule of law, and you can't be willy nilly changing it. Now, I understand that argument, but like I said, it's too hard to change the document. So something has to change as society changes. So that is where living constitutionalism, which is the opposite of originalism, that comes in and says, well, no, we have to change the interpretation as the times change. And both of them have their pros and cons, these approaches, because living constitutionalism, that's not perfect. You're giving so much power to the Supreme Court, which as we've seen, is not a great thing. So I am not fully on board with the idea. I think the Supreme Court is way too powerful. And the Founders would have been appalled at that. They did not see it coming. So it's a complicated issue is what I'm saying. But to me, the important part when interpreting the Constitution or when making any decision is to look at it through many lenses. So you look at it through the original meaning, that's a wonderful lens. But also look at it, how will it affect our descendants? How will it affect society now? How will it affect the reputation of the Supreme Court or the government as an institution? I'm sure you've heard of the fox and the hedgehog, where the fox sees the world through many lenses and the hedgehog sees the world through one lens. It's a fable from Greek times. I am a fox. I love seeing the world through many lenses, and I think that makes the world a better place. And that's why I am not an originalist.

In the spirit of helping me become more of a fox, can you just give me some examples where liberals have embraced originalism? Like, I know many examples of conservatives embracing originalism, but can you give us some of liberals embracing originalism? That just makes you smack your head.

That's a great question. I think one of the challenges of originalism is you've got Two challenges. You've got people trying to figure out what was in the minds of the founding generations. So there's a big debate over that. People are like, no, they said this, no, they said that. So that's one question. And then once you have the answer to that, the other question is, is this information what we should be using? So I'll give you what I think is a fascinating point, that these wonderful scholars at Stanford, Judd Campbell is one of them, and they went into the history of the First Amendment. Now I'm a journalist and a writer. I love the First Amendment, my favorite amendment. I love free speech, but I realized through research, I love 20th century free speech or 21st century. The free speech was expanded significantly in the last 50 years. This free speech at the Founding was very different. It was much more constricted. Some founders were more pro free speech than others, but none of them were as free speech as we are now. Back then it was considered constitutional to have state laws against blasphemy. I couldn't believe it, but there were state laws against blasphemy. In New York, if you set a curse or Blasphemed the Lord, 37.5 cent fine, which is about $20. Since I was living constitutionally, I tried to impose that on my house because I have sons who are teens. And I was like, this is great. I can get them to stop cursing 37 and a half cents every time they cursed. They were very lawyerly and said, I don't have a half cent, therefore I'm not paying anyway. It didn't always work. But then Connecticut had laws against jugglers and magicians and acrobats, and these were considered constitutional because back then you had your natural rights, but once you entered society, then your rights were balanced against the greater good. Your rights were mediated by the fact that there are others. So you can't just go around saying anything you want. It wasn't quite Stalinist Russia back in the 1790s, but it was nothing like what we have now. So no one should want to go back to the original First Amendment. The original First Amendment was very narrow and I wouldn't like it because every late night comedian would be in jail for sedition if this was the 1790s. But conservatives would not like it either because the argument that the First Amendment covers political donations from corporations would shock the founders. They would say what? They were very concerned about corruption in politics. So they would not believe that the First Amendment covers that. So that is an example of why I think it's Good to look at the history. It's fascinating, but we cannot rely on that alone.

So when push comes to shove and bottom line, what do you think is more surprising? How inadequate the Constitution is today or that it has worked as well as it works?

Oh, that's a great question. That is a great question. Can I answer both? I think that is the proper answer.

I believe in the First Amendment.

Thank you.

The new First Amendment.

That's right. What I love about the Constitution is that it does contain multitudes. And let me give you a quick little story that I have in the section on race and the Constitution in the book, and that is right before the Civil War, you had two great abolitionists. You had William Lloyd Garrison, a white man, and Frederick Douglass, a former enslaved man. William Lloyd Garrison, he said, the Constitution is a pact with the devil because it condoned slavery. He says it deserves to be burned. And he burned it. He literally burned it on stage in front of hundreds of people. He was like a showman. At first. Frederick Douglass agreed with him. But at some point in the 1850s, Frederick Douglass changed his mind, which, as you know, I love people who change their mind. And he said, I think it'd be more productive. Let's reframe the Constitution. It's not a pact with the devil. It is a promissory note. The Constitution promises liberty. It promises equality, and those are not happening in our country. We have enslaved people. We have racism, sexism. And he said, the idea is, let's make America live up to the promissory note. That is the Constitution. And that is such a powerful theme. Martin Luther King used that same language. That's a promissory note. Obama talked about how the problems within the Constitution are solved by the Constitution itself. The seeds of freedom are in there. We just have to make them grow, and we have to struggle to make it live up to its best ideals. So that is my answer. In some ways, it's a very troubling document, but in other ways, it's wonderful and amazing, and let's try to make it live up to those great parts.

And what if somebody wanted to pin you to the wall and say, yeah, but we the people really referred historically to we the white males.

Well, I think that that's hard to argue with. I think, yes, that was we the people back then meant we the white male people. That's who could vote. That's who they wrote it for. But what's wonderful is they use that phrase, we the people. They didn't say, we the white male people. They used the phrase we the people. And that has left open the door for Americans to struggle and expand the rights of marginalized people. And you can see that in the Constitution itself. In the amendments, you can see women got the vote with the 19th Amendment. Black people got the vote, the vote. Indigenous people got the vote. And we the people, we are very lucky to have that phrase because originally the original version of the Constitution said we the people of Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode island, etc. Etc. And if that had been the case, it would have been a different message. It would have been, this is all about the states. Governor Morris was one the of of the founders and he struck out the states and he said, no, it's we the people. And that has made a huge difference because then that has allowed us to expand the rights.

Up next on Remarkable People.

I've gotten liberals from the left who say thank you for showing me how crazy originalism is, but on the conservative side, I get lots. Thank you for showing that the founders did have virtues and this idea of self sacrifice and that we do need to get back to some of this. So, yeah, people are just very good at seeing what they want. And so I don't think it's a big con. I really don't.

Thank you to all our regular podcast listeners. It's our pleasure and honor to make the show for you. If you find our show valuable, please do us a favor and subscribe, rate and review it. Even better, forward it to a friend. A big mahalo to you for doing this. You're listening to Remarkable People with Guy Kawasaki. What do you think the impact would be of actually amending the Constitution the exact places as opposed to sticking everything as addendums that may have internal conflicts if you didn't actually amend the main part of the Constitution?

Right. I love that question because James Madison, the father of the Constitution, he's called, that's what he wanted. He wanted when the Constitution was amended. He's like, you got to rewrite the whole thing and put the new language in. More like a Google Doc where you rewrite it completely over or a Wikipedia page. But he was overruled. Some of the other founders said, no, we'll just stick it at the end. We'll put the amendments at the end. Like a psych P.S. oh, yeah, we forgot. You should have the right to free speech. And I think there are advantages to both. One of my advisors, because I talked to dozens of great constitutional scholars, one said that it's good to have this startlingly horrible language in the Constitution. About they don't use the words slavery. They use euphemisms like servitude. But it's good to have that to remind us we have made progress. Because you read the news today and it's 16 hours of negativity and it's very easy to think we've made zero progress and we're worse than ever. That is the way I feel sometimes at the end of a day. But that's wrong. We have made progress and we can continue to make progress.

Yeah, I think that nostalgia is vastly overrated. And when people say they want to go back to the 50s and the 60s because as families, we all ate around a common dinner table and then we talked amongst themselves, not looked at our phones. And then after we went and played board games like this great family. Like what family was that? I don't know any families like that. And I was alive in the 50s. So.

I love that you say that because that is one of the big themes of the books is some parts of the 1700s were wonderful. There were parts like we talked about the virtue, the writing with a quill pen. You don't have 16 hours of negative news. You have. Newspaper comes twice a week. So you're not depressed from the moment you wake up and turn on the Internet. On the other hand, like you said, the good old days were not good. They sucked. They were racist, sexist, smelly, cutting edge. Medicine was the tobacco smoke enema where they literally would blow smoke up your ass. They'd put a hose up your ass and blow smoke up it because it was considered good for your stomach. So we don't want that.

What?

Yeah, look it up. Tobacco smoke enema is very popular. Bloodletting is also more well known.

But you're making me pucker up.

I'm sorry. My point is to make you feel better, not to feel worse. You don't have to do the tomatoes. And let me give you two very small examples because I was trying to live it, so I never did blow smoke up my ass. But even just wearing the. Even wearing the.

Not even Mike Johnson has done that to you.

But it's funny, I quote him as saying we should go back to the 18th century.

Exactly.

Really? You want that, Mike? I'm not sure you do. But I would put on my clothes every morning and I put on my, my 18th century style socks, these big stockings, and they had no elastic, so they fall down to your ankles. So I had to put on these little sock belts every morning. Not even garters. Garters are Too sophisticated. Just little belts around the sock. And the amount of combined time I must have spent like six hours putting on sock belts. I'll never get that back. So I am so grateful for democracy, but I'm also grateful for elastic socks. So I agree with you. Nostalgia is as vastly overrated.

Oh, my God. So can we just talk about the Supreme Court for a moment here? Because the Supreme Court is just basically politically aligned. Why do we even have a Supreme Court at this point?

Point.

There's no checks and balances.

No. Do you think that's a blip or.

You think that's permanent?

Oh, God, I hope it's not permanent. I think it's. Both sides would benefit from term limits. 18 years May. I'm. I'd be happy with less. But I will tell you, from a founder's perspective, if they came back, they would be appalled by the Supreme Court right now because they would say, this was not meant to be so powerful. If you look at the Constitution, the first article is about Congress, and it is by far the longest. It is two and a half times the size of the President's section, which is Article 2, and then Article 3 is the Supreme Court very short. I wouldn't say it's an afterthought, but it is not the main event. Congress was first among equals back then because that's who was elected by the people. Supreme Court was there, and it was supposed to weigh in on constitutional issues, but it wasn't supposed to be the final say. Most founders wanted it to be a joint decision between the President, Congress and the Supreme Court on what is and is not constitutional. And you can look at Jonathan Gnappers from Stanford, who's done some amazing work on this. So they would look at the Supreme Court now and say, wait, these are nine unelected people and they are determining the fates of millions of Americans. This is not what we designed. This is insane. I am not a fan of the way the Supreme Court is structured now. I would be very happy if they had much less power. And likewise the President. The President has way too much power. The founders would be shocked by that. They wanted the President to have some power. But again, it was the Congress who was number one. And over the years, the President has gained crazy power. George Washington had eight executive orders in eight years. Obama and Trump both had over 200 executive orders. It is a vastly different system, which is why, because as you know my book, I was trying to express all of my rights. There's a right to petition in the First Amendment and so I decided to start a petition to try to limit the power of the president, both Democrat and Republican, I think need to be limited and give Congress back some power. And I went back to an idea by my favorite founder, Ben Franklin. Ben Franklin and others thought one president is a terrible idea. We just fought a war to get rid of a monarch. So several of the delegates wanted three presidents, three co presidents at the same time. Ben Franklin wanted, at one point, he proposed a council of 12 presidents. It's funny to think about Biden, Trump and RFK Jr. Like, sitting next to each other, like at a wework in the Oval Office. I'm not sure it's a great idea, honestly. But I do think that they were right to be worried about one person having that much power. So I was able to get hundreds of signatures with my quill pen and bring it to a sitting senator to talk about let's rein in the president so that we don't have another monarch like the founders were afraid of.

We may be about to find out about a monarchy. But anyway, you know, why do you say Supreme Court is powerful? I'm being a little bit of a devil's advocate. Because if the Supreme Court makes a ruling and people refuse to implement it, what are they going to do? They can't call up the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

That is actually what Alexander Hamilton said, is that they do not have the power of the sword. So they are the least threatening and dangerous branch. But if you believe in the rule of law, which I do, then when they do make a decision, then the President presumably, and Congress will enforce it. They don't have to, as you say. And Andrew Jackson did say that. He made that very point. I forget what the actual ruling was, but he said, I'm not going to enforce it and let them try to make me. But we want to have a country that is run by rule of law because I do believe that that's better than chaos and authoritarians and tyranny. So, yeah, I don't think Alito and Kagan are going to go out there with their arms and try to make the Congress follow it. But luckily Congress does follow their rulings, even though I disagree with many of their rulings.

Yeah. But I would make the case that in today's environment, if the Supreme Court were controlled by liberals and they made rulings that the Republican Congress didn't like, the Republican Congress would not listen to the Supreme Court.

That's interesting. That's hard to predict, but I will say that is how we got originalism in the first place is that in the 1960s, you had a very liberal Supreme Court, the Warren Court, and they made a lot of decisions such as desegregating schools, the rights of those who were arrested, like Miranda rights and bans on intermarriage, abortion, contraception, all of these things that conservatives thought this is too much. These unelected people have too much power. They started originalism with the idea of going back to the text and saying, let's make it very narrow so judges don't have all of this control over our lives. The instinct was good because even though I agree with the liberal Supreme Court's decisions, I don't think it should have come from the Supreme Court. I think it should have come from Congress. And now, because we have now a conservative Supreme Court, even though originalism was supposed to constrain judges, it's not at all. You look at decisions like Dobbs as having massive effects on millions of lives. Yeah. To me, one of the big solutions is make the Supreme Court less powerful for both liberals and conservatives.

Do you think that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, if she were alive and she could do it over again, do you think she would retire in time for a replacement to be confirmed?

That is such an interesting question. I don't know. I can't be in her mind. But I think that it's interesting because reading the history of Ruth Bader Ginsburg made me in awe of the. What she did and how brilliant she was using men's. Men's rights to advance women's rights. She was able to sue based on this discrimination against a man, and that opened the door to women's rights. But I do think she made a blunder in not retiring. But people are complicated. I'm not going to criticize her because she's much smarter than I will ever be. But I guess the bigger point is the same with the founders. The founders had some amazing qualities and they had some terrible qualities. So response would be to completely reject them and say we shouldn't listen to anything they say. But I think a more measured response is to say everyone is flawed. And in 200 years, I'm glad I won't be around for people to judge what I did. You went on a vacation to Portugal and took a flight, knowing that it would affect the environment and make the lives of your great, great grandchildren horrible. And I say, I know, but I love Portugal. People are complicated. And I think instead of glorifying people, let's maybe glorify ideas. So the ideas that some of their Best ideas of equality or entrepreneurship, all these things. Instead of saying these are perfect heroes, which nobody is, take me into the.

Mind of an originalist. Do you think that they truly do believe in the concept of originalism, or they just use it for justification of what they want to do?

That's a great question. My belief is that they truly believe it, just as I believe the left truly believes what they believe and that they're not using confirmation bias. To me, we are such good rationalizers. That is one of our greatest skills as human beings. We are just so good at seeing the world the way we want. And that is why I love Ben Franklin for being aware of his biases. Like he was like Daniel Kahneman 230 years ago. And I've seen this even in the reaction to my books. So I wrote a book about the Bible that we talked about. And my point was that there are good parts to religion and bad parts to religion. I don't think we should take the Bible literally, but the reactions were fascinating because it was confirmation bias to the nth degree. I would get hundreds of emails from secular people, atheists, thank you for showing how insane religion is. I would get hundreds, same number of emails from religious people. Thank you for reaffirming my faith and showing the good parts of religion. So there's a quote from a poet, I forget which one. Maybe it was Blake. We both read the Bible day and night. You read black and I read white. And I've seen this too, in the reaction to this book on the year of Living Constitutionally. I've gotten liberals from the left who say, thank you for showing me how crazy originalism is. But on the conservative side, I get lots. Thank you for showing that the founders did have virtues and this idea of self sacrifice and that we do need to get back to some of this. So, yeah, people are just very good at seeing what they want. And so I don't think it's a big con. I really don't. Do you? What's your opinion?

I gotta tell you, I scratch my head every day when I read what some of these Ivy League graduates are saying, that up is down and down is up and the world is flat and global climate change isn't happening.

Or it is.

And I just. As I've progressed with this podcast, we've had dozens and dozens of Ivy League graduates. And I gotta tell you that maybe it's self selection, but it's not the people I interviewed, but the investigation and discussion we've had about Ivy League graduates. I have A very low opinion of Ivy League graduate at this point in my life. I think you have to overcome your Ivy League education. And I cite as examples people like Ted Cruz. If he could overcome his Ivy League education, maybe he would see how wrong he is. But let's not. I don't want to go down into that cesspool here.

I think the big point is you can be incredibly smart, but still be incredibly wrong. And yet, for my Bible book, I talked to some creationists who believe the world is 5,000 years old. And I am an evolution believer, and I think the vast majority of evidence. But these people were not bumpkins, and some of them had PhDs. They were just really good at doing the mental gymnastics to convince themselves that reality conformed to their preconceived beliefs. And they would come up with the most brilliant ways to justify creationism. Like, they acknowledged that the universe was several billion light years big, so how could it be that it's only 5,000 years old? And they would show me these complicated mathematical equations that were way over my head to prove to me, yeah, it's still 5,000 years old, even though it's vastly this huge giant billions of light years long. So, yeah, people's intelligence, I don't think, is very highly correlated with how correct they are in terms of view of reality.

When the framers were defining something like cruel and unusual punishment, was it cruel and unusual punishment at the time they were living? And if something becomes redefined as cruel and unusual, then you should interpret the Constitution as, you cannot have cruel and unusual punishment at the time you are living, for example. So if you're an originalist, you say cruel and unusual punishment was flogging. But now that's off the table and times have changed, so flogging is not acceptable anymore.

That gets back to our first topic of the pillory, because the pillory at the time of the founding was fine. John Jay, one of the founders, he sentenced to someone into in the pillory and the pillory, by the way, it wasn't cute. It was horrible. People were in there and there was rocks being thrown out of mud, feces, dead animals. So it was not fun. And when I originally bought the pillory, by the way, I was like, maybe I could try it out on my kids if they are. I could.

I bet that went over big.

It did not go over. I eventually it's like, no, I can't even do it. I was going to give them the choice, like, no screens for a day or five minutes in the pillar, but the Only person I put in the pillory was myself. And it did not go well because my wife, as you can imagine, I was like, okay, I'm ready to get out. She's like, well, do you promise to fold your sweaters instead of just rolling them into a ball? So, yeah, I don't recommend it. But it's a great question and it's one that originalists have struggled with. Most originalists today would say that the concept of cruel and unusual punishment is allowed to evolve and they have complicated reasons why. But Antonin Scalia, who's one of the founders of originalism, gave a famous speech where he said, if you are a true originalist, not a faint hearted originalist, a true originalist, you have to accept that flogging, branding and the pillory are constitutional because they were constitutional at the time. They were not cruel or unusual. And he makes that point. More modern originalists say, no, he was wrong. But I think it's a very profound criticism of originalism and I think it proves that originalists, they do evolve the meaning. It's just they evolve it in some ways, but they are stingy in other ways. They don't evolve the meaning of equal protection to cover gay marriage, for instance. It's sort of a picking and choosing of what has evolved.

I wonder if Clarence Thomas lets the missus vote.

I mean, there you go. That was when I was living constitutionally back then and the legal system for women was called coverture. And it was sexist. It was basically women were treated like children and they didn't have right to vote or to sign contracts. Married women couldn't sign contracts. My wife owns a company, an event company, Watson Adventures, and she signs contracts every day. So I said, well, I am trying to do this project, so maybe I should be the one signing all your contracts for this year. And at first she's like, great, I hate signing contracts. The paperwork is boring. But I did such a terrible job. I messed up so badly she fired me after an hour. So I don't recommend coverture at all. But yeah, that is another problem. Thank God for the 19th amendment, all of the women and men who fought for it, but we do not want to go back.

And does she check with you about what kind of flags and how she can hang them outside your house?

The only flag I hung was a 13 starred flag. I don't think I will get in trouble with that. And I'm not going to throw her under the bus. I throw myself under the bus.

Oh my God. You have got to ask Her. If I can interview her, she will.

Say yes because she believes in free speech. She wants her voice heard.

So my absolute last question. Have you truly decided whether the sun was rising or falling on the chair?

Oh, I love that question.

Was it George Washington or Ben Franklin? Whose chair was it?

Yes, for the listeners who haven't read the section of the book. During the constitutional convention in 1787, George Washington sat at the front in a big wooden chair. And on that chair was a wood carving of the sun. But it was only half the sun. You could only see the top half. The bottom was cut off by the horizon. So you didn't know, is it rising sun or is it a setting sun? And Ben Franklin, at the end of the convention, when they had this constitution, against all odds, Ben Franklin said, I have now decided it is a rising sun. The sun is rising on America. The sun is rising on our republic, on our democracy. So one of the motivations for my book was, is the sun still rising on America? Because you read the newspaper and. Or the Internet, I guess, and it's just 16 hours of negative news. And so it made me think, maybe the sun is setting. This is it, this is the end. And I wanted to find some optimism. And I'll say two things. One, I did find optimism. And one of my favorite parts of the book was the election cake. Because in the 1780s, elections were seen as a festival, at least for the privileged ones who could vote. It was parades, music, and rum. Lot of rum and cakes. People would make election cakes. So I decided to revive that tradition. And I used Facebook, which I know is not very 18th century, but it is as one of the older platforms. So I thought, at least it's closer. And I got hundreds of people in all 50 states to bake election cakes last November and bring them to the polls to remind us that democracy, as flawed as it is right now, is, we are lucky to have it. Democracy is sweet. That was our catchphrase, and we've got to fight to keep it. So I loved that part, and I'm doing it again. If anyone wants to bake election cakes, it's just a joy. We share the pictures on Instagram.

Is it legal in Georgia?

That's a great question. I hope so. You cannot bring it too close to the polls. I had to be 50ft away, but I certainly hope so. So that gave me some hope. But I guess one of my points at the end, I had 10 takeaways. And one of the takeaways was that and the real sun rises and Falls according to gravity. That's natural laws. We don't have any control. This son of democracy is not like that. It's not a natural process. It's up to us. We were the ones who built it and it is fragile. So if we do want to keep it, we have to be the ones who make it rise or set. And so we have to go in there and fight. There are a lot of reforms we can make. Gerrymandering is just one. So let's go in there, let's have our cake, and let's fight for democracy and keep the sun rising on America.

And that is how we're going to end this podcast. That is a great last question. It was that or the smoke enema. One of those two ways to end it.

Both important. Both important.

Thank you so much for doing this.

Oh, my pleasure. Guy, you are an inspiration. I really believe that. I love your philosophy of life and your open mindedness and, and all of the points you make in here. I think we have very similar worldviews.

I. Well, I don't have a pillory under my bed, but yeah, other than that.

Yeah.

If you think this hasn't been funny enough, stay tuned because now here is my phone conversation with Julie Jacobs, his wife. And I have to say she may be as funny as he is, if not more. First of all, thank you very much for doing this.

Of course. My pleasure. I don't always get asked, so I feel honored.

Must be a slow day.

Exactly.

All right. Obviously we interviewed your darling husband. And I have to tell you, that was a very entertaining interview. My first question is, which way is it harder to live biblically or constitutionally?

Oh, definitely biblically. Maybe it's just the sheer amount of time. Things do get better as time goes by. The Constitution wasn't great to women, but nothing's like the Bible. We were barely anything. We were second class all the way. And when he picked up the Bible book, when he decided to do the Year of Living Biblically, thought that this was going to work great for me because I felt that I appreciated religion more than he did. He wasn't really understanding why traditions were important to me. But I didn't think about the fact that the rules of the Bible are just not so great for women, shall we say? So the Constitution book, I think I was also well prepared. Having done Living Biblically, I was ready to go. I. I knew going in that women didn't get the vote till the 20th century. So I knew that it was going to be a little bit easier.

I.

Bet you must be looking forward to America becoming more of a Christian nation and going back to traditional Christian values.

Yeah, really. And, you know, that's the thing about this book that was so fascinating was as he was writing it, I can't remember any book he's ever done like this, where every day I was reading something in the Times or.

Yeah.

On the Internet that was applicable to what he was working on. And something was changing. Mostly Supreme Court related. It was just fascinating. I'd be like, oh, my gosh, you have to work at it. And now you have to talk about that. You know, and it continues like, now the books come out and it's just. Gosh, it's just absolutely nuts.

So the Constitution clearly did not anticipate billionaires giving people rides on private jets. So that's going to need an amendment Sometime.

There was a few things that they just could not imagine. I actually was listening to your episode with Peter Sagal, who, I don't know if, you know, I grew up with, coincidentally, and he was talking about how, yeah, they just make assumptions that you were basically going to be a good person. Like that. That was just zoom.

Yeah.

That you would never do certain things. Which is fascinating that there are plenty of horrible people back then too, but they had such hope for humanity. I don't think they. They saw a lot of this coming.

Oh, being on. Wait, wait, don't tell me. Was one of the high points of my life. And then interviewing Peter Sagel was truly one of the high points.

I love that he's a funny guy.

He is a funny guy.

Smart, always has been.

It surely sounds like you're a good sport. How do you even deal with your. Your spouse coming home and says, ah, we're gonna live biblically. Ah, we're gonna leave constitutionally. Are you just that much of a good sport?

The thing I have learned about myself being married to AJ Is I am truly an optimist in that I think, oh, this project's gonna be so good for him, Us, our relationship, him getting to know something. And then now I'm at the point that I realize, okay, settle down, there's gonna be all sorts of wackiness. The drop dead healthy book, I think, was the best example of that because I really felt like he needed to get in better shape. And I thought, oh, this is so good. He's gonna understand why it's so important. But then he finds all these interesting, I would almost say cult like groups that do whatever it is that the subject's about and that One it was the people who basically follow the habits of cavemen and hunter and gatherers. And so he was crawling around Central park, the minimalist eaters who have a blueberry for dinner. So he always finds these people that I don't even know about. That sends him into a very extreme category that I never see coming. I've learned over 20 years that it's never going to be as rosy as I initially think it's going to be. And I have to prepare myself for that. But I have to say, maybe it is just me getting used to it, but this book, I felt like I saw coming, what was coming, and I really did enjoy it because I love the reenactments, I love history. Yeah, fascinating to get into the minds of the founding fathers. All of that I really dug. I was really into. And the other big thing that's happening as our years are going by is our kids are getting older and they're able to participate more. So it's not like when he did the Year of Living Biblically and I was pregnant and there was so much and we had a toddler at the time. It's much more enjoyable when you have more free time and your kids are able to participate.

Did he tell you that I suggested that his next book should be A Year of Living Magaly?

Oh, God, imagine. I don't think of that one I would enjoy. Okay, you don't think so?

I have one last question for you. Do your parents ever call up and say, oh, so what's our son in law doing now? And what do you say when you ask? Oh, yeah, we're living biblically, we're living constitutionally, we're living Magaly. What do you tell your parents?

So my father's passed away and he got a huge kick out of amj. My father was very quirky and loved all. He just. Yeah, he thought it was hilarious. He didn't have to live it, so what did he care? And my mother, she thinks our lives are very interesting and I think she really appreciates that. And because again, she doesn't have to live it, she's a side character. I think she enjoys that. It's my brothers who I think have had the hardest time because they think AJ writes me as a saint, that they're like, that's not my sister. What are you talking about? She's not always so patient or whatever. And they have provided a lot of interesting contrast to his experiments over the years.

Oh, my God.

A little like, what's he doing next? They get a kick out of it, but they're like, you know, how are we going to be involved? Kind of thing.

Julie, you are truly a great sport. And it sounds like your parents were great sports. Sports, too. You are a remarkable sport, Julie. What can I say?

It's only because I do get final say. So when there is a project that I'm like, that is just gonna do nothing for me, I either say, how do you do that for a week, a day, a month, let's not do a year of it. Or I try and divert him to another subject. So that is the secret to my success, is the final cut.

Okay, Julie, thank you so much for spending this time with me. Oh, my God, you guys just. You bring such a smile to my face. Thank you so much.

Thank you guys.

All I can say is, oh, my God. Omg. R O T F L O L what a funny couple. AJ Jacobs and Julie Jacobs. The Year of Living. Constitutionally, I would pay to read the Year of Living Magaly. I hope you enjoyed this episode. I hope you learned a few things about the Constitution and let us all work together to preserve democracy. My name is Guy Kawasaki. This is Remarkable People, and I'm backed up by a remarkable team. That is Jeff C. And Shannon Hernandez on sound design, Tessa Knysmer on research, Madison Knysmer, producer and co author with me of the book Think Remarkable. And then there's Louise Magana, Fallon Yates, and Alexis Nishimura. This is the Remarkable People team, and we are on a mission to make you remarkable and crack you up. Until next time, mahalo and aloha. This is remarkable people.