No one is debating the idea of having a national day of remembrance to honor those who’ve fallen serving their country.

But to many people, Memorial Day is the symbol of summer’s start, or a chance to get a good bargain on a car. What’s lost is its original meaning to many people.

The proponents of the day’s original meaning point to the fact it should always be on May 30, no matter the day of the week, as a way for more people to recall why people made the ultimate sacrifice for their nation.

The Uniform Holidays Bill of 1968 moved the holiday to the last Monday in May. Originally, Veterans Day also was in the list of government holidays slated to always be on a Monday, but it was moved back to its original day of November 11 in 1978.

For Memorial Day, efforts to do so by the VFW, the American Legion and Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii haven’t succeeded so far.

Inouye, now 87, isn’t just a senior member of Congress. He was at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 as a medical volunteer. He later enlisted in the Army and lost an arm serving his country while in Italy.

You can read his incredible story below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Inouye

Inouye has often introduced bills to make Memorial Day a permanent holiday on May 30^th, most recently in January 2012.

The Senate Judiciary committee usually tables the bill so it can’t reach a full debate in the Senate.

We did check the biographies of the 18 Judiciary Committee members on the web site Roll Call. Only four of the 18 committee members served in the military: Lindsey Graham, Herb Kohl, Jeff Sessions and Richard Blumenthal.

Graham was an active-duty Air Force lawyer and he is still a Reserve member. The other three senators served in the reserves.

There’s always a chance that the Senate could debate the bill in the future.

Sen. Inouye doesn’t show any signs of giving up and he’s said he’ll run for re-election again.

It would be a fitting tribute to Inouye and all the veterans who didn’t come back to at least spend a few minutes in public discussion about the subject of the traditional Memorial Day holiday.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of Constitution Daily.

Young Rainer and Atticus Muuss were on “The Ellen Show” this week showing off their knowledge of presidential trivia.

Ellen DeGeneres  asked three-year-old Atticus who his favorite president was,  and he responded: “Martin Van Buren.”

The reason: Van Buren’s sideburns.

Soon, the social media outlets lit up as people searched for information on the eight president. Some people were concerned they didn’t know Van Buren was a president, while others wanted information about those sideburns (or mutton-chop whiskers).

By Friday afternoon, Van Buren was in the top 20 list for Google trends, ranking alongside “American Idol” winner Phillip Phillips and Chernobyl.

The video (seen below) is extremely cute and may even result in some good PR for Van Buren, who served four years as president after succeeding Andrew Jackson.

Van Buren oversaw a nation that sank into a five-year financial depression (not a recession) after he took office, which included the Panic of 1837.

The new president was blamed for the economic disaster and his Whig opponents called him “Martin Van Ruin.”

Van Buren also said, in some many words, he couldn’t wait to leave the White House.

On the upside, historians haven’t consistently ranked him as one of the worst presidents in U.S.  history. In recent polls, Van Buren is in the middle of the rankings, along with George H.W. Bush and William McKinley.

Van Buren blocked efforts to add Texas as a slave state and inherited many of his economic problems from Jackson.

But today, he’s most remembered for a picture taken right before his death in 1862, showing those gigantic sideburns.

Earlier daguerreotypes taken by Mathew Brady showed Van Buren with large, but not gigantic sideburns.

The event called for a brief five-minute walk over to the Pennsylvania State House, aka Independence Hall, from our offices at the National Constitution Center.

The official tour of the Hall requires tickets, which you can pick up for free at the Independence Visitors Center or get online or online for a nominal fee.

For more information on the Hall, go to: http://www.nps.gov/inde/independence-hall-1.htm

While you are waiting for your tour group, there are other historic landmarks nearby and a ton of information about them , as well as knowledgeable Park Service folks.

Our interest on this day was going to the Pennsylvania Assembly Room, where the delegates met for much of the summer of 1787.

George Washington Sunrise chair in Independence Hall

The original Rising Sun Chair used by George Washington sits in the restored meeting room, as well as other artifacts.

It was Ben Franklin who named the chair as the Constitution was signed, saying it was a symbol of better days to come for the young country.

On this day 225 years ago, the delegates who met in the same room didn’t include Franklin (who was ill) but did include enough official delegates to officially start the convention.

In 2012, the same room was filled with a very knowledgeable tour guide, inquisitive tourists (who turned off their cellphones) and two NCC staff members gazing at the Rising Sun Chair.

The room where Constitution was debated

About 40 chairs sit in the room, in addition to the Rising Sun Chair, along with period-piece tables and other artifacts that all are positioned behind a wooden railing.

The other room on the tour is the former state Supreme courtroom, where a mob invaded the room in 1776, tour down the British colonial standard and burned it.

It also includes a cast-iron Prisoner’s Dock, with railings and a barred lock.

Back in the Assembly Room, another noticeable feature is the heavy green drapes that hang inside the windows.

During the convention, drapes covered all the windows in rooms where the delegates met, to keep the sessions secret and block out nosy reporters.

Today, we saw ducts in the flooring in the Assembly Room for a modern climate-control system, something that the Framers would have welcomed with open arms.

In 1787, it was a very hot summer, and the combination of the closed, draped windows and the woolen clothes of the period made most of the Framers hot under the collar – literally.

Related Stories

The Constitution’s 225th Anniversary is a call to action

If Facebook hosted a constitutional convention

How things have changed since 1787

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of Constitution Daily.

The delegates who gathered in Philadelphia knew they were there for an important reason – the system of federal and state government under the Articles of Confederation didn’t work.

It was a financial disaster and barred the United States of America from having a global presence as a nation or trade partner.

But it’s doubtful  the most farsighted of delegates, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, could have predicted how long the Constitution would last and how far-reaching it would become as a global blueprint for government.

The first day began when a quorum of seven state delegations was reached. (The original start date for the convention was May 14, but travel and other problems delayed the convention’s start.)

There were actually delegates from nine states in the room, but Massachusetts and Georgia only had one delegate a piece, and couldn’t form official delegations.

In addition to establishing a quorum, three other measures were taken.

First, George Washington was picked to preside over the convention.

Then, William Jackson defeated William Temple Franklin, the grandson of Ben Franklin, in the first contested vote of the convention, to be named as its secretary. (Ben Franklin was ill and not at the session on May 25th.)

And finally, a three-man group was picked to draw up the rules for the convention: Charles Pinckney, Alexander Hamilton and George Wythe.

Hamilton and Pinckney were key players for the duration of the convention, while Wythe left the convention early and didn’t have a role in the debate.

According to James Madison’s notes, among the other delegates in the room were James Wilson, Rufus King, Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris, George Read, George Mason and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.

Ironically, the day was also a Friday.

The debate over the rules would start on May 28th, and it was the first day that Ben Franklin arrived at the convention.

Related Stories

The Constitution’s 225th Anniversary is a call to action

If Facebook hosted a constitutional convention

How things have changed since 1787

On May 25, 1787, delegates officially convened in Philadelphia, to revise the Articles of Confederation, but not before booking their own living arrangements.

Source: USHistory.org

Although Philadelphia was the nation’s largest city, lodging was at a premium. In fact, Philadelphia was hosting a gathering of Presbyterian ministers from around the country the same time the Federal Convention (as it was called) was taking place.

The Society of Cincinnati, an organization of Continental Army officers, was also in Philadelphia at the time and needed lodging. The founding fathers could probably sympathize with people trying to book decent hotel accommodations for summer trips.

One of the most famous boarding houses was run by Mrs. Mary House. Known for its high-quality accommodations, the house was located on the southwest corner of Fifth and Market streets in 1787.

Mrs. House hosted a number of delegates to the convention including James Madison of Virginia, who was one of the first to arrive.

George Read and John Dickinson shared a room due to room availability being at a premium. Edmund Randolph from Virginia made a vacation out of it by bringing his wife to stay with him.

George Washington, also of Virginia, elected to stay at the house, but later moved to Robert Morris’s mansion a few doors down.

The boardinghouse was even used to hammer out parts of the Virginia Plan. One guest delegate described the house as “very crowded, and the room I am presently in [is] so small as not to admit of a second bed.”

Other delegates found solid living accommodations, too. New York delegate Alexander Hamilton and Massachusetts representative Elbridge Gerry stayed at Miss Daley’s boardinghouse, on the north side of Market Street between Third and Fourth. William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut and Rufus King of Massachusetts stayed at City Tavern.

Like present-day hotels, boardinghouses provided their guests with delectable foods to eat. The delegates, according to historian Richard Beeman, ate breakfast around 9 a.m., consisting of coffee, green tea, a small beer, bread and butter, and some salted fish and cheese.

The delegates ate dinner around 3:30 p.m. and some boardinghouses, including Mrs. House’s, served dinner on the premises. Delegates often went out to dine and carouse at local taverns in town.

If there was one thing boardinghouses could not provide it was relief from the blistering hot Philadelphia climate in the summer of 1787.

The delegates met in the State House with the doors closed and clad in heavy jackets, some of which were made of wool. Without air conditioning, it is doubtful that the boardinghouses were much cooler.

Benjamin Brown is a student of history and American studies at Lafayette College and web manager of the school newspaper. He is also in the Public Programs department of the National Constitution Center.

At least Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, wasn’t wearing a Boston Celtics jersey during his appearance in West Philadelphia, a section of the city that is beset with economic and education problems.

But given his welcome from local Democratic leaders, it wouldn’t have mattered.

Romney had heavy security and the block surrounding a charter school where he spoke was cut off from the public.

Kenny Gamble, the famous music producer who is associated with the charter school, told Romney that despite his record for improving education in Massachusetts, Romney had a lot to learn in Philadelphia.

“Governor, you’ve got to go back and remember how the whole concept of education has failed. You go back a few years, even in Boston, when they were trying to integrate schools and they had young black children going to white neighborhoods and they were throwing eggs at the little black children, spitting on them, calling them all kinds of names, Gamble said.

Outside, prominent local Democrats Michael Nutter, the city’s mayor, and Seth Williams, its district attorney, chided Romney in front of protesters in a heavily Democratic city battling with a GOP-controlled state legislature.

“I don’t know that a one-day experience in the heart of West Philadelphia is enough to get you ready to run the United States of America,” Nutter said.

Inside the school, Romney debated the merits of class size with some of the educators invited to a  private meeting.

The event was unusual in that Romney chose to appear in an area where he’s expected to get few votes this fall.

He also spoke with students inside the school and took part in some classroom activities.

After the event,  the AP reported that Gamble was asked if he thought Romney understood the black community.

“I don’t know yet,” Gamble replied.

A Washington Post reporter says a potential Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage as a fundamental right could help nullify rulings in more than 30 states. Lyle Denniston explains the issue isn’t as simple as it seems.

The statement at issue:

“President Obama opposed Proposition 8. But if the Supreme Court accepts the [Proposition 8] case, it could ask the administration for its view on whether marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be withheld from gay couples. Such a finding could sweep away state decisions on same-sex marriage, as well as the bans in 30 state constitutions.”

– Sandhya Somashekhar, Washington Post reporter, in a story published May 24: “On same-sex marriage, many think Obama may shift again.”

We checked the Constitution, and…

Same-sex marriage could become a constitutional right, but it does not have to become a “fundamental right” in the sense that the Post’s reporter uses the phrase, and the Proposition 8 case from California is not – at this stage – about a fundamental right. That case is on its way to the Supreme Court, but as a significantly narrower test case.

Proposition 8 is the 2008 voter-approved amendment to California’s constitution that took away gay marriage after the state Supreme Court had established such a right under the state constitution. After that, two same-sex couples filed a federal court test case, and one of the aims of that case was to gain a broad right to marry under the federal Constitution. They got such a ruling in the summer of 2010 from a federal District Court judge, but not from the next-level court, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

As the Proposition 8 case moves closer to the Supreme Court, in an inevitable appeal, it is now focused on the idea that, once a state grants an equal right to marry, it cannot take it away only from gay couples, especially when it does so as an act of discrimination against them. No other state has done that, so the Proposition 8 case is now a California-only case. That is how it emerged in the Ninth Circuit Court decided, basing the finding of discrimination on a far narrower ground than a “fundamental right.”

For a federal court to declare that a claimed constitutional right is ”fundamental,” it must find that such a right has deep roots in American culture, and a government (state or federal) has to have very strong reasons to take away such a right. If a right gains that status, it would, indeed, sweep all across the Nation, nullifying every contrary law or court case.

But the test poses a high hurdle for anyone seeking to establish a new right, and it seems quite unlikely that a conservative-dominated Supreme Court would go that far in the context of same-sex marriage.

But the Court ruled in a 1996 Colorado case (Romer v. Evans) that a state cannot deny legal equality on the basis of sexual orientation, when it does so out of hostility to gays and lesbians. That ruling struck down a state constitutional amendment, using a very easy-to-meet constitutional standard.

The Ninth Circuit, in striking down Proposition 8 in February, was based largely on the Romer v. Evans precedent. The Circuit Court refused to answer a more basic question of whether gays have a constitutional right to marry, saying that it needed to go only so far as to say that a state may not constitutionally impose a marriage ban “that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class.” It was the withdrawal of a right that counted the most.

If, as seems likely, that is the posture in which the Proposition 8 case reaches the Supreme Court, it would not involve any question of a “fundamental right” and thus the Court would not be likely to seek the views of the Obama Administration on that specific issue.

The administration has not embraced the idea that gay marriage should be a fundamental right. It has said that discrimination against gays who want to marry should not be upheld in court unless it can meet a fairly stiff constitutional test (what lawyers call “heightened scrutiny”), and the administration on that basis alone is challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act that limits married couples’ federal benefits to opposite-sex couples.

When one or more of the current DOMA challenge cases go to the Court, those, too, might not involve the broader question of whether gay marriage should be treated as a fundamental right. It thus is quite premature to imply that the Supreme Court’s first encounter with gay marriage will be on the issue of whether such marriages are to be elevated to that very special constitutional status.

Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center’s Adviser on Constitutional Literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 54 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearinghouse of information about the Supreme Court’s work.

Independence Hall still stands, a few blocks south of the National Constitution Center, with much of the building restored to show its condition in the late 18th century.

Ben Franklin’s house, which also stood a few blocks from the hall, is long gone. The original City Tavern is also gone in Philadelphia, but a replica stands in its place, open for business since 1976.

Back in 1787, the delegates who started the convention on May 25th were locked in a building for most of the summer, without the modern comfort of air conditioning.

The press was barred from covering the event , even though there were 10 newspapers in Philadelphia at the time.

The population of the United States of America was about 3.9 million, according to the 1790 Census. About 700,000 people were being held as slaves. And outside of the census were at least 150,000 Native Americans.

Among that population, only a small number of people were eligible to vote, about 6 percent. Most states restricted voting to white adult men of property.

Today, registered U.S residents who are 18 years of age or older can vote. In 2008, more than 132 million people voted in the general election.

The young nation’s capital was in New York City, compared with Washington, D.C. today.

The biggest city in the U.S. in 1787 was Philadelphia, soon to be surpassed by New York. The City of Brotherly Love had about 40,000 residents in its vicinity.

Today, New York City has more than 8 million residents.

At the convention of 1787, 12 of the 13 states in the union were represented during the summer. Since 1959, the U.S. has had 50 states.

Back in the post-Colonial day, the average life expectancy was around 34 ½ years of age, compared with 78 years of age in 2011. (There are differing life expectancy estimates for people who were slaves in that era.)

But in some ways, things weren’t that different.

The average height of a male in 1787 was 5 feet 8 inches, compared with 5 feet 9 ½ inches today.

And among the general male populace, excluding those held in slavery, daily meat consumption averaged 8 ounces per day, about one ounce more than today.

However, there was a big difference in the amount of alcohol consumed in 1787.

Drinking everything from beer to cider to whiskey to rum to wine was part of everyday life for men, women and children. A good number of people drank at three meals a day (if they had three meals) and at social gathering spots.

There aren’t exact numbers for how much the average person drank in 1787, but it’s widely assumed to be a far greater amount than today.

Some historians argue that the imbibing needs to be put in context. During the era, people did more physical labor and worked in more extreme conditions, which led to more calories being burned off quickly.

One fact is known for sure: the constitutional framers ran up an epic bar tab at Philadelphia’s City Tavern in September 1787.

In a dinner to honor George Washington, the 55 delegates pounded down “54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of claret, 22 bottles of porter, beer, hard cider and 7 bowls of spiked punch” according to a record of the event.

Here is a link to the bar tab:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/citytavern.html

The delegates weren’t alone, as 16 musicians hired to entertain the delegates drank almost the same amount.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of Constitution Daily.

______________________________________________________________

Upcoming Event

On June 6, Jack Balkin of Yale and Randy Barnett of Georgetown will be live at the National Constitution Center to explore the commerce clause and the upcoming Supreme Court decision on health care. Click here for event details. Moderator: John Hockenberry.

If you read Stohr’s brief history of the clause and its key role in the health-care decision, it’s obvious that the Supreme Court decision is about a lot more than health care: It’s about how much power Congress can use in regulating national economic matters.

Link: Full Article From Bloomberg/Newsweek

The court’s interpretation of the clause next month will center on the ability of Congress to tell consumers to buy a product (if you side with states who reject the health care act) or the need for Congress to regulate a big portion of the national economy (the pro-health care act camp).

The irony is that this Friday marks the 225^th anniversary of the opening of the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia.

Back then, the delegates didn’t widely discuss the Commerce Clause because it was a fundamental reason why the group met at the State House in Philadelphia.

The post-Colonial economy was in shambles because of the inability of the central government to regulate the trade between states and other matters related to interstate commerce.

——————————————————————————————————————————
Upcoming Event
On June 6, Jack Balkin of Yale and Randy Barnett of Georgetown will be live at the National Constitution Center to explore the commerce clause and the upcoming Supreme Court decision on health care. Click here for event details. Moderator: John Hockenberry.

Gallup has released new survey numbers on how voters link economic issues to candidates – and how voters rank the same issues to party affiliation.

Voters who see themselves as independents say the cost of health care is their biggest economic election issue. Democrats also believe it is health-care costs, while Republicans think it is the growing public debt and deficit.

Among all voters polled, President Obama is seen as stronger than Mitt Romney on “having a handle” on health-care costs.

Last week, data from the 2012 Milliman Medical Index showed that for the first time, the average annual health-care costs, for an insured family of four, exceeded $20,000 per year. (That figure includes costs of payments from family members and employers.)

The cost for an insured family of four has jumped 24 percent in the past four years.

On average, that same family is shelling out $8,584 a year in paycheck deductions, co-payments and out-of-pocket costs.

So the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) up for Supreme Court review resonates with potential voters who may see it as a way to cut health-care costs  – or get more affordable insurance. Or as a sure-fire way to grow the deficit.

One likely scenario is for the Supreme Court to strike down the provision that forces taxpayers to buy health insurance, leaving in place measures that guarantee people can buy insurance despite having pre-existing medical conditions.

As the Supreme Court’s decision is debated during the election process,  the reaction among independents could be the key.

Independent voters make up about 23 percent of the electorate, according to a Pew Research study, more than enough to a big impact on a tight election.

If President Obama gets high marks from independents for trying to get them health coverage, it could add to his image as the candidate who understands health care.

But a CNN poll in March found that independents were split 50-50 on the Obama health-care plan.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of Constitution Daily.

Upcoming Event
On June 6, Jack Balkin of Yale and Randy Barnett of Georgetown will be live at the National Constitution Center to explore the commerce clause and the upcoming Supreme Court decision on health care. Click here for event details. Moderator: John Hockenberry.