This summer, Constitution Daily will be holding a virtual town hall to debate 10 issues that could be proposed as The Next 10 Amendments. The discussion will begin in late May, just like the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and end on September 17, the anniversary of when the Constitution was signed.

Every seven to 10 days, we’ll present a constitutional issue, offering historical context and related primary documents to frame the discussion. The 10 issues were chosen based on a composite of multiple public polls.

For each issue, you can share your thoughts–and offer suggestions for a potential constitutional amendment about that issue.

Then, in early September, cast your vote in a referendum on potential amendments, gathered from participant comments.

Chris Phillips, research fellow of the Center for Programs in Contemporary Writing at the University of Pennsylvania and executive director of the nonprofit organization Democracy Café, will serve as “convention moderator” and lead discussions. Perspectives from other constitutional experts will also be featured.

Here are the constitutional issues up for deliberation, along with key tentative discussion dates:

Discussions

1. May 28: Right to bear arms
2. June 5: Balanced budget amendment
3. June 14: Equal rights for all
4. June 23: Term limits for Congress
5. July 3: Strict separation of church and state
6. July 12: Limits on campaign spending by candidates for federal office
7. July 22: Federal regulation of marriage
8. July 31: Ban on burning or desecrating the American flag
9. August 9: Direct election of the president and vice president
10. August 19: Right to privacy
11. August 30: Final debate over amendments

Voting

1. September 4: Voting begins
2. September 10: Voting ends
3. September 17: Results announced

The final results of The Next 10 Amendments will be announced at the National Constitution Center’s annual Constitution Day celebration on September 17, in conjunction with our national live chat with constitutional scholars and educators.

This summer, join the conversation—and see how “We the People” would amend our Constitution.

John Dickinson

In September 1774, when America’s First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia, there were no “united states,” just a collection of British colonies largely going their separate ways whose primary loyalty was to a distant British king. The brilliant, though occasionally cranky, Massachusetts delegate John Adams described the assembled delegates as a “gathering of strangers,” complaining that “the art of address of Ambassadors from a dozen belligerent Powers of Europe . . . would not exceed the Specimens We have seen here.”

Yet by July 4, 1776, the members of that congress, in spite of the significant differences in interests and ideology among them, were able to come together on that audacious decision to break all ties with Britain–a decision that makes congressional quarreling over debt ceilings, sequesters, or judicial appointments seem utterly trivial.

The critical question facing those 18th-century politicians was no different than those facing our politicians today–how to transcend their differences and find the path toward serving the common good. How was it that the founders were able to achieve that transcendence when our political leaders seem so hopelessly mired in partisan, and trivial, acrimony?

Some of the answers lie in the seriousness of the conflict with an imperial ruler. The First Continental Congress convened in order to fashion a united American response to Britain’s Coercive Acts, a series of parliamentary statutes aimed at punishing the colony of Massachusetts and, in particular, the “fanatics” of Boston who had dumped 92,000 pounds of tea in the town harbor. And, as the conflict with Britain escalated to life-and-death struggles on the battlefield, the stakes were raised, and congressional representatives from other parts of the country began to realize that a threat to one colony could soon be a threat to all.

But it was not only the increasingly dangerous external threat posed by the British army and navy that brought America’s congressional representatives together. For most of the 22 months between September 1774 and July 4, 1776, those “strangers” from across the more than 330,000 square miles of American territory lived together in cramped quarters in Philadelphia’s boardinghouses, and drank and dined together daily in the city’s taverns. Unlike their congressional counterparts today, who spend three or four days a week in Washington and then fly off to raise money for their next political campaign, the members of America’s revolutionary Congress worked and lived together. They acquired a level of familiarity and respect for one another that is altogether missing in politics today.

The months between January and early July of 1776 were particularly difficult for the 56 men living together in Philadelphia. They were months during which, as Adams’ older cousin Sam described them, “the child independence was struggling to be born.” When Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee finally introduced a resolution proposing independence on June 7, as many as five or six colonial delegations resisted the move.

On July 1, when the highly respected Philadelphia lawyer John Dickinson delivered a long and carefully prepared speech warning that a precipitous move for independence might result in burning towns, bloodshed, and ignominious defeat, there were many in the room who shared his fears, and many others who were still sitting on the fence. In a straw vote about 7 that evening, nine colonial delegations voted in favor of Lee’s resolution for independence. South Carolina and Pennsylvania opposed it, Delaware was divided, and New York abstained. The advocates of independence had obtained their majority. But they knew that even a two-thirds majority on a matter of such epochal importance would not be sufficient.

By the next morning, a divided American congress became a united one. Although New York’s delegates would have to wait until July 9 before getting their legislature’s official permission to support independence, the other three colonies that had withheld their backing on July 1 came around. The dynamic in each of those colonies differed, but it was the actions of the Pennsylvania delegates–representatives of the country’s most rapidly growing and economically powerful colony, whose support for independence was vital to its success–that provide us with the most instructive lesson in political leadership.

Dickinson still controlled the balance of power within his colony’s delegation. He remained committed to the position that he had taken the previous day, but in the decisive vote on July 2, he, along with his Pennsylvania colleague Robert Morris, withdrew “behind the bar”–the rail which to this day keeps visitors from walking into the space in which the delegates to the Congress were doing their business–thus enabling a bare majority of the Pennsylvania delegation to cast votes in favor of independence.

Dickinson’s decision to absent himself from the vote was every bit as much an expression of his love of country as was the passionate advocacy of independence by his frequent political adversary John Adams. A few days later, Dickinson would give yet another demonstration of his love of country by leading a battalion of Pennsylvania militiamen in battle against the British army in Elizabethtown, New Jersey.

The behavior of those members of Congress who reluctantly added their assent to independence on July 2, as well as that of men like Dickinson, who went “behind the bar,” provides us with an example of what may be the most striking difference between the politicians of 1776 and those who sit in Congress today. They understood that there were at least some occasions in which the attribute of humility–the ability to subordinate one’s personal opinions in the name of unity and consensus–was a vital ingredient in serving the public good. Don’t we wish that our elected officials today could carry out their business with at least some of that sense of humility?

Richard R. Beeman is the author of “Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor: The Forging of American Independence, 1774-1776,” the John Welsh Centennial Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania, and a trustee at the National Constitution Center. He will discuss his book on Monday at 6:30 p.m. at the Constitution Center. The program will be moderated by Jeffrey Rosen, the center’s new president and CEO. For reservations, call 215.409.6700, or visit constitutioncenter.org.

Recent Historical Stories
10 fascinating facts about President Harry S. Truman
10 fascinating facts about President Ulysses Grant
10 facts about Thomas Jefferson for his 270th birthday
10 interesting birthday facts about James Madison

It’s not news that The Daily Show is criticizing Fox News, but this week one segment took a distinctly constitutional turn.

In the segment, titled “Weak Constitution,” Stewart criticizes Fox News analysts for some of their reactions to the handling of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Many were upset about the idea of Tsarnaev being read his Miranda rights (a Fifth Amendment issue Constitution Daily explored here and here), and some, including Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, wanted him to be treated as an enemy combatant instead of in a civil court (which would concern the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to a fair, speedy trial). Fox contributors Eric Bolling and Brian Kilmeade also suggested wiretapping Muslim mosques.

Stewart poked fun at Fox News for “jettison[ing] constitutional amendments like Han Solo dumping his cargo at the first sign of an Imperial cruiser.” Except, of course, when it comes to the Second Amendment, of which Hannity said, “No ambiguity here.”

What do you think of Stewart’s criticism? Whatever your view, the segment offers an entertaining reflection on how we turn to the Constitution for answers to today’s toughest questions–but we often disagree on which side it supports.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Constitution Check: Can Congress override state and local gun control laws?

Common misunderstandings about Miranda warnings

10 surprising birthday facts about President Monroe

The Washington Redksins are an iconic brand in football and the most popular pro sports team in the D.C. metro area. The team formerly known as the Boston Redskins moved to Washington in 1937, and they’ve won five NFL titles since, including three Super Bowl wins.

Forbes magazine ranks the Washington franchise as the third-most-valuable team in the NFL, at $1.6 billion. The current owner, Daniel Snyder, bought the club for $700 million in 1999. The team could easily go up in value as it becomes a contender again, led by Robert Griffin III.

But that hasn’t stopped some long-term fans and local leaders from asking Snyder to drop the “Redskins” nickname, since they view it as offensive to Native Americans. Some Native American groups have made the same request.

The team has argued for decades the name originated in the 1930s as a tribute to the bravery of Native Americans and also as a tribute to a team coach from that time period.

In February 2013, team general manager Bruce Allen repeated the club’s stance. “There’s nothing that we feel is offensive,” Allen said. “And we’re proud of our history.”

Related Story on the FCC: Can Stephen Colbert discuss his sister’s election race on TV?

On Friday, former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt wrote in a Washington Post editorial that the time has come for Snyder to act in the best interest of the community.

Hundt said that he and “other former FCC officials and concerned parties [have] asked Snyder to change the name of our beloved football team—so that broadcasters no longer would have to describe it using a name they would never use in any other context.”

Hundt believes the FCC has the power to investigate if it can fine broadcasters who use the team’s name in public while describing a game, or in any context.

“As chairman of the FCC, I prosecuted a case against Howard Stern for violating indecency rules. Such cases have often led to subtle debates in appellate courts about the application of the First Amendment,” he argued.

In his letter to Snyder, Hundt uses the term “XXXSkins” to refer to the team.

Whether the current FCC could put financial pressure on Snyder is at best a theoretical question. If anything, the FCC could be relaxing its rules about indecency—when it does enforce them.

This week, the FCC asked for public comment on whether it should cut back on enforcement to focus on only the worst cases. But there would be some hope for nickname opponents, since the FCC wants feedback on focusing on “deliberate and repetitive use [of expletives] in a patently offensive manner.”

But the FCC also announced this week that it had eliminated 70 percent of pending indecency complaints filed since September 2012.

Last June, the Supreme Court confirmed the right of the FCC to fine over-the-air broadcasters if they aired profane words. It also said the FCC had to make its rules clearer to broadcasters.

One issue would be whether anyone can prove in court that the word’s use is obscene or profane.

In its official guidelines, the FCC states: “Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time.”

Its rules for profanity are different.

“The FCC has defined profanity as ‘including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.’ Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.,” the FCC policy reads.

It has been years since the FCC has issued a significant obscenity fine against a broadcast TV network.

Washington, D.C., mayor Vincent Gray also wants the name changed, and he has said that the team shouldn’t be allowed to move back to the city of Washington to play their games until it has a new name.

Currently, Snyder’s team plays in Maryland and has a lease on that stadium until 2026.

Other opponents are using a different tactic: attacking Snyder’s ability to trademark the team’s name. In 1999, the Trademark Board did rule in favor of taking the Redskins trademark away from the team, in a decision that was later reversed.

That battle took 17 years and ended on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, when the justices refused to hear an appeal.

On March 6, a group was in front of the Trademark Board pursuing the case again. It could take years to move forward. Their hope is to put enough financial pressure on Snyder to drop the name and replace it with something he can trademark and get paid for.

Washington Post columnist Sally Jenkins has also taken up the cause. (If her name sounds familiar, she was granted the last interview with the late Penn State football coach, Joe Paterno.)

“It would be nice if the NFL franchise in the nation’s capital were an example for all the land. But apparently Snyder takes his example from 10th graders,” said Jenkins in February, citing a campaign by the team that talked about 70 high schools that shared the same name with the NFL club.

Jenkins argued that most teens don’t understand why the name could be construed as an insult.

“Given that the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress found that only 12 percent of high school seniors were proficient in American history. And only 2 percent were able to identify the social problem addressed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education,” she said.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

The Constitution and graduation ceremonies in church

Stephen Colbert makes fun of Sanford in advance of election

10 famous quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The day that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. died

Dr. King was born in Atlanta on January 15, 1929, and died in Memphis on April 4, 1968. Dr. King’s legacy extends into today and he remains one of the most discussed leaders of our time.

Among that discussion are some interesting facts that lend some insight into the man.

Fact 1: Dr. King got a C in public speaking at seminary school. Dr. King’s father, a preacher in Atlanta, thought his son was the best speaker he’d ever seen, before he went away to seminary school. But in his first year of seminary school in Chester, Pennsylvania, one of Dr. King’s professors gave him a C in a public speaking course! In his third and final year, Dr. King was valedictorian with straight A’s.

Fact 2: While at Crozer Theological Seminary, Dr. King was introduced to the teachings and philosophies of Mohandas Gandhi. Dr. King entered Crozer in the fall of 1948, after Gandhi was assassinated in January 1948 in India. In an interview, Dr. King said he attended a lecture from the president of Howard University given in Philadelphia about Gandhi, and he immediately became “deeply influenced” by the philosophy of nonviolence.

Fact 3: Dr. King was virtually unknown when he was named as spokesman for the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955. He had recently arrived in Alabama, and the leaders of the boycott, which was sparked by Rosa Parks’ decision to keep her bus seat, wanted a newcomer to be the public voice of the movement. There were concerns that some rivalries within the movement could present problems, and Dr. King was picked as a bipartisan leader.

Fact 4.  Dr. King apparently improvised parts of the “I Have A Dream” speech in August 1963, including its title passage. Clarence B. Jones worked on the draft of the speech, which was being revised up to the time Dr. King took the podium. He says Dr. King’s remarks were up in the air about 12 hours before he spoke, and the “dream” reference wasn’t in the speech. Dr. King later added it live when singer Mahalia Jackson prompted him to speak about the “dream.” In June 1963, Dr. King had talked about his dream in a speech in Detroit.

Fact 5. When Dr. King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, at the time he was the youngest Peace Prize winner ever, at the age of 35. Currently, Tawakkol Karman of Yemen in the youngest winner on record; she was 32 when she won the prize in 2011. His acceptance speech in Norway included the famous statement, “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.”

Related Constitution Daily Stories

How Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday became a holiday
Constitution Hall Pass: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The day Rosa Parks made history by riding a bus

Sanford is favored to win a runoff race against former Charleston County Councilman Curtis Bostic on Tuesday night for the Republican nomination for a vacant South Carolina congressional seat.

Sanford would face Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a Clemson University administrator, in a May 7 election. The winner replaces Republican Tim Scott, who moved on to the U.S. senate to serve as a replacement for Senator Jim DeMint.

Colbert Busch has done well in polling so far in the heavily Republican district. A survey from Lake Research has her with a three-point lead over Sanford. But a Democrat hasn’t taken a House seat from that district in three decades.

Related Link: Can Colbert talk about Sanford on TV?

Sanford is a former two-term governor who left office after acknowledging an extramarital affair.

The race would have generated national attention with just the presence of Sanford alone, whose absence for six days in 2009 was first reported as an “Appalachian Trail hiking trip” by his office. Sanford later said he was in Argentina visiting his mistress.

Now, Sanford must complete a political comeback against the sister of one of the most widely known media figures in America, who also happens to be a political satirist.

Colbert rarely appears out of character in public, but he will host two big fundraisers in mid-April. Politico and CNN have obtained invitations to the events, in Washington and New York City. CNN says the New York invitation refers to Sanford as a “renowned hike-lover.”

Tickets to the events run from $500 to $10,000 (if you attend a private reception) and include co-hosts such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Al Franken, Kirsten Gillibrand, Joseph Kennedy, John Lewis, and Carolyn Maloney.

Video: Colbert campaigns for sister at bowling alley

In February 2013, Colbert went in and out of character at a fundraiser for his sister, who he calls Lulu, at a South Carolina bowling alley.

“How lucky would it be for South Carolina and the Low Country to have her, not just because she’s hard-working, and talented and intelligent and dedicated. But she’s sane,” Colbert said to a roaring audience in February.

“We’re a crazy state. I think we invented crazy. From [the] nullification act of the 1840s up to the fact that Lulu’s opponent will be the former governor of the Appalachian Trail, Mark Sanford. This is crazy stuff.”

In June 2009, Colbert joked about Sanford on his TV show, The Colbert Report.

“I have not slept in four days. I’ve been tossing and turning about my fellow South Carolinian, Governor Mark Sanford,” Colbert said, running clips of a January 2008 interview with Sanford and declaring Sanford as “boring.”

A day later, Colbert was “shocked” that Sanford had been engaged in an affair and repeated jokes about Sanford used the previous evening.

In March 2013, Colbert told CNN’s Jake Tapper he would make jokes about Sanford, and his own sister, if he thought they were appropriate.

“Mark Sanford is favored,” Colbert said about the GOP runoff election. “The former governor of the Appalachian Trail. … I will make jokes about it. I said, ‘Lulu, if you do something funny I will make jokes about you.’”

Last month, Constitution Daily looked at the Federal Communications Commission rules to see if Colbert faced any issues if he repeatedly spoke about the race on The Colbert Report.

Although it’s unlikely, Sanford could request equal time, with seven days’ notice, on The Colbert Report if his campaign believes FCC’s equal time rule is in effect. But that could place Sanford on the show as an interview subject, which may not hold much appeal for Sanford.

Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Background checks remain in gun control limbo

Can you identify the presidents on U.S. coins?

Constitution Check: Why would a terrorism suspect be given Miranda warnings?

The proposed constitutional amendment was never ratified by the states. It prohibited Congress from abolishing or interfering with state-allowed slavery. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln referenced the amendment’s specific establishment of slavery by stating, “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

In the 1860 campaign, Lincoln and the Republican platform supported slavery where it then existed, but they opposed the extension of slavery in the territories. For most Republicans, it was unfair for white laborers to compete for wages against unpaid slaves and for white businessmen to compete with slaveholder’s free labor.

During his first term, President Lincoln evolved from opposing freeing slaves to issuing an Emancipation Proclamation, and from supporting the constitutional establishment of slavery to supporting a 13th Amendment prohibiting slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation and his second inaugural address helped enshrine Lincoln as the Great Emancipator.

In the 1950s, 49 states criminalized same-sex intimacy. Pursuant to an executive order from President Eisenhower and up to 1975, the federal government would not employ gay or lesbian Americans.

During that era, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness. Gay men were treated for their alleged disorder with electric shock therapy, chemical castration, mental institutionalization, and lobotomies.

Ten years ago, the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas declared that it was unconstitutional to criminalize consenting-adult same-sex intimacy. Prior to the decision, police in nine states could obtain a search warrant enabling them to knock down doors and enter the privacy of a bedroom.

In 2008, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama supported civil unions, but he stated that marriage was between a man and a woman. During his first presidential term, he referenced that his views on same-sex marriage were “evolving.”

In February 2011, the Obama administration decided not to defend in federal court the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

DOMA prohibited legally married same-sex couples from receiving federal marital rights and benefits. Pursuant to that evolution, the U.S. Department of Justice took the position that legally married same-sex couples were constitutionally entitled to equal federal marital protections and benefits.

In September 2011, the president signed the law repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” enabling gay and lesbian Americans to openly serve in the military. The repeal removed the last vestige of the Eisenhower-era prohibition of federal employment by non-closeted gays and lesbians.

On May 9, 2012, President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage. While he opined that it was a decision for states to make, he lent his stature to state same-sex marriage initiatives.

In his second inaugural address on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, President Obama further evolved.

“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths–that all of us are created equal–is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forbears through Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall…Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law–for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”  It was the first time that an inaugural address referenced gay Americans.

From its mountaintop, the Obama second inaugural address was healing, magisterial, and epochal. It was declarative that the birthright of all citizens is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Like Lincoln, Obama evolved. Both presidents reminded us in their evolved second inaugural address of the nation’s quintessential promise–equality. For LGBT Americans and those who share that dream, President Obama is and will be remembered as the Great Liberator.

Malcolm Lazin is the founder and executive director of the Equality Forum.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Presidents Day isn’t a national holiday (but is a boon to car sales)

How Abraham Lincoln lost his birthday holiday

Can you pass a basic 10-question quiz on the presidents?

Does a Constitution-free zone really exist in America?

Obama and Boehner at inauguration

Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution.  We affirm the promise of our democracy.  We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names.  What makes us exceptional – what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time.  For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth.  The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob.  They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

For more than two hundred years, we have.

Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free.  We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.

Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.

Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.  Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.  For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.  No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores.  Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience.  A decade of war is now ending.  An economic recovery has begun.  America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands:  youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention.   My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it – so long as we seize it together.

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.  We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class.  We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship.  We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.

We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time.  We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher.  But while the means will change, our purpose endures:  a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American.  That is what this moment requires.  That is what will give real meaning to our creed.

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity.  We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit.  But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.  For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.  We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.  We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us.  They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity.  We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.  Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.  The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult.  But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it.  We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise.  That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure – our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks.  That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God.  That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.  Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage.  Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty.  The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm.  But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.

We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law.  We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully – not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.  America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation.  We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom.  And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice – not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes:  tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began.  For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.  Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.  Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.  Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.  Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.

That is our generation’s task – to make these words, these rights, these values – of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – real for every American.  Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way, or follow the same precise path to happiness.  Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time – but it does require us to act in our time.

For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay.  We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.  We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect.  We must act, knowing that today’s victories will be only partial, and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years, and forty years, and four hundred years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.

My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction – and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service.  But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty, or an immigrant realizes her dream.  My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.

They are the words of citizens, and they represent our greatest hope.

You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course.

You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time – not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals.

Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright.  With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

Thank you, God Bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America.

Related Inauguration Stories

Inauguration speech talks about civic engagement, Founding Fathers
Great inaugural addresses: John F. Kennedy
Great inaugural addresses: Franklin Roosevelt
Great inaugural speeches: Abraham Lincoln
When presidential inaugurations go very, very wrong

Presidential advisers had said before the speech that President Obama would address specific policy issues in his State of the Union address, which is scheduled for February 12.

However, the president indirectly mentioned several hot-button issues, including the budget battle in Washington and the debate over taxes.

The president’s address referenced passages from the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Gettysburg Address.

“Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy,” the president said at the start of his speech.

“Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed. For more than 200 years, we have,” President Obama said.

The president also referenced Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his speech.

“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths–that all of us are created equal–is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth,” he said.

Link: Full text of Obama’s second inaugural address

The speech concluded with a call to action for civic engagement.

“You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course,” he said. “You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time–not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals,” he said.

A crowd in excess of 500,000 was expected in Washington for the public inauguration ceremony. On Sunday, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden took their oaths privately to meet the requirement in the 20th Amendment of the Constitution that they be sworn into office on January 20.

Before President Obama spoke, several dignitaries spoke about the traditions related to the inauguration and the importance of the Dr. King holiday.

Senator Charles Schumer said, “This democracy of ours was forged by intellect and argument, by activism and blood, and above all, from John Adams to Elizabeth Cady Stanton to Martin Luther King, by a stubborn adherence to the notion that we are all created equal, and that we deserve nothing less than a great republic worthy of our consent.”

“Let us act on the idea that everyone is included,” said Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of civil rights activist Medgar Evers, in her remarks.

While nonpartisanship was a theme in the president’s address, it is currently in short supply in Washington. Democrats and Republicans are locked in a bitter, historic battle over the budget and debt ceiling, with several more “fiscal cliffs” on the horizon.

And the issue of gun control, which the president has made a top priority, looms over the political landscape.

Related Inauguration Stories

Full transcript: President Barack Obama’s inaugural address
Great inaugural addresses: John F. Kennedy
Great inaugural addresses: Franklin Roosevelt
Great inaugural speeches: Abraham Lincoln
When presidential inaugurations go very, very wrong

President Reagan signs King holiday bill in 1983.

Officially, Dr. King’s birthday was approved as a federal holiday in 1983. By 2000, all 50 states recognized the King birthday as a government holiday.

The King Center in Atlanta has a detailed chronology of how the efforts, starting shortly after Dr. King’s death in 1968, paid off in the long run. It wasn’t an easy task for holiday supporters, who had to push hard in Congress to get the federal holiday created.

A second battle took place to get individual states to also recognize the holiday, with often emotional disagreements in two states.

Today, the King holiday serves multiple purposes: It honors the total legacy of Dr. King; focuses on the issue of civil rights; highlights the use of nonviolence to promote change; and calls people into public service.

The struggle to get the holiday recognized reflects all these topics, along with some interesting twists and turns along the way.

Representative John Conyers introduced the first motion to make Dr. King’s birthday a federal holiday in 1968, just four days after Dr. King’s assassination in Memphis. It took another 11 years to the federal holiday to come up for a vote on the House of Representative’s floor in 1979.

Link: Five interesting facts about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The bill needed a two-thirds majority to pass, but it fell five votes short with a 252-133 count, despite a strong organizational effort from the King Center, and support from Congress members and President Jimmy Carter.

The holiday’s supporters regrouped and intensified their efforts. Musician Stevie Wonder helped in 1981 by releasing the song “Happy Birthday” to promote the holiday. (He would later sing it at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial dedication in 2011).)

The King Center kept up its efforts. It organized a march on Washington that included an estimated 500,000 people. Coretta Scott King, along with Wonder, presented a petition signed by 6 million people to House leader Tip O’Neill.

The House took up the bill in 1983 and it passed by 53 votes. Democrats O’Neill and Jim Wright, along with Republicans Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich, gave speeches supporting the King holiday.

But getting the bill passed in the Senate would be contentious. Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina openly opposed it. At first, Helms introduced a filibuster, and then he presented a 400-page file that accused Dr. King of being a communist.

Senator Ted Kennedy criticized Helms and Senator Daniel Moynihan called the document “filth” and threw it on the Senate floor.

Despite Helms, the bill passed the Senate by 12 votes–even South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond voted in favor of the King holiday.

President Ronald Reagan signed the bill in November 1983. The first federal King holiday was celebrated in 1986.

It took longer for the 50 states to adopt the holiday. By 1986, 17 states had already adopted it. But there was strong resistance in Arizona to passing a state holiday.

The fight between state legislators came to a head when the King holiday was put up for an Arizona voter referendum in November 1990.

At that point, entertainers had started boycotting the state in protest, and the National Football League threatened to move the 1993 Super Bowl from Tempe if the holiday was defeated at the polls.

The King holiday lost in a two-part voter referendum and the NFL made good on its threat, taking the Super Bowl to Southern California and costing the state an estimated $500 million in revenue.

Arizona voters approved the King holiday two years later.

There was also a fight in South Carolina over the holiday. It was one of the last states to approve a paid King holiday for state employees in 2000.

The state’s governor had tried to link the holiday to a commitment to allow the state house to fly the Confederate battle flag. Instead, he signed a bill that approved the King holiday along with a Confederate Memorial Day celebrated in May.

More Resources on Dr. King
Constitution Hall Pass: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The day Rosa Parks made history by riding a bus
“I have a dream” memorial becomes a reality