TURNING TO OUR NEXT STORY, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT REVERTING BACK TO A LIFESTYLE OF THE LATE 18th CENTURY?

WELL, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT OUR NEXT GUEST, A.J.

JACOBS DID, AS HE DOCUMENTS IN HIS NEW BOOK THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY.

ONE MAN'S HUMBLE QUEST TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION'S ORIGINAL MEETING.

HE JOINS US TO DISCUSS WHAT HE LEARNED FROM HIS EXPERIENCE.

>> A.J.

JACOBS, THANKS FOR JOINING US.

YOUR NEW BOOK IS CALLED THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY.

ONE MAN'S HUMBLE QUEST TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTIONAL'S ORIGINAL MEANING.

WHY DO THIS?

WHY NOW?

>> WELL, FIRST, THANKS FOR HAVING ME AND GOOD MARROW.

I DECIDED TO DO THIS BECAUSE I WANTED TO EXPLORE WHAT THE CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAYS AND HOW SHOULD WE INTERPRET IT.

AND AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW IN THE PAST COUPLE YEARS, THE SUPREME COURT HAS EMBRACED ON THE CALL ORIGINALISM, WHICH SAYS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, WHEN INTERPRETING CONSTITUTION, IS WHAT DID IT MEAN WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN 230 YEARS AGO?

>> OKAY.

HOW DOES AN AUTHOR GET THEMSELVES INTO THE MIND SET OF THE WRITERS OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THE 1700s?

>> WELL, I DID EVERYTHING FROM -- TO EXPRESS MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

I BOAR A MUSKET AROUND NEW YORK CITY, AN 18th CENTURY MUSKET.

AND I GOT SOME STRANGE LOOKS.

>> WASN'T THERE A LAW THAT WENT UP TO THE COURTS ON WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS LEGAL FOR YOU TO BE CARRYING A FIREARM?

>> IT IS A GRAY AREA.

IT IS A BIT OF A GRAY AREA.

LUCKILY I WASN'T ARRESTED.

IN ADDITION TO THE MUSKET, I WANTED TO EXPRESS MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, SO I GOT OFF SOCIAL MEDIA, AND I WROTE PAMPHLETS WITH A QUILL PEN.

THE IDEA WAS TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINS AND EXPRESS MY RIGHTS THE WAY THAT THEY WERE WRITTEN USING THE TECHNOLOGY AND MIND SET OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

AND IT WAS FASCINATING.

IT WAS AN ENTERTAINING AND FASCINATING YEAR, BUT IT HOPE IT HAD SERIOUS POINTS AS WELL.

>> TELL ME, WERE YOU A CONSTITUTIONAL NERD BEFORE THIS?

WERE YOU TRYING TO KIND OF LAY OUT AND PROVE A POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

>> WELL, I -- I WAS ACTUALLY EMBARRASSING BY IGNORANT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

I LEARNED THAT 60% OF AMERICANS HAVE NEVER READ THE CONSTITUTION FROM START TO FINISH.

AND I WAS ONE OF THOSE 60%.

BUT IT HAS SUCH A MASSIVE IMPACT ON HOW WE LIVE OUR LIVES WITH THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND GAY RIGHTS AND GUN POLICY.

I THOUGHT, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS CONSTITUTION.

SO I TALKED TO DOZENS OF ACTUAL CONSTITUTIONAL NERDS AND LAW SCHOLARS FROM ALL OVER THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM.

BUT I ALSO WANTED TO LIVE IT.

THAT'S WHAT I DID FOR A PREVIOUS BOOK THAT YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT A LONG TIME AGO, CALLED "THE YEAR OF LIVING BIBLICALLY."

I FOUND IT HELPS ME TO UNDERSTAND AND GET IN THE MIND SET.

SO THAT WAS PART OF THE GOAL AS WELL.

>> OKAY.

SO WHAT WERE, I GUESS, THE PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT LEAPT OUT AT YOU IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH THEY HAD CHANGED IN HOW WE LIVE WITH THEM TODAY VERSUS HOW THE AUTHORS INTENDED THEM TO BE AT THE TIME?

>> SUCH A GREAT QUESTION.

AND THAT'S SORT OF THE HEART OF THE BOOK.

AND IT WAS A SHOCKINGLY DIFFERENT TIME.

THE PAST IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

AND I'LL GIVE YOU JUST TWO QUICK EXAMPLES, THE FIRST AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

SO THE FIRST AMENDMENT BACK THEN WAS MUCH MORE CONSTRAINED.

I LOVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH.

I'M A BIG FAN.

BUT I'M A FAN OF MODERN FREE SPEECH.

BACK AT THE FOUNDING, IT WASN'T QUITE STALINIST RUSSIA, BUT THERE WERE LAWS.

SEDITION WAS MUCH MORE CRACKED DOWN UPON.

WE DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE FIRST AMENDMENT WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS ON LIMITED POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES.

SO THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF ONE THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT.

AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT, THE TECHNOLOGY WAS SO VASTLY DIFFERENT.

I MEAN, I WENT AND I SHOT A MUSKET, AND IT IS 15 STEPS TO SHOOT A MUSKET.

IT IS -- YOU GOT TO TAKE OUT THE RAMROD, POUR IN THE GUNPOWDER, PUT BACK THE RAMROD.

IT IS LIKE BUILDING A DESK FROM IKEA.

IT TAKES A WHILE.

SO IT IS A VASTLY DIFFERENT MACHINE.

THE QUESTION IS SHOULD THERE BE REGULATIONS THAT ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT IS SO DIFFERENT?

AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING -- A MUSKET WOULD BE VERY HARD TO DO A MASS SHOOTING WITH A MUSKET BECAUSE IT TAKES SO LONG TO LOAD.

>> THIS IDEA OF UPDATING WITH THE TIMES, WE SEE THAT TENSION BEING PLAYED OUT PRETTY MUCH EVERY TIME THERE IS A VERDICT FROM THE SUPREME COURT.

WE HAVE PEOPLE ARGUING ON THE LOSING SIDE, THIS IS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION WAS FOR.

>> RIGHT.

AND IT IS -- IT CONTINUES TO BE AT THE HEART OF THE CONTROVERSY.

AND THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH SHOULD YOU UPDATE?

EVEN ORIGINALISTS WOULD SAY, FOR INSTANCE, THAT THE LAW -- THE RULE AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.

ORIGINALLY THAT MEANT THE CONSTABLE BANGING DOWN THE DOOR TO SEARCH YOUR PAPERS.

BUT NOW THEY SAY YES IT DOES APPLY TO THE INTERNET AND iPHONES.

BUT IT IS INCONSISTENT.

WHEN DO YOU UPDATE AND WHEN DO YOU NOT?

SO A HARD CORE ORIGINALIST LIKE CLARENCE THOMAS WOULD SAY THAT THE 14th AMENDMENT, WHICH GUARANTEES EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS, WHEN THAT WAS WRITTEN AFTER THE CIVIL WAR, IT DID NOT APPLY TO GAY PEOPLE OR GAY MARRIAGE.

SO HE WOULD ARGUE THAT DOES NOT COVER THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

WHEREAS THOSE ON THE OTHER SIDE, OFTEN CALLED LIVING CONSTITUTIONALISTS SAY YOU HAVE TO UPDATE THE MORALS WITH THE TIMES.

OVER TIME MORALS CHANGE AND GAY PEOPLE SHOULD BE PROTECTED BY THE 14th AMENDMENT.

>> ONE OF THE CONCERNS YOU HAVE WITH THE SIDE THAT SAYS GO AHEAD AND INTERPRET THIS DOCUMENT AND KEEP EVOLVING IT IS WHERE DOES THAT SLIDE STOP?

THE EXPERTS YOU HAVE SPOKEN TO, HOW DO THEY FIGURE OUT HOW TO MODIFY THAT LEVEL OF CHANGE SO IT'S STILL CONSISTENT TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE VALUES OF OUR COUNTRY.

>> YEAH.

IT IS -- THAT IS A HUGE ISSUE AND A TOUGH ONE.

AND I DON'T HAVE A SIMPLE ANSWER.

ONE -- ONE IDEA IS THAT THE FOUNDERS WOULD BE SHOCKED THAT THESE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HAVE SO MUCH POWER.

THAT WAS NOT THEIR VISION.

MOST OF THEM, THEY THOUGHT THAT THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD WEIGH IN ON JUDICIAL REVIEW, BUT NOT WHAT'S CALLED JUDICIAL SUPREMACY WHERE THEY HAVE THE FINAL WORD.

IN THE PAST, THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS WOULD ALSO WEIGH IN ON WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

SO IN THAT CASE, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THIS EXTREME POWER WITH JUST THESE NINE UNELECTED JUSTICES.

AND I LIKE THAT.

ANOTHER ISSUE IS THAT IT'S SO HARD TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.

THE FOUNDERS DID NOT ANTICIPATE IT WOULD BE THIS HARD TO CHANGE.

THEY WANTED IT -- IT'S HARD TO CHANGE, BUT THEY DIDN'T SEE THIS STATIC TWO PARTY SYSTEM COMING, WHEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET 60% OR 66% OF THE CONGRESS TO AGREE ON THE COLOR OF THE SKY.

THE KEY IS PULURALISM, WHICH ISA VERY FOUNDING FATHERS' IDEA.

BALANCE THE MEANING WITH THE CONSEQUENCES, WITH THE LEGITIMACY OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THEIR REPUTATION.

YOU HAVE ALL THESE FACTORS WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU DID IN YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL YEAR OF LIFE, YOU HAVE GOT THE -- YOU EXERCISED YOUR RIGHT TO REDRESS THE PETITION.

WHAT WERE YOU PETITIONS FOR?

>> WELL, THIS WAS INTERESTING.

PETITIONS, FIRST OF ALL, FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, THEY'RE OFTEN OVERLOOKED.

I THOUGHT I NEED TO DO IT THE OLD WAY.

I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT THE SLACKTSLACK WAY ON THE INTERNET.

I GOT OUT A BIG ROLL OF PAPER AND HAD PEOPLE SIGN WITH A QUILL PEN.

NOW, MY PETITION WAS BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT.

BOTH DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS HAVE WAY TOO MUCH POWER.

THE FOUNDERS WOULD BE SHOCKED BY THE WAR POWERS AND TRADE POWERS.

SO I WENT BACK TO AN IDEA FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

DURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, WHEN SOMEONE BROUGHT UP THE IDEA OF A SINGLE PRESIDENT, SEVERAL OF THE DELEGATES SAID, ARE YOU JESTING?

THAT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA.

WE JUST FOUGHT TO GET RID OF A KING.

WHY WOULD WE WANT A SINGLE PRESIDENT?

LET'S HAVE THREE PRESIDENTS.

LET'S HAVE 12 PRESIDENTS.

BEN FRANKLIN WANTED A COUNCIL OF 12 PRESIDENTS.

I THOUGHT, THIS IS AN INTERESTING IDEA.

SO I BROUGHT A PETITION TO CONGRESS, TO SENATOR RON LIDEN IN WASHINGTON.

I WAS TRYING MY HAT, MY COAT, SHOES, BUCKLES AND EVERYTHING.

HE SAID HE WOULD CONSIDER IT, WHICH I THINK MEANT HE WOULD CONSIDER IT FOR FIVE SECONDS.

BUT HE DID AGREE WITH MY THESIS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS TOO POWERFUL.

WE HAVE IN THE FUTURE POSSIBLE PRESIDENTS WHO ARE GOING TO BE MORE AUTHORITARIAN.

SO WE DO NEED TO CONSTRAIN THE PRESIDENT.

I DON'T ACTUALLY THINK THREE PRESIDENTS.

I DON'T KNOW IF BIDEN, TRUMP AND RFK JR. COWORKING IN THE OVAL OFFICE IS A GREAT IDEA.

BUT THERE ARE WAYS TO CONSTRAIN THE PRESIDENT THAT WE NEED TO LOOK INTO AND GIVE POWER BACK TO THE CONGRESS, WHICH IS WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED.

>> YOU KNOW, YOU DID TAKE A COUPLE OF OPPORTUNITIES HERE TO TRY AND MAKE THIS EXPLORATION A LITTLE POSITIVE AND FUN.

TELL US ABOUT ELECTION CAKES.

>> WELL, THIS WAS MY FAVORITE PART OF THE BOOK.

IT IS A THROUGH LINE OF THE BOOK.

WE DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO THE 18th CENTURY VOTING, OF COURSE.

IT WAS SEXIST AND RACIST AND -- BUT THERE ARE ELEMENTS OF 18th CENTURY LIFE THAT ARE WORTH LOOKING AT AGAIN.

AND ONE OF THEM IS THE IDEA THAT ELECTIONS OR THE PRIVILEGED FEW WHO WERE ALLOWED TO VOTE WERE FESTIVE.

THEY WERE THIS NEW RIGHT THAT WAS AWE INSPIRED.

SO IT WAS -- THERE WERE PARADES.

THERE WAS MUSIC.

THERE WAS A LOT OF RUM PUNCH.

IT WASN'T QUITE COACHELLA OR BURNING MAN, BUT IT WAS EXCITING THIS ELECTION DAY.

AND IT REMINDED PEOPLE OF THE AWESOME POWER OF DEMOCRACY.

SO I THOUGHT, THIS IS LOVELY.

LET'S RE -- I'LL TRY TO RESTART THIS APPRECIATION OF ELECTION DAY AS SOMETHING FESTIVE.

AND ONE OF THE TRADITIONS WAS ELECTION CAKE.

PEOPLE WOULD BAKE ELECTION CAKES, SOMETIMES HUGE, ONE RECIPE CALLS FOR 14 POUNDS OF BUTTER AND 10 POUNDS OF SUGAR.

SO I DIDN'T DO THAT.

BUT I MADE A BIG ELECTION CAKE.

AND I WENT ON FACEBOOK, WHICH I KNOW IS NOT 18th CENTURY.

ALTHOUGH, IT IS ONE OF THE OLDER PLATFORMS.

AND I GOT PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER AMERICA TO CAKE ELECTION CAKES AND BRING THEM TO THE POLLS AND GIVE THEM OUT TO REMIND PEOPLE OUR CATCH PHRASE WAS DEMOCRACY WAS SWEET.

AND I LOVE THAT BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH AN UNRELENTINGLY DECADENT TIME IN POLITICS TO HAVE THIS ONE MOMENT.

THERE ARE EVENTS AND STUDIES THAT SAY HAVING A FESTIVE ELECTION DAY INCREASES VOTER TURNOUT.

AUSTRALIA HAS SOMETHING CALLED THE DEMOCRACY SAUSAGE, WHERE THEY HAVE BIG BARBECUES.

SO I LOVE THE ELECTION CAKE.

IT'S NOT THE END.

WE ALSO HAVE TO FIX GERRYMANDERING AND VOTER SUPPRESSION.

BUT LET'S START WITH ELECTION CAKES AND GET PEOPLE EXCITED AGAIN ABOUT THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

I'M DOING IT AGAIN IN NOVEMBER.

>> WHAT DID THIS PROJECT TEACH YOU ABOUT YOURSELF, ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE HAD SO MANY DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS ON THIS PROGRAM ABOUT DIGITAL DETOXING AND SLOWING DOWN.

I IMAGINE IT HAS TO DO SOMETHING TO YOUR BRAIN WHEN YOU ARE WRITING IN SUCH A SLOW FORMAT WITH A QUILL AND INK.

>> EXACTLY.

THAT WAS ONE OF MY FAVORITE PARTS, IS I WROTE MUCH OF THE BOOK WITH A QUILL.

AND WHAT I FOUND IS IT CHANGED THE WAY I THOUGHT, WHICH WAS FASCINATING BECAUSE THERE WERE NO PINGS AND DINGS OR TEMPTATIONS FROM THE INTERNET.

AND I COULD ACTUALLY FOCUS.

AND I THINK THAT -- I DON'T THINK EVERYONE NEEDS TO GO BACK TO QUILLS, BUT I THINK WRITING AND THINKING OFFLINE IS SO CRUCIAL.

AND IT ALLOWED ME TO, I THINK, SEE THE WORLD IN A MORE SUBTLE WAY.

AND ONE OF THE BIG -- THE OTHER BIG TAKE AWAY FOR ME WAS THAT IT ALLOWED ME TO SEE THE OTHER SIDE A LITTLE MORE.

I THINK WE ARE NOWADAYS SO STUCK IN OUR OPINIONS, SO UNWILLING TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AND SEE THE OTHER SIDE.

THIS IS NOT A PATRIOTIC WAY OF LOOKING AT THE WORLD.

THE FOUNDERS WERE VERY COGNITIVELY FLEXIBLE.

BEN FRANKLIN SAID THAT THE OLDER HE GETS, THE LESS CERTAIN HE IS OF HIS OPINIONS.

>> AND WHAT'S THE RIPPLE EFFECT ON THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU, YOUR FAMILY THAT HAS TO LIVE WITH A GUY WHO'S, I DON'T KNOW, WRITING WITH A QUILL AND DOING, YOU KNOW, THINGS BY CANDLE LIGHT AND WAKING UP EARLY IN THE MORNING TRYING TO BE BACK IN THE 1700s?

HOW DO YOUR KIDS FEEL ABOUT THAT?

>> THEY ARE SPLIT.

THERE IS -- ONE OF THEM ACTUALLY LIKES IT.

THE OTHER TWO ARE SO EMBARRASSED, THEY WALKED 40 FEET IN FRONT OF ME.

MY WIFE, PART OF IT SHE LIKES.

SHE LIKES HISTORY.

SHE DID NOT LIKE THE SMELL OF BEEF CANDLES, WHICH SMELLED LIKE ROTTEN MEATLOAF IN HER OPINION.

ALSO, IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING 18th CENTURY LAW, IT IS VERY SEXIST.

MARRIED WOMEN, FOR INSTANCE, WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SIGN CONTRACTS.

MY WIFE OWNS AN EVENT BUSINESS WHERE SHE SIGNS SEVERAL CONTRACTS A DAY.

I SAID, WELL, WHILE I'M DOING THIS EXPERIMENT, MAYBE I SHOULD TAKE OVER THE SIGNS.

AT FIRST SHE SAID, GREAT, I HATE SIGNING THESE CONTRACTS.

I WAS SO BAD AT IT, SHE FIRED ME AFTER AN HOUR.

SO THAT DID NOT WORK OUT FOR EITHER OF US.

>> YOU POINT OUT THAT THIS IS THE OLDEST CONSTITUTION AROUND.

SO I WONDER WHAT SHOULD WE BE THINKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF, I GUESS, JUST SURVEYING THE LANDSCAPE AND SEEING WHAT'S OUT THERE, WHAT COULD BE BETTER, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE CAN DO RIGHT, WHAT CAN WE IMPROVE ON 2.0, 3.0.

>> RIGHT.

I LOVE THAT.

I THINK IT IS FASCINATING BECAUSE OURS WAS THE FIRST MODERN CONSTITUTION.

AND WE DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF DATA OF WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T.

AND I THINK PART -- SOME AMERICANS THINK THAT IT'S ALMOST UNPATRIOTIC TO LOOK AT OTHER DEMOCRACIES AND HOW THEY HAVE STRUCTURED IT AND WHAT WORKS FOR THEM AND WHAT DOESN'T.

OTHERS LIKE JUSTICE BRIAR, WHO RETIRED, HE WAS VERY INTERESTED IN HOW FAR DEMOCRACIES WORKED.

AND I THINK I THINK AGREE WITH JUSTICE BRIAR.

LET'S LOOK AT WHAT IS WORKING AND WHAT IS NOT.

ONE THING THAT I DON'T THINK IS WORKING FOR US IS THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.

AND I DON'T THINK THE FOUNDERS WANTED A TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.

BUT YOU LOOK AT MANY EUROPEAN DEMOCRACIES, AND THEY HAVE SIX OR EIGHT PARTIES.

THERE SEEMS TO BE A GOLDILOCKSS ZONE OF 4 TO 8 PARTIES IS THE BEST BECAUSE, YES, NOW WE HAVE SUCH POLARIZATION THAT IT'S SO HARD TO GET ANYTHING PASSED.

WE WERE THE FIRST, AND WE COULD BE PROUD OF THAT.

BUT WE'RE ALSO AT A DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW.

WE DIDN'T HAVE DATA ON WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T.

>> ARE YOU CONCERNED FOR OUR DEMOCRACY IN 2024 TODAY AS WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION AFTER YOU HAVE ENGAGED IN THIS YEAR-LONG EXPERIMENT OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY?

>> WELL, YES.

BUT I'M MORE OPTISTIC THAN I WAS WHEN I STARTED.

PART OF THE HOME PROJECT WAS TO FIGURE OUT, CAN WE SAVE DEMOCRACY?

BECAUSE IT DOES SEEM ENDANGERED AROUND THE WORLD.

AND SEVERAL THINGS GAVE ME HOPE.

I WILL JUST GIVE YOU TWO OF THEM.

ONE IS JUST READING ABOUT THE HISTORY.

THE -- THE FOUNDERS FACED UNBELIEVABLE ODDS THAT THEY WERE GOING AGAINST THE STRONGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD, THE BRITISH AND THAT THEY SOMEHOW WERE ABLE TO MAKE A BREAK AND BE INDEPENDENT.

THEY'RE NOT INSURMOUNTABLE.

THE SECOND PART IS THAT WE HAVE MADE PROGRESS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF, YOU CAN SEE THE PROGRESS IN THE AMENDMENTS.

SO BLACK PEOPLE GOT THE VOTE.

WOMEN GOT THE VOTE.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE GOT THE VOTE.

18-YEAR-OLDS GOT THE VOTE.

SO WE ARE -- THE ARK DOES POINT TOWARDS JUSTICE, AND THERE IS BACKSLIDING, AND THERE IS -- IT IS NOT A STRAIGHT LINE.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IF WE ROLL UP OUR SLEEVES, DEMOCRACY WON'T SAVE ITSELF.

BUT I DO BELIEVE IF WE ROLL UP OUR SLEEVES AND MAKE SOME OF THESE REFORMS THAT DEMOCRACY CAN CONTINUE TO THRIVE.

>> A.J.

JACOBS, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.