Contact

For media enquiries and speaking requests regarding Clarence Thomas and the Lost Constitution, please contact:

Michele Jacob (email)
Director of Publicity
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (website)
+1 (212) 599-7000
or:
Stephen Manfredi (email)
Manfredi Strategy Group, LLC
+1 (202) 222-8028

For media enquiries and speaking requests regarding The Founders at Home, please contact:

Rachel Salzman (email)
Associate Director of Publicity
W. W. Norton & Company (website)
+1 (617) 487-8660

For all other enquiries and to contact the author, please email me or leave a comment below.

26 thoughts on “Contact

  1. Mr. Magnet … very anxious to get your new book! BUT, I find with my schedule listening to audio books more efficient than reading. I checked on audible.com and I can’t find any of your previous works. Is there any possibility this might be accomplished? I have seen that this is a substantial work of almost 500 pages which includes many illustrations, so I probably will be interested in both formats.

  2. Dear Mr. Magnet: Thanks so much for writing such a illuminating and different view of the founding fathers. I recall the first time I followed the Freedom Trail in Boston as a young college student and the visit to Paul Revere’s home. It brought our Revolution to life for me. I have never forgotten that experience. After College I joined the Navy and after 20 years of visiting lots of places in the world that do not have a Freedom Trail or well preserved homes of their counties founders, you book is a critical aspect of ensuring that we continue to respect and learn from the founders if we are to keep the ideal of freedom alive and well. I have visited Mount Vernon, but none of the others. I will make it a life goal to visit each of these homes and pay my respects to the founders and their vision. Your book is a new addition to the Freedom Trail. Thank You.

    • I am not surprised that your world travels have made so luminously clear to you how singular–how unique–is the freedom our Founders won for us, I spoke at the Boston Athenaeum a couple of weeks ago and looked out the back windows into the churchyard where Paul Revere lies buried. What amazing courage it took for those people to stand up against the world’s greatest military in defense of an idea–the idea of individual liberty that came to them, as I try to explain in the book, from their unique culture and historical experience, an idea that can’t just be conjured up out of thin air, as you and I have seen in our lifetimes, through failure after failure in other countries.

  3. The information in the book is excellent and written with clarity and excitement, but I must ask that Mr. Magnet read, at a minimum, Document 42 in silasdeaneonline,org to be more fully aware of the complicated story of Beaumarchais, Deane and Lee. While the Lees are central characters in Mr. Magnet’s story, in many cases quite deservedly so, Silas Deane receives only scorn and accusations, while he too did much for the Revolution and, coincidentally, has a beautifully restored home in Wethersfield, CT.
    I look forward to your response to this request. Jan Peake

    • Thank you so much for your interesting letter and for calling attention to the Deane House in Wethersfield, joined together into a single museum with the nearby Webb House, where George Washington met with General Rochambeau to discuss their next move in the Revolution–which turned out to be the final battle of Yorktown. The famous red-flocked wallpaper in the room where Washington slept is still there–or at least a fragment of it. See website: http://webb-deane-stevens.org/
      As to the larger question of the Deane-Lee controversy, please be assured that I am aware of the complexity of the story, and aware as well that Silas Deane, despite the ignominy in which his life ended, was not a black-and-white villain. But a glance at Document 29 on the website you mention will I think only reinforce my contention that Tom Paine, the writer of that document, backed up Arthur Lee’s version of the story, based on knowledge of America’s dealings with the French as reported back to Congress, of whose foreign affairs committee Paine was secretary. And as Paine says in Document 29, the internal evidence of Document 42–Beaumarchais’ letter–makes highly suspect the truth of what the immortal playwright alleges. Remember too that the French government, officially at peace with Britain, was particularly anxious to conceal its aid to an America at war with Britain, so that diplomatic evasion of the truth was the order of the day–including by Beaumarchais, who was then acting as a secret French government agent behind a fictitious front company (as he says in Document 42). And remember that Tom Paine then lost his job for saying something so undiplomatic as . . . the truth.

      • Thanks you for responding. Yes, it is clear that Beaumarchais had been in touch with Arthur Lee in England but Lee did not follow through and the actual negotiation for French aid were between Beaumarchais and Deane. Both men lost money of the goods given by France and spent many years trying to retrieve their funds from Congress. It is well known that Paine was not a fan of Deane’s which led to the dispute in Congress which I believe was and early example of the two party system.
        I was only hoping that Deane’s reputation could be improved and the criticism more tempered. Deane was not a bad man and much of his thoughts and ideas have proved to be correct in American history, such as the need to work well with England, plans for canals and for a navy. He had a very sad end to a life of public service. Jan Peake

        • Please see A. R. Riggs, “The Nine Lives of Arthur Lee” (Williamsburg 1976), which demonstrates that Arthur Lee did indeed complete his deal with Beaumarchais, as Harlow Giles Unger confirms more fully in his biography of Beaumarchais, “Improbable Patriot.” And sadly, we have the damning letter from George III to Lord North authorizing payment to Deane for his “services”–which were to act as a pro-British agent against the colonial “rebels.” Because all this happened under the cloak of secrecy, it’s understandable that scholars can still argue about what really happened almost as passionately as the pro-Deane and pro-Lee factions did in the Continental Congress during the Revolution. But with the passage of time, the facts have emerged. And they give little credit to Silas Deane.
          I am glad that the Webb-Deane-Stevens Museum, in which I believe you played a key role, is flourishing. It is very important to make our history concrete and tangible–and it’s amazing that Wethersfield, Connecticut, was such an important setting in the Revolution, since Washington met with General Rochambeau there to plan the assault on Yorktown, at least provisionally. I suppose in a sense Wethersfield embodies the Revolution’s debt to France.

  4. Here’s a note of thanks for “Founders.” I rationed my reading of the 402 text pages over many weeks so I could allow the insights and historical detail to sink in, and not rush through to the end, as enjoyable as the reading was. I’m particularly grateful for the introduction to John Jay, for whom I had little appreciation before I read “Founders,” and also for the fair-minded and insightful assessments of Hamilton and Jefferson. Nice going.

  5. Mr. Magnet,

    Throughout my 18 years of studying and teaching history, I have been constantly bombarded with the message that our founding fathers’ were self-centered, greedy, elitists, who crafted only self-serving documents meant to maintain the power of the few at the cost of the many. Beard, Zinn, and others were the bibles of my professors and fellow educators. Yet, the more I read the primary sources, traveled to the major sites of our early history, and fell in love with the colonial to early national period, the more I realized that these men, though imperfect like us all, gave the world such a wonderful legacy through their writings and actions. Thank you for articulating their motives in such a well-crafted book. I hope that many future generations will reach the same conclusions based on the images you have drawn of these men and give thanks for the Founders’ legacy.

    • I am so grateful for your kind words. All one has to do is look around the rest of the world: one has to conclude that the Founding Fathers managed to construct out of the crooked timber of humanity as straight and strong an edifice, allowing the greatest possibilities for the self-development of the individual, that human history can show.

    • I’m so glad you see that, imperfect as they were, as all men must be, the Founders were great, world-historical figures, who left us the extraordinary legacy of a self-governing republic–also imperfect, as all human creations must be, but as close to perfect as governments have ever come.

  6. Mr. Magnet……I just finished your book and enjoyed it very much. I am a fanatic for American colonial history. I am also very interested in the homes of the Founders and have visited most of them. It seems that whenever I read a book about one of the Founders I always wish that it told us more about their personal lives and homes and property, etc., and your book does that better than any I’ve read. It really does bring a new level of understanding about how and why the Founders accomplished what they did and in the manner they did and why the American Revolution and Constitution has succeeded whereas most others have failed. Thanks for an excellent work.

  7. I teach Catholic seminarians and want to know how to get a hardcopy of your forthcoming clarence thomas book. I can`t find info anywhere at least not under the title I have for the book

  8. Mr, Magnet:

    You could do more to elucidate American citizens about political reality today by writing “Modern Leftists at Home.” Nothing would better reveal the hypocrisy of modern Leftist elites than to show the discrepancies between their professed beliefs and their homes, their wealth, and lifestyles that they enjoy. People need to see and understand the gated fortress of Pelosi; her use of military aircraft to get around; the multiple homes and the jet setting lifestyle of Al Gore, that advocate of reducing carbon footprints, etc.

  9. Your WSJ article was terrific. I worked for another judge, Janice Rogers Brown, who also grew up under segregation, and developed a similar perspective, as I described in an article this past March: “As an African-American child in the 1950’s Deep South, Justice Brown saw police enforce segregation, and so developed a healthy skepticism of “standardless and unconstrained police discretion.”

    https://www.keiterappellatelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ACLUPublished.pdf

    As you observed, unconstrained discretion usually favors the insiders, not the outsiders. Similarly, “Limiting speech . . . favors those who do not wish to disturb the status quo.” (Reed v. Gilbert, 135 S.Ct. 2218, 2233 (2015) (Alito, J. concurring).

  10. hey myron, scotty with wtki radio in huntsville, alabama…just want to thank you for being on the fred show this morning…fred really enjoyed having you on the program…have yourself a great rest of the week, and we hope you’ll consider joining us again sometime !

    ss

  11. Thank you for your recent article on Justice Clarence Thomas appearing in the September 2019 Imprimis publication from Hillsdale College. I have a new-found respect for the man and his judicial acumen.

  12. I also want to thank you for your terrific article on Justice Thomas in Imprimis. I published a link to the article on CloutHub (a new social media app released about six months ago) to be sure it gets to that audience as well.This is something everyone should read. Best regards.

  13. Dr. Magnet;
    I enjoyed your article in Imprimis on Clarence Thomas very much. I must, however, protest one grave error of fundamental importance. You write: “For starters, the Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress [which means that they cannot be delegated elsewhere].”
    Actually, what the Constitution thankfully states is (with added emphasis) that “All legislative Powers HEREIN GRANTED shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” In other words, unlike Art. II wherein the complete executive power (“power” worded singularly, rather than plural [powers]) vested with the President and Art. II wherein the judicial power (again, “power” singular) were vested in the supreme and inferior courts, in Art. I, only the legislative POWERS (plural) that were THEREIN granted were vested in Congress.
    You have tragically ignored that only enumerated powers were delegated that could be exercised (by Art. I:8:18) with “necessary and proper” means (as those words originally meant at time of ratification). One cannot foolishly assert that members of Congress may exercise ALL legislative powers (within their discretion) within their inherent discretion and ever assert that we have limited government.
    The true crux of what I call “The Peculiar Conundrum” (the odd phenomenon of members of Congress and federal officials [especially judges] being able to bypass their constitutional constraints with impunity is, however, NOT “illegitimate judicial constitution-making” of “making law instead of interpreting the Constitution” or of even “interpreting” the Constitution, but using one clause against the remainder, with the aid of an additional clause.
    Indeed, my fellow strict-constructionists ignore at their peril Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 17 for the District Seat. Under that express power, members may exercise “exclusive” legislation “in all Cases whatsoever”, powers outside the remainder of the Constitution, that were granted to Congress when the “particular” State of Maryland ceded the land and power for D.C.
    This district is NOT a “State”, thus express constitutional prohibitions the U.S. Constitution emplaces upon “States” does NOT bind Congress when legislating for the District of Columbia. Indeed, even the 10th Amendment does NOT reserve any powers to any State of the Union in the District of Columbia, because the only State which once had any power therein ceded every ounce of power it had in 1791 when it ceded the land in 1791 (once Congress began [“and the acceptance of Congress”] governing the area in 1800).
    Thus, under the power for D.C. by Cl. 17, members of Congress may exercise powers far beyond those enumerated in the Constitution for the whole Union. Members only need to refrain from violating the few express prohibitions in the Constitution, such as found in the Bill of Rights.
    Since only “States” elect U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators, D.C. does not even have legislative representation, the fundamental building block of the Union. Without the district being a “State”, then Art. IV, Sect. 4 and its protection of a “Republican Form of Government” for every State does NOT apply.
    Thus, under this Cl. 17 power, here members of Congress are NOT prohibited from delegating all the remainder of their legislative powers (under Cl. 17) to unelected bureaucrats of the alphabet agencies.
    Nor is there any prohibition from judges “legislating from the bench” under this power. Indeed, with no District Constitution (or any State or State-like Constitution) therein applicable, members of Congress must necessarily (together with judges and bureaucrats, if the members deem in pragmatic) decide within their inherent discretion what to do.
    The only “trick” has been carrying these laws throughout the Union, even as Cl. 17 limits the geographic boundaries of the District not to exceed “ten-Miles-square” (100 square miles).
    Chief Justice John Marshall, following Alexander Hamilton’s devious lead, provided that answer in 1821 Cohens v. Virginia, when he wrote that “The clause which gives exclusive legislation is, unquestionably, a part of the Constitution, and, as such, binds all the United States.”
    He was able to write that simply by following the express words of Art. VI, Cl. 2 to the strictest-possible letter (progressivism is NOT based upon “liberal” construction of the Constitution, but upon its strictest-possible meanings) that “This Constitution…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
    Indeed, he pointed out that Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is part of “This Constitution”, thus, necessarily, then also laws enacted by Congress “in pursuance” of even that clause also necessarily are part of the supreme Law of the Land” that bind all the States.
    Please see any of my 10 public domain books at http://www.PatriotCorps.org for further information, all available as free electronic downloads or in page-click online viewers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *