Nebraska is no flyover state; its unusual electoral vote structure puts Omaha’s one electoral vote up for grabs - both as a contest for votes, and a legislative battle to possibly restructure Nebraska’s election law. We tell an originalist story form the early Republic that surprisingly echoes some of the issues in today’s situation. Meanwhile, other types of blue dots, and how the right to travel and to reside where one wishes can play a role in the election. We also try to proactively refute t...
Sep 25, 2024•1 hr 26 min•Season 4Ep. 195
The New York Times looks at the Constitution as an allegedly anti-democratic, divisive, secession-promoting document. They bring authority to bolster their case in the person of the Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky. We take a close look at this article and the arguments it employs. This takes us to the center of the Constitution’s purposes, of course to questions of originalism, as well as an analysis of what sort of democracy the Constitution protects, and what sort it m...
Sep 11, 2024•1 hr 39 min•Season 4Ep. 194
It’s time for your questions, and having a great audience means there are so many fascinating directions to go. A Canadian listener tells of how a non-originalist purpose-oriented approach to constitutional law works for them - why not in the US? We go in a different direction when we consider the wisdom of increasing the size of the House of Representatives. Still another asks about whether the presidential immunity decision has undermined some fundamental aspects of criminal law, not to mentio...
Sep 04, 2024•59 min•Season 4Ep. 193
RFK Jr. has withdrawn from the race and endorsed Trump. This meeting of an estranged Kennedy and an indicted Trump, is laced not only with strangeness but also constitutional themes, as we explore. Meanwhile, backlash after the Trump immunity opinion continues, and Senate Majority Leader Schumer has introduced legislation in response. The great Washington Post columnist, Ruth Marcus, returns to our podcast to comment on this legislation and the many serious implications it would have if adopted,...
Aug 28, 2024•1 hr 28 min•Season 4Ep. 192
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has been overruled by the Supreme Court more often, and more forcefully, than any other circuit during the past term. Why? What are the consequences for the judges of the Fifth Circuit, if any? Is this a problem for our judicial system, and if so, are there any remedies available? Listeners to Amarica’s Constitution will not be surprised to learn that Professor Amar has some ideas on this topic. He also grounds the problems and the solutio...
Aug 21, 2024•1 hr 14 min•Season 4Ep. 191
Court reform is in the air. Having presented the problems with the 18 year term proposals before the House and Senate, Professor Amar’s plan deserves its own scrutiny. We therefore present the plan in detail, explaining the problems that it attempts to solve, the principles it attempts to uphold, and the criticisms it might attract. Since it is a proposal and not yet a statute, it is subject to modification and hopefully improvement, so we invite the audience to chime in with your own critiques ...
Aug 14, 2024•1 hr 17 min•Season 4Ep. 190
The 2021 Biden Commission on the Court has now led - with a big “assistance” from the Court itself - to President Biden’s own plan for Court reform. It is sketchy in many ways, but is entirely consistent with Professor Amar’s long-held views on 18 year active terms for Supreme Court justices, though the President’s proposal lacks the detail of that plan. This is unsurprising in a way since Prof. Amar testified before that Commission. There are other related plans in proposed statutes that lie in...
Aug 07, 2024•1 hr 26 min•Season 4Ep. 189
President Biden has stepped aside as a candidate, and as promised, we look at what’s next from a variety of points of view. Some Republicans, notably the Speaker, are claiming that the President should actually resign or step back under the 25th amendment. What would this mean? Meanwhile, we have a lot more in this early episode, including a reader’s question on Barack Obama; another on Edmund Burke; a preview of an amazing EverScholar program; a preview of Biden’s Supreme Court proposed reform;...
Jul 30, 2024•1 hr 20 min•Season 4Ep. 188
Resignations are in the air, and our discussion - recorded before President Biden’s actions - offers surprising resonances in its wake. Meanwhile, our guest, Professor Vik Amar, provides not just a condemnation of Judge Cannon’s recent dismissal of the Trump documents case, but a refutation of the arguments she made, and a recitation of those crucial points, cases, and reasonings which she ignored. Plus we finally have the details on the EverScholar announcements we have been teasing; 18 year te...
Jul 23, 2024•1 hr 49 min•Season 4Ep. 187
President Biden is hearing calls from many quarters to step down as a candidate. Donald Trump is shot. Questions of presidential succession and/or resignation abound. While it may seem these are unique and strange situations which the American republic has never faced, in fact, resignation has been a key American issue for centuries. Episodes well-known, and others rarely taught, are reviewed on our podcast this week, providing context and counsel for our listeners, and hopefully for the candida...
Jul 17, 2024•1 hr 34 min•Season 4Ep. 186
The Court’s opinion in the presidential immunity case Trump v. US, has sunk in. On reflection it is even worse that on first impression, and that is saying something. But just to condemn the opinion is not enough. Professor Amar distills the Court’s argument to its essence and explains why it completely collapses under any kind of rigorous scrutiny. Its abandonment of originalism and of the constitution’s own terms is laid bare. How could the Court go so astray? We also take a stab at this, and ...
Jul 10, 2024•1 hr 39 min•Season 4Ep. 185
In an exhausting week, the Court released a number of long-awaited cases, and we had a consequential presidential debate. We look at several cases that many believe have profound implications for the administrative state; the opinions in SEC v. Jarkesy, and Loper Bright v. Raimondo clearly have the effect of increasing the role of courts and juries, among other things. We look at the opinions, the underlying themes, and the impact. Meanwhile, following the debate, questions of presidential succe...
Jul 03, 2024•1 hr 54 min•Season 4Ep. 184
As the end of the term approaches the deluge of major cases has begun. Two big cases - the eagerly awaited sequel to the Bruen case - Rahimi - features an orgy of originalist theorizing and opining. Meanwhile, in Moore v. US - a case where Professor Amar and his team had an amicus brief - the tax power was upheld, but reading the opinion one might wonder if the same Court had sat for this case. We take a look at the opinions and give our own take on these impactful cases, even as we brace oursel...
Jun 26, 2024•1 hr 31 min•Season 4Ep. 183
Akhil is in Boston this week and reminds us that the history of the American Revolution, where Boston is so pivotal, contains myriad lessons that provide insight into the student protests of today - so we look at this subject in some detail. Meanwhile, the Court issued opinions in two prominent cases, and Akhil seems to be reluctant to take “yes” for an answer in one of them, so we take another look at issues of standing. Does Akhil convince you of the correctness of his approach? Finally, the b...
Jun 19, 2024•1 hr 39 min•Season 4Ep. 182
The Court is taking its time on major opinion, which gives us a moment to turn to other matters. Ethics remain in the news; the Court’s annual financial disclosures contain a number of surprises - maybe not so surprising. There’s a lot to say there, and we have some proposals to improve the situation. President Biden takes a position on a pardon, and we take a position on that. Our listeners continue to provide great input on an ongoing conversation, and we take it seriously. CLE is available af...
Jun 12, 2024•1 hr 23 min•Season 4Ep. 181
The verdict is in: guilty x 34. A jury of Trump’s peers had its say, but the ex-president couldn’t leave it at that, of course. On the legitimate side, the appeals are expected to begin soon. On the Trump bombastic side, he blasted every institution in the legal system for having the audacity to do their duty. Particularly in the case of the ordinary citizens of the jury, this bears examination, and so we do. We also preview some of the likely appellate issues, lay out the expected path through ...
Jun 05, 2024•1 hr 12 min•Season 4Ep. 180
The nation has been riled by campus unrest surrounding events in the Middle East. Terms like “freedom of speech,” “academic freedom,” “right to protest,” “conduct vs. speech,” and issues of hate speech, offensive speech, safety, and more have arisen. We start our look at this situation where we always begin: with the Constitution. This episode aims to lay out the history, background, constitutional provisions, interpretations, cases, and overall approach to these matters, so we can then look at ...
May 29, 2024•1 hr 32 min•Season 4Ep. 179
More than three years after the January 6, 2021 disastrous events, we remarkably are just now first learning of a complex series of events with profound ethical implications for Justice Alito. Like his fellow justice, Clarence Thomas, Justice Alito’s wife’s actions, possibly political in nature, have placed the Justice in a position where his own actions are being widely questioned. We take it one step at a time and offer our analysis, even if we don’t entirely agree with each other on this one....
May 22, 2024•1 hr 18 min•Season 4Ep. 178
Donald Trump’s New York trial - where a conviction would be federal pardon-proof - has proceeded apace. we are pleased to bring a report to you from the trial itself, introducing you to one of Professor Amar’s star students in the process. Are there constitutional issues stemming from the trial? You bet, and we address some of them. Meanwhile, a number of listeners have asked similar questions recently, so we take that family of questions on, and sure enough, there’s a lot to discuss there as we...
May 15, 2024•1 hr 52 min•Season 4Ep. 177
This week we continue with clips from the oral argument in the immunity case (Trump v. United States). Most of this week’s clips come from attorney Dreeben (representing the Special Counsel, and therefore the people of the United States), and some of the Justices have at him, sometimes in way Professor Amar finds wrong-headed or worse. Our own argument is brought to bear upon these controversies, and a consistent way of addressing these questions emerges. Clarity on the argument emerges. CLE cre...
May 08, 2024•1 hr 12 min•Season 4Ep. 176
The nine Justices heard arguments on ex-president Trump’s attempt to claim a sweeping immunity from criminal liability and prosecution. We present clips from the argument and our commentary, including some historical analysis of claims that Benjamin Franklin spoke in favor of such a thing (spoiler: NO), and many other claims which we had predicted in recent weeks. There is clear acceptance of some of the arguments we have made by many of the Justices, but questions remain to be sure, and we begi...
May 01, 2024•1 hr 21 min•Season 4Ep. 175
As we close in on oral argument in the Trump v. United States case wherein Trump asserts some sort of permanent presidential immunity, we close out our preparatory analysis. Impeachment’s relationship to criminal prosecution is explored. Some founding-era conversations involving, for example, John Adams, inform our discussion. Does the concept of double jeopardy play a role? Our hope is that these episodes prepare you for the oral argument with a comprehensive theory of how no one is held above ...
Apr 24, 2024•1 hr 22 min•Season 4Ep. 174
As oral argument in the Trump immunity case draws closer, we continue our discussion of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Do so-called “official acts” during a president’s tenure in office raise special considerations? Constitutional text seems to offer an easy way out of the case - but does it, really - and historical precedents enter the conversation. Ultimately, some basic principles of immunity emerge, which leaves us with a much richer understanding of the many issues than a ...
Apr 17, 2024•1 hr 25 min•Season 4Ep. 173
Former President Trump is making an extraordinary claim to the Supreme Court: that he is immune from criminal prosecution for crimes he may have committed while president. The Court has agreed to hear arguments on this proposition on April 25. We begin the preparation by posing the questions and taking them on. Professor Amar is an expert on Presidential immunities. Our analysis goes through originalism as well as precedent. This and subsequent episodes form an oral amicus brief of sorts - anoth...
Apr 10, 2024•1 hr 27 min•Season 4Ep. 172
The Supreme Court heard the case on the legality of FDA regulation of Mifepristone. Issues of standing seemed to dominate, so Professor Amar treats us to a master class on standing - in this case, and its recent evolution. He also suggests that at least one Justice might benefit by attending. In a wide-ranging episode, we also share excitement and some new scholarly insights that emerged from the recent EverScholar program led by Akhil and others; and the Trump gag order gives rise to some musin...
Apr 03, 2024•1 hr 52 min•Season 4Ep. 171
We round up our analysis of the opinion in Trump v. Anderson with Justice Barrett’s concurrence. All of this has raised many questions, particularly in light of the Court’s errant reasoning and other shenanigans. And it turns out that many of the best questions come from you, our audience! So we turn to those as well, both about Section 3, and other matters as well. We also look at the news media’s latest interesting directions, including takes on Justice Breyer’s new book and seeds planted by P...
Mar 27, 2024•1 hr 31 min•Season 4Ep. 170
The Trump v. Anderson lead balloon continues to smolder. This episode looks at the areas wherein the concurring Justices took issue with the per curiam, and they are many. Indeed, the three Justices who concurred only in the judgment disagree with the scope of the per curiam as well as its particulars, and their concurrence reads more like a dissent. Can we find areas of agreement with ourselves and the concurrences? What can we learn from all this? CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com...
Mar 20, 2024•1 hr 38 min•Season 4Ep. 169
The concurrence by three Justices (as opposed to that of Justice Barrett) in Trump v. Anderson concurs only in the judgment. We look at different types of concurrences and why a Justice might choose one type or the other; and as for this one, we find much to dissent with. We dissect the arguments and now with the benefit of a week since the opinion, we “slow it down” and take you carefully through the logic and illogic we find. Can we locate common ground among justices who claim to be unanimous...
Mar 13, 2024•1 hr 17 min•Season 4Ep. 168
The Court has ruled in Trump v. Anderson, and a strange day it was. An announcement on a Sunday of opinion on Monday; no justices present; metadata weirdness, and worst of all, a unanimous opinion that is unanimously wrong. Concurrences that are dissents. A nearly 250 year old electoral college system that somehow escaped the Justices. Notorious cases cited with approval. The opinion is a veritable patchwork of error. The autopsy begins.
Mar 06, 2024•1 hr 33 min•Season 4Ep. 167
We’re back, and still waiting for the opinion in Trump v. Anderson, which gives us a chance to highlight important new evidence that has come to light - thanks in large part to Professor Amar’s great law student team. It fatally undermines what seemed likely to be the reasoning the opinion was going to take. Will it matter? This is related to the role amici play in the Court ecosystem, and we look at how another case we had a brief in, Moore v. US, seemed to be possibly influenced by our brief b...
Feb 28, 2024•1 hr 4 min•Season 4Ep. 166
