We the People

This week the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trump v. United States, a case that asks whether the former president is immune from criminal prosecution for conduct that occurred during his tenure in office. In this episode, Professor John Yoo of Berkeley Law School and Smita Ghosh of the Constitutional Accountability Center join Jeffrey Rosen to preview the arguments in the case, review the founders’ views on executive immunity, and discuss how the Court might decide this crucial case.    Resources:  Trump v. United States (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) Constitutional Accountability Center, Smita Ghosh, et al, Brief of Scholars of Constitutional Law in Support of Respondents, Trump v. United States  Smita Ghosh, “The Founding Fathers Didn’t Think Trump Should Get Immunity Either,” Newsweek, Feb 8, 2024   John Yoo, “The Trump Immunity Case is Weak—But He Doesn’t Need it to Prevail,” Newsweek, Mar 6, 2024   Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)  Blassingame v. Trump (D.C. Cir. 2023)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Michael Gerhardt, author of the new book FDR’s Mentors: Navigating the Path to Greatness, and Andrew Busch, author of Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right, join Jeffrey Rosen to explore the pivotal elections of 1932 and 1980. They compare the transformative presidencies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, and trace how founding-era debates between Hamilton and Jefferson over the scope of federal and executive power re-emerged during the New Deal and Reagan Revolution. This program originally streamed live on April 16, 2024.    Resources:  Michael J. Gerhardt, FDR’s Mentors: Navigating the Path to Greatness (2024)  Andrew E. Busch, Ronald Reagan and the Politics of Freedom (2001)  Andrew E. Busch, Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right (2005)  Andrew E. Busch, The Constitution on the Campaign Trail: The Surprising Political Career of America’s Founding Document (2007)  Friedrich Hayek, “The Road to Serfdom,” Teaching American History (May 21, 2020)  Ronald Reagan, Remarks to Commonwealth Club members on March 4, 1983, Reagan Library (July 19, 2018)  Franklin D. Roosevelt, Undelivered Address Prepared for Jefferson Day, The American Presidency Project    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

In this episode of We the People, Jeffrey Rosen has a special one-on-one conversation with the historian Allen Guelzo on his new book Our Ancient Faith: Lincoln, Democracy, and the American Experiment. They discuss Lincoln’s powerful vision of democracy, revisit his approach to tackling slavery and preserving the Union, and explain how Lincoln remains relevant as a political thinker today.  Resources Allen Guelzo, Our Ancient Faith: Lincoln, Democracy, and the American Experiment (2024)   “Lincoln’s Speeches and the Refounding of America,” NCC America’s Town Hall program (Nov. 2021)  William H. Herndon, Herndon on Lincoln: Letters (2016)  Abraham Lincoln, “Speech to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield,” (1838)     Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

On November 7, 2023, historians Carol Berkin, author of A Sovereign People: The Crises of the 1790s and the Birth of American Nationalism, and H.W. Brands, author of Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and the Brawling Birth of American Politics, joined Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation on political partisanship and nationalism in early America, and how, despite the founders’ fear of factionalism, deep partisan divisions emerged almost immediately after the Revolution. They discuss the election of 1800, the first hotly contested partisan election in American history, and trace the history of American partisanship to the present day.     Resources:  H.W. Brands, Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and the Brawling Birth of American Politics (2023)  Carol Berkin, A Sovereign People: The Crises of the 1790s and the Birth of American Nationalism (2017)  “Genet Affair,” Mount Vernon   The Alien and Sedition Acts, NCC Founders’ Library  Virginia Resolutions, NCC Founders’ Library  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

On Thursday March 28 at the NCC, Jeffrey Rosen sat down with Justice Stephen Breyer to discuss his new book, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism. Justice Breyer deconstructs the textualist philosophy of the current Supreme Court’s majority and makes the case for a better way to interpret the Constitution based on pragmatism.   Resources Justice Stephen Breyer, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism (2024)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri and NRA v. Vullo—two cases in which government officials allegedly pressured private companies to target disfavored viewpoints. Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute and David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation join Jeffrey Rosen to break down both cases. Together they discuss the state action doctrine, explore the line between coercion and persuasion, and interrogate the tension between government speech and private speech.    Resources:  Murthy v. Missouri (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript)  NRA v. Vullo (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript)  Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963)  Alex Abdo, Brief in Support of Neither Party, Murthy v. Missouri  David Greene, Brief in Support of Neither Party, Murthy v. Missouri  David Greene and Karen Gullo, “Lawmakers: Ban TikTok to Stop Election Misinformation! Same Lawmakers: Restrict How Government Addresses Election Misinformation!,” EFF (March 15, 2024)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Three political scientists join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss democratic instability, backsliding, and demagogues from a historical and global perspective. Guests included Harvard’s Steven Levitsky, author of Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point, the University of Texas-Austin’s Kurt Weyland, author of Democracy’s Resilience to Populism’s Threat, and Princeton University’s Frances Lee. This program originally aired on November 27, 2023. Resources:  Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point  Frances Lee, “Populism and the American Party System: Opportunities and Constraints”  Kurt Weyland, Democracy’s Resilience to Populism's Threat: Countering Global Alarmism  Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

On Monday March 4th, the Supreme Court reversed Colorado’s decision to remove President Trump from the ballot. The Court unanimously held that individual states cannot bar insurrectionists from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Five Justices went further, ruling that Congress alone may enforce Section 3. In this episode, constitutional scholars Mark Graber of the University of Maryland Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the Court’s 9-0 decision to avoid a chaotic “patchwork” of state-level ballot eligibility decisions and the 5-4 majority’s view that Section 3 requires Congress to act before an insurrectionist may be disqualified from office. Resources: Trump v. Anderson (2024) Mark Graber, “Trump’s apologists say it doesn’t matter if he’s guilty of insurrection. That’s not true”, The Guardian, (March 5, 2024) Mark Graber, The Forgotten Fourteenth Amendment: Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty (2023)  Michael McConnell, “Is Donald Trump Disqualified from the Presidency? A Response to Matthew J. Franck”, Public Discourse, (Jan. 18, 2024) Prof. Michael McConnell, Responding About the Fourteenth Amendment, “Insurrection,” and Trump, Volokh Conspiracy, (Aug. 2023)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, which involved challenges to attempts by Texas and Florida to prevent social media sites from banning viewpoint discrimination. The challenges were brought by NetChoice, which argues that the laws’ content-moderation restrictions and must-carry provisions violate the First Amendment. The case could determine the future of our most important platforms, from Facebook to X to YouTube. Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute and Larry Lessig of Harvard Law School recap the key issues in both cases; discuss the ideas raised in oral arguments; and preview the wide-ranging impacts these cases may bring.     Resources:  Moody v. NetChoice (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript)  NetChoice v. Paxton (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript)  Larry Lessig, Amicus Brief in Support of Respondents  Alex Abdo, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party  Lochner v. New York (1905)  PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980)  Zauderer v. Office of Disc. Counsel (1985)  Rumsfeld v. FAIR (2006)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

On Presidents Day 2024, NCC President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen launched his new book at the NCC in conversation with Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic. They discuss The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America. This program was recorded live on February 19, 2024, and presented in partnership with The Atlantic.  Resources:  Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024)  Cicero, The Tusculan Disputations  (ca. 45 BC)  The Quill Project   The King James Bible (1611)  Pythagoras, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy   The Webster-Hayne Debates   Trump v. Anderson  “Should President Trump Be Allowed on the 2024 Ballot?,” We the People podcast (Jan. 11, 2024)  “Rhetoric of Freedom,” The Atlantic (Sept. 1999)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Jeffrey Rosen talks about his new book, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America, followed by a panel discussion on the influence of classical writers and thinkers on the founding generation. Panelists include University of Chicago Professor Eric Slauter, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist George Will; and Melody Barnes, executive director of UVA’s Karsh Institute of Democracy. This program was recorded live on February 9, 2024.   Resources:  Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024)  Cicero, The Tusculan Disputations   Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics   Melody Barnes, et al, ed., Community Wealth Building and the Reconstruction of American Democracy (2020)  Karsh Institute of Democracy, University of Virginia    Eric Slauter, The State as a Work of Art: The Cultural Origins of the Constitution (2009)  Thomas Jefferson’s Recommended Reading   George Will, Statecraft as Soulcraft: What Government Does (1984)  George Will, The Conservative Sensibility (2019)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

In this week’s episode, we are sharing audio from a program hosted live from Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and presented in partnership with ASU’s Center for Constitution Design. The program centered around a discussion of the National Constitution Center’s landmark Constitution Drafting Project, and featured members from each project team— Georgetown Law’s Caroline Fredrickson of Team Progressive, the Goldwater Institute’s Timothy Sandefur of Team Libertarian, and ASU’s Ilan Wurman of Team Conservative. They discuss their approaches to constitution drafting, review points of consensus and disagreement, and reflect on the importance of cross-partisan dialogue in today’s constitutional environment. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was presented live on February 1, 2024.  Resources:  National Constitution Center, Constitution Drafting Project  National Constitution Center, Constitution Drafting Project, “The Proposed Amendments” (PDF)  Center for Constitutional Design at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, 2024 Model Constitutional Convention  NCC America’s Town Hall program, Justice Stephen Breyer on the Importance of Civics Education (Oct. 6, 2022)  Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024)  Erwin Chemerinsky, We the People: A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century (2018)  The Preamble to the Constitution  The Declaration of Independence  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Called “a degenerate son of science” by Thomas Jefferson and a “bungling lawgiver” by James Madison, Scottish philosopher David Hume was cited so often at the Constitutional Convention that delegates seemed to have committed his essays to memory. In this episode, we are sharing audio from a recent America’s Town Hall program featuring Angela Coventry, author of Hume: A Guide for the Perplexed; Dennis Rasmussen, author of The Infidel and the Professor: David Hume, Adam Smith, and the Friendship That Shaped Modern Thought; and Aaron Alexander Zubia, author of The Political Thought of David Hume, who discuss Hume’s philosophical legacy and its profound impact on the shaping of America. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was streamed live on January 29, 2024.  Resources:  Angela Coventry, ed., A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects  Dennis Rasmussen, The Infidel and the Professor: David Hume, Adam Smith, and the Friendship That Shaped Modern Thought  Aaron Alexander Zubia, The Political Thought of David Hume: The Origins of Liberalism and the Modern Political Imagination  National Constitution Center Town Hall program, Montesquieu and the Constitution  Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024)  Hume Texts Online, https://davidhume.org/  Federalist No. 10  Alexander Hamilton, The Continentalist  Federalist No. 85  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Several recent cases before the Supreme Court have raised important questions at the intersection of technology and law. In this episode, Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute, Clay Calvert of the American Enterprise Institute, and David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, join Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation exploring key tech cases, including Netchoice v Paxton, Murthy v. Missouri, Lindke v. Freed, and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier. This program was streamed live on January 16, 2024.  Resources:  Knight Institute amicus brief (in support of neither party) Moody v. NetChoice & NetChoice v. Paxton  Clay Calvert, “Friends of the Court, Friends of the First Amendment: Exploring Amicus Brief Support for Platforms’ Editorial Independence,” AEI (Dec. 22, 2023)  Knight Institute amicus brief in Murthy v. Missouri (in support of neither party)  Clay Calvert, “Persuasion or Coercion? Understanding the Government’s Position in Murthy v. Missouri, Part I,” AEI (Jan. 8, 2024)  David Greene, “In Jawboning Cases, there’s no getting away from textual analysis,” Knight First Amendment Institute (Nov. 7, 2023)  David Greene, EFF Amicus Brief in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed (in support of Lindke and Garnier)  Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo (1974)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

On January 17, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce—two cases that ask whether the Court should overturn the landmark Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council case. In this episode, guests Christopher Walker of Michigan Law School and Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institue join to recap the arguments in both cases and to explore the future of Chevron and the administrative state. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   Resources: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript)  Relentless v. Department of Commerce (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript)  Christopher Walker, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo   Timothy Sandefur, Amicus Brief of Goldwater Institute in Support of Petitioners, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo   Chevron U.S.A. Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State determined that President Trump “engaged in an insurrection” after taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and that he is therefore disqualified from serving as president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In this episode, professors Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston and Gerard Magliocca of the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law dive into the meaning and purpose of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the arguments for and against Trump’s eligibility to run for a second term this fall. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   Resources:  Jeffrey Rosen, “The Supreme Court’s Election Dilemma,” WSJ (Jan. 5, 2024)  Gerard Magliocca, “Background as Foreground: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and January Sixth,” (Dec. 21, 2022)  Gerard Magliocca, “Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” (July 20, 2021)  Gerard Magliocca, “What the Supreme Court Should Not Do in Trump’s Disqualification Case,” NY Times (Jan. 5, 2024)   Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section Three,” (Sept. 19, 2023)   Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Is the President an ‘Officer of the United States’ for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?” (Dec. 20, 2021)   Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, Amicus Brief in Support of Trump in Trump v. Anderson  Griffin’s Case (1869)   The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)   Bradwell v. Illinois (1873)   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

In this episode: The Espionage Act of 1917, one of the most contentious statutes relating to the First Amendment, is back in the news following the indictment of President Donald Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents. What is the Espionage Act and how has it been used over time? Legal scholar Heidi Kitrosser, author of Reclaiming Accountability: Transparency, Executive Power, and the U.S. Constitution, and political historian Sam Lebovic, author of State of Silence: The Espionage Act and the Rise of America’s Secrecy Regime, explore the origins, history, and constitutional legacy of this World War I-era law. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was streamed live on December 4, 2023.   Resources: ·      Sam Lebovic, State of Silence: The Espionage Act and the Rise of America's Secrecy Regime ·      Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 (1917-1918) ·      Defense Secrets Act of 1911 ·      The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) ·      Schenck v. United States (1919) ·      Heidi Kitrosser, Reclaiming Accountability: Transparency, Executive Power, and the U.S. Constitution ·      Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1941) ·      Heidi Kitrosser and David Schulz, “A House Built on Sand: The Constitutional Infirmity of Espionage Act Prosecutions for Leaking to the Press” ·      United States v. Morison (4th Cir. 1988) ·      Heidi Kitrosser, “The Espionage Act After the Mar-a-Lago Indictment,” Lawfare ·      United States v. Morison (4th Cir. 1988)     Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

In this episode, Joyce Lee Malcolm, author of The Times That Try Men’s Souls: The Adams, the Quincys, and the Families Divided by the American Revolution—and How They Shaped a New Nation, and Eli Merritt, author of Disunion Among Ourselves: The Perilous Politics of the American Revolution, explore the origins and clashing ideologies during the American Revolution, how loyalists and patriots feared civil war, and how the founders’ fears of demaguges influenced their approach to constitutional design and politics. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was streamed live on December 13, 2023.   Resources: Eli Merritt, Disunion Among Ourselves: The Perilous Politics of the American Revolution Joyce Lee Malcolm, The Times That Try Men's Souls: The Adams, the Quincys, and the Battle for Loyalty in the American Revolution The Declaration of Independence Eli Merrit, "Why demagogues were the Founding Fathers' greatest fear," LA Times   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

In this episode, Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, talks with C-SPAN’s Peter Slen about the life and career of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The conversation is part of C-SPAN’s Books That Shaped America series, which explores key works from American history that have had a major impact on society. This discussion features Holmes’ The Common Law, written in 1881. You can find all segments from the C-SPAN series at c-span.org/booksthatshapedamerica.   Resources: Oliver Wendell Holmes, “The Common Law,” (1881)   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

In this episode, Robert Post, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law School, delves into his newly released and highly anticipated volumes from the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court, The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921–1930. Post explores the history of the Taft Court and the contrasting constitutional approaches among its justices, including Chief Justice Taft, Louis Brandeis, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and the infamous James McReynolds. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was originally streamed live as part of our America’s Town Hall series on December 11, 2023.   Resources:  Robert Post, The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921–1930  Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)  Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Ind. Relations, 262 U.S. 522 (1923)  Whitney v. California (1927)  Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)  Gitlow v. New York (1925)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.     Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

On Tuesday, December 4, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Moore v. United States. The case concerns a challenge to the “mandatory repatriation tax,” and asks whether the Constitution allows Congress to tax American shareholders for the unrealized earnings of a foreign corporation. In this episode, Akhil Amar of Yale Law School and Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute join Jeffrey Rosen to break down the arguments on both sides of the case. The conversation touches on the history of taxation in the Founding era, the extent of Congressional power, and the very meaning of the word “taxation.”   Resources: Anastasia Boden, Amicus Brief for Petitioners, Moore v. United States Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar, Amicus Brief for Respondents, Moore v. United States   Moore v. United States (oral argument via C-SPAN) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

On Wednesday, November 29, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. The case involves three constitutional challenges to the agency, involving the right to a jury trial; the nondelegation doctrine; and the scope of executive power. In this episode, Noah Rosenblum, assistant professor of law at NYU, and Ilan Wurman, assistant professor at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, join Jeffrey Rosen to break down the arguments in the case, which pits the federal regulatory agency against a hedge fund manager charged with securities violations. They break down the constitutional claims at play, and discuss how the case could affect the future of the SEC and the modern administrative state as we know it.    Resources:  SEC v. Jarkesy (oral argument via CSPAN; transcript)  Noah Rosenblum, “The Case That Could Destroy the Government,” The Atlantic (Nov. 27, 2023)  Ilan Wurman, Brief in Support of Neither Party, SEC v. Jarkesy   Ilan Wurman, “Nondelegation at the Founding” (Yale L.J. 2021)  Julian Davis Mortenson & Nicholas Bagley, “Delegation at the Founding,” (Columbia L.Rev. 2021)      Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Last week the Supreme Court announced that it adopted a formal code of ethics, endorsed by all nine Justices. In this episode, Professor Daniel Epps of Washington University School of Law and Professor Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law join Jeffrey Rosen to break down the Supreme Court ethics code and explore questions about how it will be applied and enforced.  Resources:   Supreme Court of the United States, Statement of the Court Regarding the Code of Conduct, Nov. 13, 2023  Daniel Epps and Will Baude, “Easy Win,” Divided Argument (podcast)   Steve Vladeck, “One and a Half Cheers for the Supreme Court,” One First substack, Nov. 16, 2023.  Steve Vladeck, “Opinion: The Supreme Court code of conduct misses this big thing,” CNN, Nov. 14, 2023   Steve Vladeck, “An Article III Inspector-General,” One First substack, Oct. 19, 2023.  Epps, Daniel and Trammell, Alan M., “The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping” (March 8, 2023). Columbia Law Review, Forthcoming.     Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Historians Ned Blackhawk and Brenda Child join for a conversation on Blackhawk’s national bestseller, The Rediscovery of America: Native Peoples and the Unmaking of U.S. History, which just won the National Book Award. They explore five centuries of U.S. history to shed light on the central role Indigenous peoples have played in shaping our nation’s narrative. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was streamed live on November 1, 2023.  Resources:   Ned Blackhawk, The Rediscovery of America: Native Peoples and the Unmaking of U.S. History   Brenda Child, Away From Home: American Indian Boarding School Experiences, 1879-2000  Brenda Child, Boarding School Seasons: American Indian Families, 1900-1940  Claudio Saunt, Unworthy Republic: The Dispossession of Native Americans and the Road to Indian Territory  Jeffrey Ostler, Surviving Genocide: Native Nations and the United States from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas  Eric Foner, The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution  Ned Blackhawk, Violence over the Land: Indians and Empires in the early American West  Brenda Child, Holding Our World Together: Ojibwe Women and the Survival of Community  Brenda Child, My Grandfather's Knocking Sticks: Ojibwe Family Life and Labor on the Reservation  Brenda Child and Brian Klopotek, Indian Subjects: Hemispheric Perspectives on the History of Indigenous Education  Michael Witgen, Seeing Red: Indigenous Land, American Expansion, and the Political Economy of Plunder in North America    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a Second Amendment case, United States v. Rahimi. This case asks whether the federal government can ban guns for people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders. In this episode, we break down the arguments in the case and explore the future of the Second Amendment. Clark Neily of the Cato Institute and Pepperdine Law Professor Jacob Charles join Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, to discuss.     Resources: United States v. Rahimi, Oral Argument (C-SPAN)  NY State Pistol and Rifle Assn. v Bruen (2021)  Judge Kavanaugh dissent, D.C. v. Heller (D.C. Cir. 2011)  Clark Neily, Brief in Support of Respondent, United States v. Rahimi   Jacob Charles (et al), Brief of Second Amendment Scholars in Support of Petitioner, United States v. Rahimi     Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases about social media and the First Amendment. The cases involve questions surrounding when and whether a public official’s social media activity constitutes state action subject to First Amendment constraints—and if so, whether they can block individuals from their social media pages. In this episode, David Cole of the ACLU and Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law join to break down the arguments in both cases, discuss the claims being made, and how the outcomes of the cases could contribute to further defining the scope of speech rights online. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.     Resources:   Lindke v. Freed, Oral Argument (CSPAN)  O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, Oral Argument (CSPAN)  Eugene Volokh, When Is Government Official's Blocking Commenter from Social Media Page "State Action"?, Volokh Conspiracy (June 2022)  David Cole / Brief of the ACLU et al in support of respondents, O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier  David Cole / Brief of ACLU et al in support of petitioner, Lindke v. Freed     Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

This week we are sharing an episode from our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. In this episode, prize-winning historians Kate Masur, author of Until Justice Be Done: America’s First Civil Rights Movement, from the Revolution to Reconstruction, and Dylan Penningroth, author of the new book Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights, explore the central role of African Americans in the struggle for justice and equality long before the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   Resources:  Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America’s First Civil Rights Movement, from the Revolution to Reconstruction (2022)  Dylan Penningroth, Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights (2023)  Article IV, Section 2: Movement Of Persons Throughout the Union, Privileges and Immunities Clause, National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution  14th Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause, National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution  Dylan Penningroth, The Claims of Kinfolk: African American Property and Community in the Nineteenth-Century South (2003)  Kate Masur, An Example for All the Land: Emancipation and the Struggle over Equality in Washington, D.C (2010)  Brief of Professors of History and Law as Amici Curia in Support of Respondents, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard and UNC    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

This week we are sharing an episode from our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. In this episode, these three leading experts on American presidents—Sidney Milkis and Barbara Perry of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, and Stephen Knott of Ashland University—warn about the increasingly demagogic nature of the presidency. Their discussion traces a historical journey, from George Washington, who governed as a neutral and unifying officeholder, to modern presidents—from Teddy Roosevelt to FDR and Woodrow Wilson onward—who fanned populist passions. They also offer solutions for how to restore the Framers’ vision of the constitutional presidency today. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.     Resources:   Stephen Knott, The Lost Soul of the American Presidency: The Decline into Demagoguery and the Prospects for Renewal (2020)  Nicholas Jacobs and Sidney Milkis, What Happened to the Vital Center?: Presidentialism, Populist Revolt, and the Fracturing of America (2022)  Michael Nelson and Barbara Perry, The Presidency: Facing Constitutional Crossroads (Miller Center Studies on the Presidency) (2021)  Stephen Knott, Coming to Terms with John F. Kennedy (2022)  Sidney Milkis, Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party, and the Transformation of American Democracy (2009)     Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

In its most recent round of redistricting, the South Carolina legislature changed the demographic of a congressional district, resulting in a number of Black voters being moved to a different district. Challengers argued that the state violated the 14th Amendment by unlawfully racially gerrymandering the district; while lawmakers countered that political, not racial, factors motivated the redistricting. Election law experts Rick Hasen of UCLA Law and Jason Torchinsky of the Holtzman Vogel law firm, join National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to break down this week’s oral arguments in the case, discuss the claims being made, and how the Court might evaluate them.  Resources: Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP (oral argument audio / transcript) Brief of Amicus Curae Nancy Mace, et al, in support of appellants (Jason Torchinsky, counsel of record) Brief of Amicus Curae the National Republican Redistricting Trust in support of appellants (Holtzman Vogel, counsel of record)  “The Supreme Court upholds the provision prohibiting racial gerrymandering,”NPR Interview with Richard Hasen (June 2023) Richard Hasen, A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy (forthcoming 2024) “Redistricting in Alabama and the Voting Rights Act—Part 2,” We the People podcast (Oct. 2022) “Recapping Allen v. Milligan: The Court Upholds Section 2 of the VRA,” We the People podcast (June 2023)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

On Tuesday, October 3, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America. Industry groups representing payday lenders brought a challenge arguing that the CFPB funding structure is unconstitutional under the Appropriations Clause. The outcome of the case could have big effects not just on the future of the CFPB itself, but on the economy, markets, and the future of the administrative state. In this episode, two leading constitutional law scholars and Supreme Court experts—Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Professor Jennifer Mascott of the Antonin Scalia Law School— join Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to recap the oral arguments in the CFPB case, what questions or issues the justices were the most focused on, and predict how the Court might rule.     Resources:  CFPB v. CFSAA (oral argument transcript)  Brianne Gorod/Constitutional Accountability Center, Amicus Brief in support of petitioners  Jennifer Mascott/Separation of Power Clinic, Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Amicus Brief of 132 members of Congress in support of respondents  Seila Law v. CFPB (2020)  Appropriations Clause, Interactive Constitution     Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

On Monday, October 2, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing cases for the 2023-24 term. It is likely to be yet another landmark term for the Court, with cases on the docket about the scope of the right to bear arms; whether Chevron will be overturned; the future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; the First Amendment and social media; and more. Adam Liptak of The New York Times and Sarah Isgur, host of Advisory Opinions, join host Jeffrey Rosen, to preview the term, discuss the major cases and how the Court might rule.    Resources:  United States v. Rahimi, SCOTUSblog Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, SCOTUSblog CFPB v. Consumer Financial Services Association, SCOTUSblog Lindke v. Freed and O’Conner-Radcliffe v Garnier, SCOTUSblog PruneYard Shopping Ctr v. Robins (1980) Murthy v. Missouri, SCOTUSBlog Sarah Isgur and David French, The Problem With “History and Tradition,” Advisory Opinions podcast (Feb. 2023) Sarah Isgur and David French, The Gobsmacking Guns Case, Advisory Opinions podcast (Nov. 2022) Adam Liptak, “Biden Asks Supreme Court to Lift Limits on Contacts With Social Media Sites,” New York Times (Sep. 2023) Adam Liptak and Glenn Thrush, “Supreme Court to Hear Major Guns Case Involving Domestic Violence,” New York Times (Jun. 2023) Adam Liptak, “Supreme Court to Decide Whether Officials Can Block Critics on Social Media,” New York Times (Apr. 2023) Adam Liptak, “Supreme Court to Take Up Case on Fate of Consumer Watchdog," New York Times (Feb. 2023) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

How did America’s founders view religious liberty? What does it mean today? And to what does the Constitution require religious exemptions from generally applicable laws? Marci Hamilton, author of God vs. the Gavel: The Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty, and Michael McConnell, co-author of Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience, join for a special Constitution Day discussion to celebrate the opening of the Center’s new First Amendment gallery. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   Resources:  National Constitution Center’s First Amendment gallery   Marci Hamilton, God vs. the Gavel: The Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty (2014)  Marci Hamilton, “‘Warped history’: How the U.S. supreme court justified gutting gay rights,”  The Guardian (Aug 23, 2023)  “Prof. Michael McConnell (Stanford) on 303 Creative (the Web Site Designer / Same-Sex Wedding Case),” Volokh Conspiracy (Dec. 2022)   Michael McConnell, Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience (2023)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

The National Constitution Center, in partnership with a coalition of leading free speech organizations, convened a National First Amendment Summit on September 13, 2023, to discuss the increasing threats to freedom of expression and to celebrate the opening of the Center’s new First Amendment gallery. The third panel of the event, “The First Amendment on Campus and Online,” examined the increasing conflicts involving free speech on campuses and online in an age of social media, artificial intelligence, and other new technologies. Speakers included Will Creeley, legal director at FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression; Jeannie Suk Gersen, professor at Harvard Law School; and Nadine Strossen, emerita professor at New York Law School and former ACLU president. The program was moderated by Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center.   Resources:  Will Creeley and Geoffrey R. Stone, Restoring Free Speech on Campus, The Washington Post (Sept. 25, 2015)    Jeannie Suk Gersen, What If Trigger Warnings Don’t Work?, The New Yorker (Sept. 28, 2021)  Jeannie Suk Gersen, The Trouble With Teaching Rape Law, The New Yorker (Dec. 15, 2014)  Jeannie Suk Gersen, Shutting Down Conversations About Rape at Harvard Law, The New Yorker (Dec 11, 2015)   Jeannie Suk Gersen, The Socratic Method in the Age of Trauma, Harvard Law Review ( 2017)  Nadine Strossen, Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oct. 2023)   Nadine Strossen, Hate: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship (2018)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

This summer, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation that would attempt to set ethics rules for the U.S. Supreme Court and a process to enforce them, including rules for transparency around recusals, gifts, and conflicts of interest. The bill, which still requires full Senate approval, is the latest in a series of proposals and attempts to reform or improve the Supreme Court in recent years. In this episode of We the People, we discuss various proposals to reform ethics rules surrounding the Supreme Court; how and whether these proposals could go into effect; and what the enforcement mechanisms could be. Law professors Daniel Hemel of NYU Law and Daniel Epps of Washington University School of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen.     Resources:  S.359 - Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023 (Sen. Whitehouse)  S.325 - Supreme Court Ethics Act (Sen. Murphy)  Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman, “The Future of Supreme Court Reform” (2021)  Daniel Hemel, “Can Structural Changes Fix the Supreme Court?” (2021)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Two constitutional law scholars—Will Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen—recently published an in-depth article arguing that President Donald Trump is disqualified for running for reelection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In this episode, law professors Mark Graber and Michael McConnell join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss what Section 3 means and how it applies to disqualification from office; whether President Trump's actions qualify as engaging in insurrection; whether or not Section 3 is self-executing and who can enforce it, and more.   Resources:  William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen, “The Sweep and Force of Section Three” (Aug. 2023)  Mark Graber, “Their Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 and Ours,” Just Security (Feb 2021)   Mark Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform After the Civil War (2023)  Michael McConnell, Responding About the Fourteenth Amendment, “Insurrection,” and Trump, Volokh Conspiracy (Aug. 2023)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Described in The Federalist as “the celebrated Montesquieu,” Charles de Montesquieu was cited more often than any other author from 1760-1800. In what ways did his writings and ideas help shape the U.S. Constitution and the structure of American government? William B. Allen of Michigan State University, Thomas Pangle of the University of Texas at Austin, Dennis Rasmussen of Syracuse University, and Diana Schaub of the American Enterprise Institute, discuss the political thought of Montesquieu and his influence on American democracy. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was originally streamed live on July 6, 2023, as part of our America’s Town Hall program series.  Resources:  Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws: A Critical Edition, ed. William B. Allen  Dennis Rasmussen, Fears of a Setting Sun: The Disillusionment of America's Founders  Diana Schaub, Erotic Liberalism: Women and Revolution in Montesquieu’s Persian Letters  Diana Schaub, “Montesquieu on the Liberty of Women,” in The Cambridge Companion to Montesquieu  Dennis Rasmussen, The Pragmatic Enlightenment: Recovering the Liberalism of Hume, Smith, Montesquieu, and Voltaire  Thomas Pangle, Montesquieu’s Philosophy of Liberalism: A Commentary on the Spirit of the Laws  Thomas Pangle, The Theological Basis of Liberal Modernity in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws  Thomas Pangle, “Considerations on the Romans,” in The Cambridge Companion to Montesquieu  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Christopher Beem, author of The Seven Democratic Virtues: What You Can Do to Overcome Tribalism and Save Our Democracy; Richard Haass, author of The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens; and Lorraine Pangle, author of Reason and Character: The Moral Foundations of Aristotelian Political Philosophy, discuss the concepts of civic virtue and citizenship in democratic societies. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was originally streamed live on March 30, 2023, as part of our America’s Town Hall series.  This program was made possible through the generous support of Citizen Travelers, the nonpartisan civic engagement initiative of Travelers. Resources: Richard Haass, The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens Christopher Beem, The Seven Democratic Virtues: What You Can Do to Overcome Tribalism and Save Our Democracy Lorraine Pangle, Reason and Character: The Moral Foundations of Aristotelian Political Philosophy Lorraine and Thomas Pangle, The Learning of Liberty: The Educational Ideas of the American Founders Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Earlier this month, President Trump was indicted in federal court in Washington, D.C. for conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential elections. Judge J. Michael Luttig joins Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation about the constitutional and historical questions raised by the indictment. Resources:  Jeffrey Rosen, “The Founders Anticipated the Threat of Trump,” Wall Street Journal (Aug. 4, 2023)  “Former federal judge J. Michael Luttig on Jan. 6 indictment and American democracy,” Washington Post (Aug. 9, 2023)  Indictment, United States of America v. Donald Trump, Department of Justice (Aug. 1, 2023)  “How to Prevent Another January 6th,” We the People podcast (June 16, 2022)  “The Mob, the Capitol, and the Constitution” We the People podcast (Jan. 7, 2021)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.     Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.     You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

In this episode, a panel of libertarian and conservative scholars—J. Joel Alicea of the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute, and Sherif Girgis of Notre Dame Law School—explore the different strands of originalism as a constitutional methodology. They also explore the Roberts Court’s application of originalism in recent cases, and how originalism intersects with textualism and other interpretive approaches. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was originally streamed live on June 28, 2023.    Additional Resources  Moore v. Harper (2023)  New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2023)  Grutter v. Bollinger (2002)  District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)  Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)  Counterman v. Colorado (2023)   J. Joel Alicea, “The Moral Authority of Original Meaning,” Notre Dame Law Review (2022)   Joel Alicea, “Originalism and the Rule of the Dead,” National Affairs (2022)  Sherif Girgis,  “Living Traditionalism,” N.Y.U. L.Rev (2023)  Sherif Gergis, “Dobb's History and the future of Abortion Laws,” SCOTUSblog (2022)  Anastasia Boden, “Supreme Court's Sidestep Leaves Native Kids Without Answers,” Volokh Conspiracy (June 2023)  Anastasia Boden, “Discourse: Irrational Basis,” Pacific Legal Foundation, (August 2022)    Stay Connected and Learn More  Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

David Waldstreicher’s The Odyssey of Phillis Wheatley: A Poet’s Journeys Through American Slavery and Independence offers the fullest account to date of Wheatley’s life and works. Seized in West Africa and forced into slavery as a child, Wheatley became a noted poet at a young age. She is considered the first African American author to publish a book of poetry and had a lasting influence on the Founding generation as well as generations to come. In this episode of We the People, David Waldstreicher of CUNY and Nancy Isenberg of Louisiana State University join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss Wheatley’s life and towering poetic legacy.  Resources: David Waldstreicher, The Odyssey of Phillis Wheatley: A Poet’s Journeys Through American Slavery and Independence (2023) Nancy Isenberg, Sex and Citizenship in Antebellum America (1998) Phillis Wheatley, Letter to Reverend Samuel Occum (1774) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

This past term, the Supreme Court handed down two major decisions about Native American law. In Arizona v. Navajo Nation, the Court ruled 5-4 that a treaty did not require the U.S. Government to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Navajo Nation; and in Haaland v. Brackeen, the Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). In this episode, Native American law experts Professor Marcia Zug of the University of South Carolina Law School and Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute join to help unpack these key Native American law cases. They also dive more deeply into one specific member of the Court—Justice Neil Gorsuch—and his unique stance toward how the Constitution applies to issues relating to Native American tribes—from his dissent in Haaland, to his majority opinion in the McGirt v. Oklahoma case from 2020, and more. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Resources: Arizona v. Navajo Nation (2023) Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) Marcia Zug, “ICWA’s Irony”, American Indian Law Review (2021) Tim Sandefur, Brief Amici Curiae of Goldwater Institute in Support of State of Texas and Brackeen, Haaland v. Brackeen Adam Liptak, “Justice Neil Gorsuch Is a Committed Defender of Tribal Rights”, The New York Times (June 15, 2023) John Dossett, “Justice Gorsuch and Federal Indian Law”, American Bar Association (Sept. 1, 2017) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

In a 6-3 ruling at the end of the 2022-23 term, the Supreme Court handed down a major First Amendment decision about the intersection of free expression rights and anti-discrimination laws in 303 Creative v. Elenis. The Court held that Colorado could not force a website designer to design a site and create expressive designs that she disagreed with, which included creating a website for same-sex marriages. In this episode, host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by ACLU National Legal Director David Cole and New York Times opinion columnist David French to break down the 303 Creative decision, as well as review the 2022-23 term as a whole, other key decisions from this past year, and where the Court is headed next.   Resources:    303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)   ACLU (David Cole as Counsel of Record), “Brief for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado in Support of Respondents”, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis  David Cole, “The Supreme Court Picks its Battles” The New York Review (July 4, 2023)  David Cole, ACLU, “Supreme Court Term in Review: Reconciling Our Losses and Wins” July 6, 2023  David French, “Brief of 15 Family Policy Organizations as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners”, 303 Creative LCC v. Elenis  David French, The New York Times “How Christians and Drag Queens Are Defending the First Amendment” (June 30, 2023)  David French, “Harvard Undermined Itself on Affirmative Action,” New York Times (June 29, 2023)  David French, “The Supreme Court Just Helped Save American Democracy from Trumpism,” New York Times (June 27, 2023)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

In a special Independence Day episode, scholars Akhil Amar of Yale Law School and Peter Onuf of the University of Virginia join host Jeffrey Rosen for a discussion on the historical legacy of founding father Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president and principal author of the Declaration of Independence. In a National Constitution Center event a few months ago, Professor Amar announced his intention to “break up with” Thomas Jefferson; and in this episode of We the People, we explore why he’s decided to break up with Jefferson—including his actions and views on slavery—and what aspects of Jefferson's legacy deserve defense. Professors Amar and Onuf also explore the positive and negative aspects of his legacy and influence on the country, as well as recommendations on how to understand and study Jefferson today.   Resources: Akhil Amar, The Words That Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840 (2021) Peter Onuf, The Mind of Thomas Jefferson (2007) Peter Onuf and Annette Gordon-Reed, “Most Blessed of the Patriarchs”: Thomas Jefferson and the Empire of the Imagination (2017) Peter Onuf, Jefferson and the Virginians: Democracy, Constitutions, and Empire (2018) Should We Break up with the Founders?, We the People episode (April 2023) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

This week, NCC President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen moderated a panel live from the Aspen Ideas Festival featuring three of America’s leading legal scholars: former deputy solicitor general and Georgetown Law Professor Neal Katyal, Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan, and Clark Neily of the Cato Institute. During the program, they discussed the major decisions from the Supreme Court’s most recent term, including Allen v. Milligan, in which the Court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; Moore v Harper, where the Court rejected the independent state legislature theory; Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, in which the Court struck down affirmative action programs in higher education as violating equal protection; and more.  Resources: Aspen Ideas Festival 2023: Supreme Court Review Moore v. Harper (2023) Allen v. Milligan (2023) Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

This week, the Supreme Court handed down a major decision relating to elections in America in the Moore v. Harper case. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court rejected the independent state legislature theory, finding that the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures exclusive power over elections, and upholding the power of judicial review in electoral cases, including redistricting decisions. In this episode of We the People, guests Judge Michael Luttig and Professor Evan Bernick join to break down the Moore decision – including why the Court decided to reject the independent state legislature theory; why conservative Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented; and what this means for the future of judicial review of election laws. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Resources: Moore v. Harper (2023) Judge Michael Luttig, “The Court Is Likely to Reject the Independent State Legislature Theory: And that offers hope for American democracy”, The Atlantic, April 13, 2023 Judge Michael Luttig, “There Is Absolutely Nothing to Support the ‘Independent State Legislature’ Theory”, The Atlantic, October 3, 2022 J. Michael Luttig, et al, Brief for Non-State Respondents, Moore v. Harper  Brief of Professor Evan Bernick in support of respondents in Harper v. Moore Check out previous We the People episodes on the Moore v. Harper case: Part 1 (March 2022) and Part 2 from (July 2022), and Part 3 (Dec. 2022) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court handed down a major voting rights decision in the Allen v. Milligan case. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and found that Alabama’s 2022 congressional map likely violated Section 2. This comes as a surprising victory for voting rights and the Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) test after a series of other Supreme Court cases that have narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act, including the Brnovich v. DNC case in 2021 and Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. The decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh along with the liberal justices. In this episode, Jason Torchinsky of Holtzman Vogel and Rick Hasen of UCLA School of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to break down the Allen decision; discuss why Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh voted with the liberal justices to uphold the Gingles framework; what other conservative justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wrote in dissent; and what this means for redistricting and voting rights in 2024 and beyond.  Resources: Allen v. Milligan (June 2023) Jason Torchinsky, Amicus Brief on Behalf of the National Republican Redistricting Trust Rick Hasen, “John Roberts Throws a Curveball,” NYT (June 8, 2023) Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (1965)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Last week, former President Donald Trump was indicted by the U.S. government for allegedly retaining, mishandling, and concealing classified documents after he left office. Charged with 37 criminal counts—including many that stem from the Espionage Act—Trump appeared in a Miami federal court on Tuesday and pled not guilty to the charges brought against him. In this episode, legal experts Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School and Jamil Jaffer of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University join to break down the legal and constitutional significance of the federal indictment. They also discuss potential outcomes of the prosecution, including effects on the upcoming 2024 presidential election; how these charges intersect with other charges being brought against President Trump in other courts including charges brought by the Manhattan district attorney in New York for allegedly falsifying business documents; how other countries around the world deal with heads of state who have been charged with breaking national and international laws; and how the decision to prosecute a president affects rule of law and the future of constitutional democracy.  Resources: United States v. Donald Trump and Waltine Nauta (indictment) Espionage Act: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) The Presidential Records Act (PRA) Oona Hathaway, “What Donald Trump and Reality Winner Have in Common” NY Times, June 11, 2023  Oona Hathaway on Classification of Government Documents, Washington Journal Interview, January 24, 2023 Jamil Jaffer, on “The Lead with Jake Tapper”, June 12th, 2023, Complete Transcript Scott Bomboy, “The question of president immunity back in the spotlight” National Constitution Center, July 24, 2017 Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

As ChatGPT and other generative AI platforms have taken off, they’ve demonstrated exciting possibilities about the potential benefits of artificial intelligence; while at the same time, have raised a myriad of open questions and complexities, from how to regulate the pace of AI’s growth, to whether AI companies can be held liable for any misinformation reported or generated through the platforms. Earlier this week, the first ever AI defamation lawsuit was filed, by a Georgia radio host who claims that ChatGPT falsely accused him of embezzling money. The case presents new and never-before answered legal questions, including what happens if AI reports false and damaging information about a real person? Should that person be able to sue the AI’s creator for defamation? In this episode two leading First Amendment scholars—Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law and Lyrissa Lidsky of the University of Florida Law School—join to explore the emerging legal issues surrounding artificial intelligence and the First Amendment. They discuss whether AI has constitutional rights; who if anyone can be sued when AI makes up or mistakes information; whether artificial intelligence might lead to new doctrines regarding regulation of online speech; and more.  Resources: Eugene Volokh, Volokh Conspiracy, “First (?) Libel-by-AI (ChatGPT) Lawsuit Filed” (June 6, 2023) Walters v. OpenAI L.L.C., No. 23-A-04860-2 Eugene Volokh, Large Libel Models? Liability for AI Output Eugene Volokh, Volokh Conspiracy, “The Great Success of Artificial Intelligence” (June 7, 2023) Lyrissa Lidsky, “Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Discourse in Cyberspace”, Duke Law Journal (2000) Lyrissa Lidsky, “Of Reasonable Readers and Unreasonable Speakers: Libel Law in a Networked World” (2016) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Earlier this year, the National Constitution Center hosted an event in Miami, Florida, featuring a series of meaningful conversations about the Constitution with speakers of diverse perspectives. In this episode, we’re sharing one of those programs with you: A conversation with four leading constitutional experts about the NCC’s Constitution Drafting Project, the amendment process, Article V, and the future of constitutional reform. The four scholars are: Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, Caroline Fredrickson of Georgetown Law, David French of the New York Times, and Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Additional Resources National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

The Supreme Court’s “shadow docket”—cases in which the Court issues emergency orders and summary decisions without oral argument—has been subject to growing scrutiny. Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak of The New York Times and Jennifer Mascott of the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School join Stephen Vladeck of The University of Texas School of Law for a conversation on Vladeck’s new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic, exploring the history and role of the shadow docket and the current debates surrounding the Court’s emergency rulings. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Additional Resources Stephen Vladeck, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic  Stephen Vladeck, “Texas’s Unconstitutional Abortion Ban and the Role of the Shadow Docket,” Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee  National Constitution Center, “The Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket’,” We the People podcast  Jennifer Mascott, “Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court’s Orders Docket,” George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper  Adam Liptak, “Alito Responds to Critics of the Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket,” The New York Times   Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

The National Constitution Center and Khan Academy are partnering to create a free online Constitution 101 course premised on a simple, radical act: bringing together genuine experts who genuinely disagree about the most important constitutional issues facing our nation today; and use their examples to model thoughtful, respectful civil dialogue. In this special episode of We the People, host Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Khan Academy founder and CEO Sal Khan, in a one-on-one conversation to discuss the state of civics in America today, in light of the recent Nation’s Report Card data showing a nationwide decline in civics and history scores; explain how the NCC and Khan Academy partnership and the Constitution 101 course can improve outcomes in civics education nationwide; the role of AI like Khanmigo in education and teaching about the Constitution and civil dialogue; and much more.  Resources: Jeffrey Rosen and Sal Khan, TIME, “How We Can Repair Our Democracy and Build a More Perfect Union” NCC/Khan Academy partnership announcement, press release National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Report Card NCC’s Constitution 101 course  Sal Khan, TED Talk, “How AI could save (not destroy) education” Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently weighing two cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina that could end affirmative action in higher education. The National Constitution Center hosted a live program on May 4, 2023, featuring a conversation between constitutional law experts William B. Allen of Michigan State University and Hasan Kwame Jeffries of The Ohio State University. They discuss the history of affirmative action, the current cases before the Court, how the Court might rule in them, and how the outcome of the two cases could affect the future of affirmative action programs across the country. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Resources: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (Oral Argument Transcript; audio hosted by C-SPAN) Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (Oral Argument Transcript; audio hosted by C-SPAN) William B. Allen, “End of Affirmative Action 2023”   Interview with Hasan Kwame Jeffries, “Why Conservatives want the Supreme Court to take up Affirmative Action Case,” Yahoo!News   National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 1,” We the People podcast   National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 2,” We the People podcast   Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)   Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)   Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)   Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) Slaughter-House Cases (1873) Shelby County v. Holder (2013) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Last year's Supreme Court term was one of the most significant in recent history with landmark decisions and cases about abortion, guns, religious liberty, the administrative state, and more. In this episode, veteran Supreme Court reporter and CNN Legal Analyst, Joan Biskupic, joins to unpack these recent developments and to discuss her new book, Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and its Historic Consequences. She and host Jeffrey Rosen have a reporter's chat and compare notes to discuss the evolution of the Court over the past 30 years, from the Reagan years through the Rehnquist Court, up to the Robert’s Court and what lies ahead.    Resources:   -       Joan Biskupic, Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and its Historic Consequences (2023) -       Jeffrey Rosen, “Big Chief,” The New Republic (July 2012) -       Jeffrey Rosen, “Disgrace,” The New Republic (Dec. 23, 2004)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, atbit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard a case about a Colorado man, Billy Ray Counterman, who was sentenced to over four years in prison for stalking due to threatening Facebook messages that he sent to a singer named C.W. Counterman argued that the charges violated his speech rights and that his messages were not “true threats,” which is a kind of speech not protected under the First Amendment. The issue in the case is whether or not his messages actually constituted under “true threats” (or if conduct like stalking should be distinguished); and if so, how should courts determine what a “true threat” is? In this episode, we dive into the facts and issues in the Counterman v. Colorado case, the history of “true threats” doctrine under the First Amendment, and recap the oral arguments, including whether the justices might decide that “true threats” should be determined by an objective test, such as if a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence; or whether they might find that it depends on the speaker’s specific intent. Genevieve Lakier of the University of Chicago and Gabe Walters of FIRE join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss.  Resources: Brief of Amicus Curiae Foundation for Individuals Rights and Expression in Support of Petitioner and Reversal, Counterman v. Colorado  Brief of First Amendment Scholars Evelyn Douek, Genevieve Lakier, and Eugene Volokh in Support of Respondent, Counterman v. Colorado  Oral argument in Counterman v. Colorado, April 19, 2023 (Audio by C-SPAN; transcript) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Earlier this year, the National Constitution Center hosted an event in Miami, Florida, featuring a series of meaningful conversations about the Constitution with speakers of diverse perspectives. In this episode, we’re sharing one of those conversations with you. During an evening keynote program, five great constitutional experts were asked an important question: Should we break up with the founders? In other words, should we still look to the drafters of the Declaration and Constitution—from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison to George Washington—despite their moral and philosophical hypocrisies, such as ownership of enslaved people, or do they still have something to teach us? And was the original Constitution a flawed but meaningful attempt to realize the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, one made more perfect by Reconstruction—or is the original Constitution so fatally flawed by the original sin of slavery that it does not deserve respect? The five scholars you’ll hear discuss and debate this question are: Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, Caroline Fredrickson of Georgetown Law, Kermit Roosevelt of Penn Law, Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times, and Charles Cooke of the National Review. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Resources: Kermit Roosevelt III, The Nation That Never Was: Reconstructing America’s Story (2022) Akhil Reed Amar, The Words That Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation, 1760–1840 (2021) Caroline Fredrickson, “A Constitution of Our Own Making,” Washington Monthly (2021) Jamelle Bouie, “We Had to Force the Constitution to Accommodate Democracy, and It Shows” New York Times (Oct. 2022) Charles C. W. Cooke, National Review, “America’s Founding Changed Human History Forever” (July 4, 2016) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Last Friday, judges in Texas and Washington state handed down conflicting decisions on the legality of abortion medication pills. In Texas, a district judge invalidated the FDA’s decades-old approval of the widely used drug mifepristone. Late this Wednesday, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partially overruled that decision by allowing mifepristone to remain available, but temporarily prevented it from being sent to by mail and limited its approved use to the first seven weeks of pregnancy. Meanwhile, in Washington state, a district judge ordered the FDA to not rollback mifepristone’s approval while litigation over the drug is ongoing. Together, the two cases create a legal debacle for the FDA, which the Justice Department has asked the Washington court to provide guidance on. Eventually, the cases may go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thomas Jipping of The Heritage Foundation and Rachel Rebouché of the Temple University Beasley School of Law join to discuss whether mailing mifepristone violates the Comstock Act; if the FDA’s approval of the drug violated the Administrative Procedure Act; and if the district courts had jurisdiction to rule on these cases in the first place. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.   Resources   Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Washington v. FDA (E.D. Wa., Apr. 7, 2023)  Memorandum Opinion and Order, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA (N.D. TX., Apr. 7, 2023) Order, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA (5th Cir., Apr. 13, 2023) Thomas Jipping, “The Justice Department Is Wrong: Federal Law Does Prohibit Mailing Abortion Drugs,” Heritage Foundation Report (Feb. 2023) Rachel Rebouche (with David Cohen and Greer Donley), “The Plaintiffs Trying to Ban the Abortion Pill Admitted They Have No Case,” Slate (March 2023)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday, April 4, former President Donald Trump was indicted in a Manhattan court on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. President Trump pleaded not guilty. This indictment is legally and constitutionally significant as it is the first indictment of a president in American history. In this episode, David French, an opinion columnist at The New York Times and co-host of Advisory Opinions, and Kimberly Wehle, professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a legal analyst at ABC News, join to help break down the legal charges against former president Trump as well as the broader legal significance of this case. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.   Resources   “District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump,” (Apr. 4,2023)        People v. Trump, Indictment  People v. Trump, Statement of Facts David French, “What You Need to Know About the Trump Charges,” NYT (Apr. 4, 2023) Kim Wehle, “The Case Against Trump: The Charges and the Facts Behind Them,” The Bulwark (Apr. 4, 2032) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

In January 2023, the Israeli government under newly re-elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposed a series of legal reforms that set off a wave of protests and calls of a constitutional crisis. The reforms seek to empower the Israeli legislature, known as the Knesset, to override decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel as well as to control the appointment of justices to the Court, and to limit the power of the Court to review administrative acts. Large-scale rallies and protests across Israel ensued; the protestors and critics, including many lawyers and academics, argue that the reforms undermine judicial independence and threaten Israeli democracy. In this week’s episode, Professor Yuval Shany of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Professor Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago join to explain the current situation in Israel and unpack the debate over the proposed reforms; discuss the similarities and differences between the American and Israeli constitutional systems; and how and why the reforms if passed, and taken as a whole, could lead to democratic backsliding. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.   Resources   Yuval Shany and Amichai Cohen, “The Israeli President’s Plan to End the Constitutional Crisis,” Lawfare (March 27, 2023)  Yuval Shany and Amichai Cohen, “The New Israeli Government’s ‘Constitutional Law Reforms’: Why now? What do they mean? And what will happen next?,” Lawfare (Feb. 14, 2023)  “A law professor worries Israel could become the next Hungary,” Jerusalem Post (Jan. 9, 2023) Comparative Constitutions Project  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Last week, the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed to re-hear a case that found the state’s redistricting maps unconstitutional under the state’s constitution. The outcome of this decision could affect another case already before the U.S. Supreme Court, Moore v. Harper—a challenge to a decision striking down North Carolina’s redistricting that involves the “independent state legislature” doctrine. Why did the North Carolina Supreme Court strike down the maps in the first place, and why is it revisiting that decision now? Will the U.S. Supreme Court still decide the Moore case and rule on the independent state legislature theory? And what standards should be used to decide whether redistricting maps are politically gerrymandered? To discuss these questions and address the latest developments in these crucial gerrymandering cases, Misha Tseytlin of the law firm Troutman Pepper and Guy-Uriel Charles of Harvard Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen.  Resources   Moore v. Harper, (oral argument: video via C-SPAN; transcript) Amicus Brief by Misha Tsyetlin filed on behalf group of New York Voters, Moore v. Harper  Amicus Brief by Misha Tsyetlin filed on behalf of members of Congress from the North Carolina delegation, Rucho v. Common Cause  Amicus Brief by Guy-Uriel Charles and Deepak Gupta on behalf of Mathematicians, Students and Professors, Rucho v. Common Cause Gill v. Whitford (2018) Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Earlier this month, in United States v. Rahimi, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down as unconstitutional a decades-old law barring people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The ruling comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen last term, which held that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry guns outside the home. Bruen also created a new history-and-tradition test for determining whether gun-control regulations are constitutional, which has led some lower courts to now rule differently on challenges to gun laws—including the Fifth Circuit. In this episode, two scholars and experts on the Second Amendment— Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation and Adam Winkler of UCLA School of Law—join to break down the Rahimi decision, which the U.S. Supreme Court may review in a future term, and explore the new landscape of Second Amendment law after Bruen. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.   Resources   United States v. Rahimi (5th Cir. 2023) NY State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen (2022) “Senate hears about legal fallout from Supreme Court gun decision,” RollCall (Mar. 2023) “The Essential Second Amendment,” Heritage Foundation ebook  Adam Winkler, Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America (2013)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

March is women’s history month—and in commemoration of the celebration, this week we hosted a conversation exploring the story of the pursuit of women’s rights in early America. Sara Chatfield, assistant professor of political science at the University of Denver and author of Her Own Name: The Politics of Women’s Rights Before Suffrage, and Nicole Evelina, bestselling novelist, biographer, and poet, and author of America’s Forgotten Suffragists: Virginia and Francis Minor, join to explore the different aspects and dimensions of the fight for women’s rights in the 19th and 20th centuries—from economic and property rights, to women’s suffrage and the right to vote. They dig into the origins and consequences of laws guaranteeing married women’s property rights and how and why these laws changed over time, as well as the story of married couple Virginia and Francis Minor, which exemplified a partnership devoted to securing broader rights for women—from property rights to suffrage, through a case brought by the Minors that took the issue of voting rights for women to the Supreme Court for the first and only time in 1875. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Resources   Sara Chatfield, In Her Own Name: The Politics of Women’s Rights Before Suffrage (2023) Nicole Evelina, America’s Forgotten Suffragists: Virginia and Francis Minor (2023) Minor v. Happersett (1875) Emily Zackin, Looking for Rights in All the Wrong Places: Why State Constitutions Contain America's Positive Rights (2013) Chloe Thurston, At the Boundaries of Homeownership: Credit, Discrimination, and the American State (2018) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

This week the Supreme Court heard two separate legal challenges to a student loan forgiveness program proposed by the Biden administration: Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown. The plan aims to cancel up to $20,000 of student debt for low-to middle-income families, and was rolled out last August during the tail end of the COVID-19 pandemic. It relied on the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (or the HEROES Act), a law passed after 9/11 that gives the secretary of education the power to make changes to student loan programs during a national emergency. At the heart of the challenges to the plan are major questions surrounding the scope of presidential power; the doctrine of “standing”—or who can bring a lawsuit in court; and whether certain issues are of such “vast economic and political significance” that they should be left to the legislative branch and not decisions of federal agencies. William Araiza of Brooklyn Law School and Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute join to unpack the arguments on both sides of the cases. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Three decades ago, in the fledgling days of the internet, Congress amended Section V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to grant broader legal protections to websites who host information from third parties. Part of Section 230 of that law (known as the Communications Decency Act) has been referred to as “the 26 words that created the internet,” due to the burgeoning effect it had on online content as internet companies were protected from lawsuits. Two current Supreme Court cases—Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh—ask whether algorithms created by companies like Google or Twitter, which might promote and recommend terroristic or other harmful material, result in the companies being held liable for aiding and abetting the terrorists; or whether, as in the Google case, Section 230 applies to grant immunity to the platforms. In this episode, guests Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami School of Law and Kate Klonick of St. John’s University of Law School break down the arguments in each case before the court. They also discuss the history and purpose of Section 230, why Congress enacted it, and how it’s been interpreted over the years. They also look forward to how this case could impact platforms like Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter and the future of the Internet itself. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

In 1873, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling decided The Slaughterhouse Cases, which narrowly interpreted the new Privileges and Immunities Clause of the recently ratified 14th Amendment. With this year marking the 150th anniversary of the decision, we’re joined today by two leading scholars to understand what The Slaughterhouse Cases were about, and why some scholars and judges–including current Supreme Court justices like Justice Clarence Thomas–have criticized the decision and its effect on constitutional law doctrines; while others have agreed with its interpretation. Guests Kurt Lash, professor at the University of Richmond Law School, and Kermit Roosevelt, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, join to discuss the history and story of the case; what happened after it was decided; and what would happen in constitutional law today if the case was overturned. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Nelson Mandela—born in South Africa in 1918—was an international freedom fighter and Nobel Peace Prize winner who helped overturn the apartheid system of racial segregation and usher in democracy for his nation. After being convicted of sabotage and serving 27 years in prison, Mandela was released, and soon after was elected president, becoming the country's first black head of state and the first elected in a fully representative democratic election. He served as president from 1994 to 1999, overseeing the enactment of a new democratic constitution in 1996. After stepping down from power, he continued work on social justice issues. He died in Johannesburg in 2013. In this episode, Richard Stengel—former president of the National Constitution Center, and former editor of Time Magazine—joins to discuss his new podcast, Mandela: The Lost Tapes, which is available on Audible. These never-before-heard audio tapes come from Stengel’s years-long conversations with Mandela while collaborating with him on his remarkable memoir, Long Walk to Freedom. From the tapes, we learn about what democracy meant to Mandela, how his upbringing and inspirations led him to becoming a force for justice, and what lessons Mandela’s story holds for us today. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

The Public Debt Clause of the 14th Amendment states: “The Validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law …. shall not be questioned.” Recent debates—including the most recent standoff between President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy over the debt ceiling—have raised the question as to whether this clause can be invoked to overcome the crisis. In today’s episode, we drill down on why the public debt clause was written, how it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court, and how things might play out today if it were used by President Biden. Guests Pulitzer-Prize winning historian Eric Foner, author of The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution, and law professor Gerard Magliocca, author of American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment, discuss this often-overlooked section of the 14th Amendment written at the end of the Civil War. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

This January marked the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the seminal and contentious decision recognizing abortion rights, which the Supreme Court overturned last June in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In this episode, scholars Mary Ziegler, author of the new book Roe: The History of a National Obsession, and O. Carter Snead, author of What It Means to be Human: The Case for the Body in Public Bioethics, discuss the Roe decision in historical and constitutional context. They also explore how Roe v. Wade raised questions beyond abortion rights—including about the scope of the judicial role, religious liberty, the role of science in politics, and much more; and how the abortion landscape has changed since Dobbs overturned Roe. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

In honor of Martin Luther King Day, January 16, 2023, we pay tribute to Dr. King by discussing his historical legacy and constitutional and moral philosophy through his key writings, speeches, and intellectual and moral inspirations and influences. Guests Christopher Brooks, professor of history at East Stroudsburg University, and Hasan Kwame Jeffries, associate professor of history at Ohio State University, discuss some of Dr. King’s most seminal writings and speeches and talk about the key texts, ideas, and writers that influenced Dr. King’s life and work, from Christianity and the Bible, to civil rights figures like Howard Thurmond. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Read and listen to the primary texts discussed:  Dr. Martin Luther King, “Address Before the New York State Civil War Centennial Commission,” Sept. 12, 1962 (Video | Transcript | Draft) Dr. Martin Luther King, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” April 16, 1963 Dr. Martin Luther King, “I Have a Dream” speech, August 28, 1963  Dr. Martin Luther King, “Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break Silence,” April 4, 1967  Dr. Martin Luther King, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community (1967)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Last week, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California became the Speaker of the House, after 15 rounds of voting. It was the first time since 1923 that a Speaker was not elected on the first ballot. In this episode, we are joined by scholars Matthew Green, author of The Speaker of the House: A Study of Leadership, and Josh Chafetz, author of Congress’s Constitution: Legislative Authority and the Separation of Powers, to discuss the role and the history of this powerful constitutional office. They also discuss some of the most notable Speakers throughout history, from Henry Clay to Joe Cannon to Nancy Pelosi, and how their legacies helped shaped the House and Congress as we know it.  Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

In this episode, Professor Vincent Phillip Muñoz of Notre Dame Law discusses his newest book, Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses. He is joined by Professor Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School to discuss the book, what freedom of religion meant at the founding, and what it means today. They also evaluate the reasoning behind some of the Supreme Court’s major religion decisions and how they comport with history and the founders’ understandings of religious liberty. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

How did Marcus Tullius Cicero, a Roman statesman and philosopher, influence the Founding generation, the Constitution, and American political thought? Join Scott Nelson, author of Cicero, Politics, and the 21st Century; Benjamin Straumann, author of Crisis and Constitutionalism: Roman Political Thought from the Fall of the Republic to the Age of Revolution; and Caroline Winterer, author of The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American Intellectual Life, 1780-1910, for a conversation exploring the political ideas of Cicero, his impact on America, and what we can learn from him today. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

This month, we hosted a conversation about FDR and the Transformation of the Supreme Court. Legal historian Laura Kalman, author of FDR’s Gambit: The Court Packing Fight and the Rise of Legal Liberalism; Ken Kersch, professor of political science at Boston College and author of Conservatives and the Constitution; and Jeff Shesol, author of Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court, joined Jeffrey Rosen to discuss Franklin D. Roosevelt’s constitutional legacy, the court packing fight, and how his Supreme Court appointees transformed America. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

On December 7, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore v. Harper, a case out of North Carolina about the power of state courts to review election regulations set by state legislatures. At the heart of the case is the “independent state legislature” theory, an interpretation of the Constitution that would give state legislatures essentially the sole power to regulate federal elections and would restrict the involvement from state courts in reviewing those decisions.  Joining us to recap the oral arguments in Moore v. Harper is Vikram Amar, dean of Illinois College of Law; and Jason Torchinsky, partner at Holtzman Vogel. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Check out What is the “Independent State Legislature Doctrine”? – Part 1 and Part 2 from March 2022 and July 2022, respectively. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

On Monday, December 5, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case. The petitioner, Lorie Smith, is an artist and website designer in Colorado, who says creating wedding websites for same-sex couples against her personal beliefs would violate her First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religions, because is would require her to create messages inconsistent with her religious beliefs, and bar her from posting those beliefs on her website. A Colorado public accommodations law states that businesses open to the public can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or state an intent to do so. Smith brought a lawsuit challenging the law. Colorado counters that the law does not require or bar any speech, and exempting Smith from the law would “upend antidiscrimination law—and other laws too.” Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law and Joshua Matz of Kaplan Hecker & Fink join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap the arguments and discuss the issues at stake.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

The Honorable Jeffrey Sutton, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, joins the Honorable M. Margaret McKeown, senior judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, for a discussion on McKeown’s new book, Citizen Justice: The Environmental Legacy of William O. Douglas—Public Advocate and Conservation Champion, and the constitutional legacy of U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, one of the court’s longest serving justices. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

On Wednesday, November 9, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Haaland v. Brackeen, a case challenging the Indian Child Welfare Act. Opponents of ICWA say that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, discriminating against non-Native foster parents. Defenders of ICWA say that tribal sovereignty means the relationship of Native people to the US government is political, not racial. Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation and Elizabeth Reese of Stanford Law join Jeffrey Rosen to recap the arguments in the case and discuss the future of the Indian Child Welfare Act.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

For Native American Heritage Month, the National Constitution Center hotsed a discussion with historians H.W. Brands, author of The Last Campaign: Sherman, Geronimo and the War for America; Lori Daggar, author of Cultivating Empire: Capitalism, Philanthropy, and the Negotiation of American Imperialism in Indian Country; and Lindsay Robertson, author of Conquest by Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of Their Lands, for a historical overview of U.S. westward expansion, manifest destiny, and the impact on native peoples and tribes. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Historians Andrew Browning, author of Schools for Statesmen: The Divergent Educations of the Constitutional Framers; Nancy Isenberg, author of Madison and Jefferson; and Thomas Kidd, author of Thomas Jefferson: A Biography of Spirit and Flesh, explore Thomas Jefferson’s life and legacy through the lens of his own education and what he read—and how those influences shaped the American idea. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Stay Connected and Learn More Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. To watch National Constitution Center Town Hall programs live, check out our schedule of upcoming programs. Register through Zoom to ask your constitutional questions in the Q&A or watch live on YouTube.

On Monday, October 31, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for more than five hours in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard. In this pair of cases, the Supreme Court will assess whether the schools are violating the Equal Protection Clause by using race as a factor in admissions. Ted Shaw of the UNC Center for Civil Rights and David Bernstein of Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University join Jeffrey Rosen to recap the arguments in the case—including the specific questions asked by each of the justices; to discuss how the court will rule next year when it decides the cases; and what the ruling might mean for the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and equality and diversity in high education and American society going forward. ·      Listen to “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 1” Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

On Monday, October 31, 2022, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard. In this pair of cases, the Supreme Court will assess whether the schools are violating the Equal Protection Clause by using race as a factor in admissions. Ted Shaw of the UNC Center for Civil Rights and David Bernstein of Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University join Jeffrey Rosen to examine the text, history, and original understanding of the 14th Amendment and how it relates to affirmative action. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in National Pork Producers v. Ross. The case is about a 2018 California ballot initiative, in which voters decided that the state should prohibit the in-state sale of pork from animals confined in a manner inconsistent with California standards. Opponents of the amendment argue that it violates dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Today on We the People, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law join host Jeffrey Rosen discuss whether the Interstate Commerce Clause restricts states from regulating in-state conduct that has a substantial impact on mostly out-of-state producers. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Merrill v. Milligan. The Court will determine whether Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits racially discriminatory voting practices and procedures. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss whether Section 2 and the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution require or forbids congressional districting plans to account for race are Rick Hasen of UCLA and Jason Torchinsky of Holtzman Vogel. Listen to “Redistricting in Alabama and the Voting Rights Act – Part 1” here.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

To conclude our week-long celebration of Constitution Day and to celebrate the launch of our Constitution 101 course, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (ret.) joined Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the NCC, for a private conversation with middle and high school students about the importance of civics education in America. Justice Breyer recently joined Justice Neil Gorsuch as honorary co-chair of the National Constitution Center. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

After a few months of summer break, the Supreme Court will begin its next term on Monday, October 3. And it could be another historic term. Some of the cases on the docket involve affirmative action, voting rights, free speech and religious liberty, and the Indian Child Welfare Act. Caroline Fredrickson of Georgetown Law and Adam White of George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the key cases and potential themes, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s arrival, of this term. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

This summer, as a continuation of the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project, teams of leading conservative, libertarian, and progressive scholars  convened for a virtual constitutional convention. After debating and deliberating together, they drafted and proposed a series of amendments to the Constitution. In this episode, we share the presentation that the team leaders made on Monday, discussing the five amendments they all agreed upon. Caroline Fredrickson, senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice represented team progressive, Ilan Wurman, associate professor at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, represented team conservative, and Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, represented team libertarian. Other convention “delegates” included team progressive’s Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School; team libertarian’s Christina Mulligan of Brooklyn Law School and Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute; and team conservative’s  Robert George of Princeton University, Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School, and Colleen Sheehan of Arizona State University.  Read the amendments along with introductions by the team leaders here.  This program is presented in conjunction with the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

September 17 is Constitution Day in the United States, celebrating the day that members of the Constitutional Convention signed the document in Philadelphia in 1787. As a part of the National Constitution Center’s 2022 celebrations, we hosted a panel live at the NCC in Philadelphia called “Originalism: A Matter of Interpretation.” Emily Bazelon of The New York Times Magazine, Rich Lowry of the National Review, Steven Mazie of The Economist, and Ilan Wurman of Arizona State University joined host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss whether the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original meaning, and if the Supreme Court is consistent in applying principles of originalism in its decisions.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

We have just launched an exciting project on the NCC’s website: The Founders’ Library. In it, you can read primary texts that span American constitutional history—from the philosophical works that influenced the Founding generation, to the most important speeches, essays, books, pamphlets, petitions, letters, court cases, landmark statutes, and state constitutions that have shaped the American constitutional tradition. To ensure nonpartisan rigor and ideological diversity, we assembled a group of leading scholars from diverse perspectives to help choose the sources included in the document library. Two of those scholars—Paul Rahe of Hillsdale College and Jonathan Gienapp from Stanford University—join host Jeffrey Rosen today to discuss some of the early texts from the Founders’ Library. Read Professor Rahe’s picks from the Intellectual Foundations of the American Founding (Before 1750): Thucydides — Thucydides, The War between the Athenians and the Peloponnesians (ca. 431-400 BC) Bacon & Hobbes (together) — Francis Bacon, “Selected Excerpts” (1620) and Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiastical and Civil (1651) James Harrington — James Harrington, The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656) Locke – religious toleration, right to revolution — John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) and Two Treatises on Government (1690) Hume & Adam Smith — David Hume, Essays Moral, Political and Literary (1741-58) and Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) Montesquieu — Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (1748)  Read Professor Gienapp’s picks from the Founding Era (1750-1790): John Dickinson, Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies (1768) William Cushing, Instructions to the Jury in the Quock Walker Case, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Nathaniel Jennison (1783) James Iredell, To the Public (1786) George Mason, Objections to the Constitution of Government formed by the Convention (1787)   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On August 24th, the White House announced a plan to forgive $20,000 in student loan debt for borrowers who received Pell Grants, and $10,000 for other borrowers—all of whom must meet certain income qualifications. The Biden administration says the plan falls under The HEROES Act of 2003. Those in opposition of the plan say it’s presidential overreach, and unfair to those who didn’t go to college or already paid back their loans. Fred Lawrence of the Phi Beta Kappa Society and Charles C. W. Cooke of the National Review join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the legal issues on all sides of the loan forgiveness plan.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Today on We the People, we’re sharing a conversation from a private event hosted by the National Constitution Center this May in Coral Gables, Florida, recorded with permission from the speakers. The question we asked of our panelists was, “Is the First Amendment Enough?” In today’s world of Twitter mobs, disinformation, and polarized media, should we be looking for a new standard when it comes to regulating speech—or not?  Journalists Kimberly Atkins Stohr of The Boston Globe, David French of The Dispatch, Ali Velshi of MSNBC, and legal scholar Larry Kramer of the William Flora Hewlett Foundation join NCC president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for the conversation. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On August 8, the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, former President Donald Trump’s home in Palm Beach, Florida. They seized 11 sets of documents, some of which were labeled “top secret.” Later in the week, a federal judge unsealed the search warrant, which stated that Trump was being investigated for possibly violating the Espionage Act and two other criminal statutes. John Yoo of the University of California at Berkeley and Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen to talk about the raid, the investigation, and the constitutional questions that arise out of it. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

The Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas, opened a new exhibit this summer called We the People: The Radical Notion of Democracy. It features an original print of the U.S. Constitution—one of only 11 in the world—as well as original prints of the Declaration of Independence, the proposed Bill of Rights, and the Articles of Confederation. To celebrate the opening, the museum invited Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, to host a conversation centered around the text and impact of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. His guest was Eric Slauter, deputy dean of the humanities at the University of Chicago and the author of The State as a Work of Art: The Cultural Origins of the Constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 is the law that dictates the congressional procedure for certifying Electoral College results in a presidential election. Congress passed it in response to the presidential election of 1876, where Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but lost the presidency to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes because of contested results in three states. The law is also implicated in the attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. Now, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Susan Collins of Maine have introduced a bill they say will fix the Electoral Count Act. Rick Pildes of NYU Law and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law co-authored a piece for the Election Law Blog called “Why Congress should swiftly enact the Senate’s bipartisan ECA reform bill,” and today they joinhost Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the pros and cons of the bill. Listen to our first episode on the Electoral Count Act with Ned Foley and Brad Smith from January 2022. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade and found no constitutional basis for a right to choose abortion. Teresa Stanton Collett of the University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota), David French of The Dispatch, Katherine Mayall of the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Mary Ziegler of UC Davis School of Law and author of Dollars for Life: The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican Establishment, join for a conversation exploring the role of the Supreme Court in shaping abortion rights under the Constitution, how U.S. abortion law compares to that of other countries after Roe, and what lessons the United States can learn from how abortion is treated by law in other nations. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program is presented in partnership and generously sponsored by the Center for Constitutional Design at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

In June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, a case out of North Carolina about the power of state courts to review election regulations set by state legislatures. At the heart of the case is the so-called “independent state legislature” theory, which has gained popularity in some limited circles. The Supreme Court will now directly address it when it hears arguments in the case next term. Joining us to examine the arguments for and against the independent state legislature theory is Vikram Amar, dean of Illinois College of Law and co-author of an article in the Supreme Court Review that’s critical of the theory; and Jason Torchinsky, partner at Holtzman Vogel, and author of an amicus brief in Moore v. Harperon the side of North Carolina, on behalf of the National Republican Redistricting Trust. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.  Check out What is the “Independent State Legislature Doctrine”? – Part 1 from March 2022. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On July 6th, the National Constitution Center hosted a panel to present the reports of teams participating in the Center’s Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy project. The project brings together three teams of leading experts— conservative, libertarian, and progressive—to identify institutional, legal, and technological reforms that might address current threats to American democracy.  Team conservative is comprised of Sarah Isgur, Jonah Goldberg, and David French—all of The Dispatch. Team libertarian includes Clark Neily and Walter Olson of the Cato Institute, and Ilya Somin of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. Team progressive is comprised of Edward Foley of The Ohio State University and Franita Tolson of USC Gould School of Law.  The three team leaders—Sarah Isgur, Clark Neily, and Ned Foley—presented their reports and discussed their various suggested reforms, including those on which they agree and disagree about. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderated.   Learn more about the Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy initiative and read the full reports on the National Constitution Center’s website. Read the reports: Sarah Isgur, David French, and Jonah Goldberg, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy: Team Conservative Clark Neily, Walter Olson, and Ilya Somin, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy: Team Libertarian Edward B. Foley and Franita Tolson, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy: Team Progressive The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Back in March, we recapped oral arguments in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case concerning the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. On the last day of its term, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 opinion dealing a significant blow to the federal government’s ability to enact climate regulations, and calling into question the future of the administrative state. Joining us to unpack the opinion is Jonathan Adler, inaugural Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and founding director of the Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law; and Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.  The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Toward the end of yet another landmark Supreme Court term, the Court issued decisions in two major cases concerning religious liberty when it comes to education in America. Carson v. Makin held that the state of Maine can’t withhold public funding from families relying on vouchers to attend religious schools. And Kennedy v. Bremerton came out in favor of a public high school football coach who lost his job after leading prayers on the 50-yard line. These are big First Amendment cases with widespread implications for free exercise of religion and separation of church and state in schools nationwide. In this episode, Michael Moreland, of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, and Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, unpack the Court’s reasoning and help explain the outcomes. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Also check out: “Student Aid, Religious Education, and the First Amendment,” We the People episode on Carson v. Makin “Football, Faith, and the First Amendment” and “Football, Faith, and the First Amendment – Part 2” We the People episodes on Kennedy v. Bremerton   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On Friday, June 24th, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The decision overrules the landmark cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which held that women have the constitutional right to seek pre-viability abortions. In this episode, professors Mary Ziegler of UC Davis Law School and O. Carter Snead of Notre Dame Law School join once again to unpack the constitutional reasoning in the majority opinion and the dissent, and the implications for the future of other unenumerated rights in America. Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Listen to “The Dobbs v. Jackson case – Part 1,” from November 25, 2021 Listen to “The Dobbs v. Jackson case – Part 2,” from December 3, 2021 Listen to “The Dobbs v. Jackson Case – Part 3,” from May 12, 2022 Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On Thursday, June 23, the Supreme Court released its opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v.Bruen. In a 6-3 opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that New York’s law requiring anyone seeking a concealed carry license to demonstrate they had “proper cause” for the license—or a special need for self-defense—violated the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. The decision expands the Second Amendment right to bear arms to include outside the home. To help us understand the opinion and what it means for gun rights, gun control measures and future reforms and legislation surrounding guns—including assault weapons bans—are Adam Winkler of UCLA, author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, and Clark Neily of the Cato Institute, who served as co-counsel in the landmark Second Amendment case District of Columbia v. Heller. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.