Amarica's Constitution

Originalists venerate the Founders, who were by most reckonings a group of remarkable statesmen.  Today, many Americans look seemingly in vain for a statesman worthy of the moment and its challenges.  But what is a statesman?  Does the U.S. Constitution assume a statesman will be at the helm?  Does it enable such a leader, or is it designed to thwart the designs of what Lincoln called the “towering genius?”  Acclaimed author and scholar Steven B. Smith joins us from Yale on the occasion of publication of his new book, On Statesmanship, in the first of two fascinating segments on many aspects of this many-faceted concept.  And, Andy and Akhil take a look at an important law emerging from the California legislature and awaiting the governor’s signature.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges at podcast.njsba.com.

Voting rights are in the news.  The state and federal governments have sought to weigh in and intervene on election laws, as we have seen in previous cycles.  This time, a number of states have passed laws that address mail-in or absentee voting, but in doing so, what seems on its surface to be addressing some needs of seniors may in fact be more constitutionally questionable than first meets the eye. And in so doing, the states are implicating the 26th amendment.  A circuit split has developed and as a result, the Supreme Court may get involved and this modern amendment may get its first case before the court.  We bring in the expert on such things:  Professor Vik Amar, who has already published a new article on these questions in recent days.  The “brothers-in-law” are at it again, and we are all the beneficiaries.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

What happens when the president loses in court, even at the Supreme Court, but repeatedly attempts to fight the battle again?  New tariffs are offered after the old ones are thrown out.  Birthright citizenship, resoundingly affirmed, is challenged anew.  To Americans who lived in the South after Brown v. Board, this might sound familiar.   And indeed, as we wrap up our Roberts court constitutional survey, and we arrive at the cases we take great issue with, this theme echoes back to the Shelby County case.  We therefore discuss a question that has rankled many Americans in recent years.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The President did not file for reconsideration of the Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara, but the President nevertheless doesn’t let the Constitution rest, issuing two new executive orders that purport to extend the set of persons not receiving birthright citizenship upon their birth, among other things. We take a look.  Meanwhile, our review of the Roberts Court’s important constitutional cases brings us back to the Affirmative Action cases, and we take a look at them three years in.  Finally, another listener question takes us to yet another corner of the constitutional canon - and Akhil is ready even without advance notice.  CLE is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

As we make our way through the 20 most constitutionally significant cases of the Roberts court, this episode takes us through two cases that have continued to have resonance with the American people and with the justices.  Dobbs saw an infamous leak, a momentous decision, powerful electoral impact, and ongoing questions that echo back to an important limiting concurrence.  Bruen brought a controversial methodology to questions of gun rights, caused mayhem at the lower courts, and spawned a number of subsequent cases that seek to clarify and perhaps recover from this sweeping opinion.  We take you back - and forward - as we examine these cases on our way to an overall accounting of the Roberts Court.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

We continue our survey of the Roberts Court’s oeuvre of constitutional cases, with particular emphasis on the series of cases that concerned making rules for voting and for voting districts.  These cases make particular use of “intratextualism” - a term coined by Professor Amar that provides tools - and traps - for textual analysis of the Constitution.  And as it turns out, it is also valuable on some of the most important themes and cases in the history of the nation, including Brown v. Board and its companion case, Bolling v. Sharpe.  A listener’s question takes us down this road, which intersects with our own prior path in fascinating ways.  These and more cases are explored as only Professor Amar can.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The SCOTUS term is behind us, and we take a look back - not just at this term, but at the entirety of the Roberts Court.  What are the most important constitutional cases of its time?  Where do the justices line up on the important cases - that is, how often are they in the majority; how often is the opinion right-leaning, as many believe is usually the case, and how many are left-leaning?  How often is the Court “clearly wrong” according to Professor Amar?  And where does Professor Amar come out in terms of his alignment with the Court?  The cases may be familiar, but our own look at this suggests to us that you may well be surprised when it all gets added up.  We also have some listeners’ questions, and they turn out to be more far-ranging than you might have expected.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

How could the vote in Trump v. Barbara have been as close as it was?  Many have been bewildered by the vote in this case, given the strength of the arguments in Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion, the long history of birthright citizenship, the statutory history, and the clear text of the 14th amendment.  We try to understand this by looking at how the dissents took an aberrant and incorrect approach to the very act of dissenting.  To do this, we have to look at a general theory of dissents at the Supreme Court - and so we do.  Meanwhile, a foreign nation's holiday is celebrated, as well it should be given this nation's role in our own achievement of independence. Lawyers And Judges Are Eligible For Continuing Legal Education Credit by visiting podcast.njsba.com.

he Supreme Court ruled in two cases framing Unitary Executive theory.  So it’s entirely appropriate that we have two great experts on the topic joining us.  Steve Calabresi literally wrote the book on this theory, and perhaps it’s not surprising that he is more pure than the Court itself.  Meanwhile, Vik Amar has seen his theories concerning non-delegation and Congressional lock-in come up again and again this term - and here we see it again; if the agencies were meant by Congress to preserve its role in exercising certain powers, how can it reclaim those powers when the independence of the agencies is eliminated?  Meanwhile, Akhil, cited in the Slaughter case, reviews the originalism involved in the opinions, and puts the cases in an overall perspective of sorts.  All in all, an impressive resource for you to draw on.  Lawyers and Judges are eligible for Continuing Legal Education credit by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.

America gets a 250th birthday present from the Supreme Court as Chief Justice John Roberts authors an opinion for the ages in Trump v. Barbara.  The Court went big and decided on the basis of the Constitution, not merely the Congressional statutes, that Abraham Lincoln's wish for the nation, birthright citizenship, which gives rise to the chance for birth equality and therefore the "new birth of freedom" Lincoln bequeathed us, will live on - and will have its best chance to endure.  We look deeply into the opinion to find the great themes the Chief Justice, joined by four women, sounds.  And what about the arguments made on this podcast in recent months?  Can they be found in the opinion, and if so, do they strengthen it?  Join us for a close look. Lawyers and Judges are eligible for Continuing Legal Education credit by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.

In the wake of our recent discussion on private vs state action, a recent incident in New York regarding US Representative Dan Goldman’s banishment from a coffee shop because of his political stance brings these issues home, with additional questions related to public accommodations and more.  Meanwhile, the Supreme Court faced some of these similar issues in the case of Wolford v. Lopez, decided the day we record this, as well as a host of 14th amendment questions that are at once familiar and yet fresh for listeners to this podcast. CLE is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The tributes to Gordon Wood have been pouring in, and as promised, we spend this episode with him and his peerless body of work.  Professor Steven Calabresi, Gordon’s neighbor, friend, and colleague, joins us, and how appropriate that is, as Steve and Akhil produced a tribute weekend at Yale Law School that reviewed and celebrated his lifetime of work.  Now we remember the man, the teacher, and most of all, the towering scholar, as we review some of his most important ideas, his methods, and his inspiration for so many who have read, and who will read, the greatest books ever written about the American founding period.  A giant has been lost, but his memory will be a blessing for many generations to come.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

There’s some highly questionable behavior going on in an area of Missouri, where a fringe group seeks to establish a whites-only enclave.  Objectionable?  We think so.  Unconstitutional?  Therein lies an opening to a whole host of questions.  Government action versus private action.  When is private action beyond private purview?  When does state action overlap into private domains, and where are the lines?  Where do these rules come from?  How can we think about new issues that may arise?  Akhil has thought about this, and written about it, so now we offer you a framework to think about such questions as they arise, now and in the future.  And, sadly, a giant was lost this week.  We offer some thoughts, with more to come.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

It is an honor to introduce the initial episode of our new sister podcast: The Blessings of Liberty, hosted by Jeffrey Rosen, president emeritus of the National Constitution Center and Professor of Law at GW.  Prof. Rosen begins with a bang, as he holds a discussion with US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, including two books newly authored or contributed to by Justice Gorsuch.  We precede this with our own interview of Jeff Rosen, discussing the mission of his new podcast and his special passion for history, the Constitution, and the American idea.  Meanwhile, listen, too, for a special EverScholar opportunity for our loyal podcast audience.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

It’s time for listener questions, and no surprise that current events are on everyone’s mind.  We range from the supposed weaponization slush fund, to pardons;  illegal military orders; simultaneous office holding; and lots of converse-1983 discussion.  And Professor Amar looks at a possible error in one of his books.  Great questions from a great audience, and Akhil answers them without prep, on the spot.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

After weeks of tracing the background history and constitutional principles at work on religious establishment, free exercise, and equality issues, the Administration on cue sponsors, holds, staffs, and headlines a “Rededication 250: A National Jubilee Of Prayer, Praise & Thanksgiving,” complete with a virtually all-Christian (one Jew) speaker roster, a White House website, money from Congress’ apportionment of funds for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration commemorations, and a drumbeat of emphasis of supposedly American Christian traditions.  We take it slowly and look at how it fits into the constitutional rubrics that we have examined.  Meanwhile, it’s the Yale Commencement, and Akhil has commentary on the main speaker.  And a number of news developments harken back to our podcasts past - how did we do?  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Our journey through the centuries of religious practice, attitudes, and constitutionalism has reached the 20th century, when several presidential elections set mileposts for the American religious debate.  The first major party Catholic candidate, Al Smith, met the worst sort of vitriol and prejudice, and was destroyed by it.  This cast a shadow over the later campaign of John F. Kennedy, and he answered it in a speech that we analyze and place in context, even as we thrill to the great man’s voice one more time.  We then trace a line from that speech, through several Supreme Court memberships, to the American cultural and constitutional religious landscape as the 21st century dawns.  Fittingly, perhaps, one of the jurists who has been prominent on this issue, Justice Thomas, celebrates a milestone on the Court.  CLE is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

As the 10 commandments case makes its way towards the Supreme Court, we add another chapter to our study of the historical events and factors that went into the American constitutional tradition when it comes to religious freedom, religious establishment, and the relationship of government and religion as a whole.  We begin this episode where The Words That Made Us began - in 1760.  We take it forward through the revolutionary period, into the Articles and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and then wind up with the Civil War and Reconstruction, leaving us poised at last to take a serious look at what the Fifth Circuit thought it was doing, and what it actually was doing, when it allowed a law to stand that mandates posting of the Ten Commandments in every classroom.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

We continue to trace the historical origins of the constitution’s approach to religion in American government and American life.  We take you on a tour around Europe at the time of the Reformation and for centuries beyond, all the way to American migration.  All this is remarkably relevant to recent events, as the Alamo Heights/Ten Commandments case comes to a head. Meanwhile, Sarah Isgur returns for a third helping - or is it grilling? - as we continue to discuss her recent book and it finds its way onto the best-seller list.  Individual justices are discussed along with much more.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The President has picked a fight with the Bishop of Rome, Pope Leo X.  Putting aside some of the distasteful elements of language and hubris, we ask where this fits in with notions of church and state in a democracy.  What is the constitutional doctrine - is it “separation?” Where does it come from, historically and legally?  A general theory of such things can help us make sense - well, maybe not of everything that is said these days, but perhaps of the numerous cases that are percolating to and arriving at the Supreme Court.  And in a special treat, we continue our conversation with Sarah Isgur on her new book, Last Branch Standing, and look more deeply at the patterns of judicial behavior that have emerged from several of the justices, among other things.

This week it’s Attorney Cecilia Wang’s turn, as she appears before the Supreme Court to defend birthright citizenship in the Trump v. Barbara case, and we continue to analyze clips of the oral argument.  Meanwhile, we are joined by the host of the popular Advisory Opinions podcast: Sarah Isgur, who has written a new book that will be published, well, today.  Last Branch Standing takes us inside the Supreme Court from the life of a clerk to a tour of the Court’s history to a statistical analysis of voting patterns on the Court - which are far more complex than is commonly thought.  You can’t help but know more after this episode than you did coming in! CLE credit available from podcast.njsba.com.

Trump v. Barbara - the birthright citizenship case - reaches the Supreme Court, and we are there.  Akhil and Andy are at the oral argument, and immediately afterwards we stand outside the courthouse and you hear (and see, from the linked video) the emotions that affected not only your hosts, but no doubt the justices themselves as the case unfolded. Then it’s off to the audiotape, as we play the clips of the Justices and the advocates, and Akhil does his Howard Cosell imitation, analyzing the arguments as you hear them.  Given the Professor’s status as the author of an amicus brief in the case, a brief the Solicitor General chose to take on in his own reply brief, the perspective this episode offers our audience - you - is unique.  So with the arguments of the advocates; the questions of the justices; and the knowledge of the amicus, you will know as much as anyone and be in the best position to assess the case as a whole - after listening to this special episode and those to follow. And as always, CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

On the eve of the oral argument in Trump v. Barbara, we offer you a listener’s guide to the spectacle.  What is the essence of the argument?  What are the hard questions for Solicitor General Sauer, representing Trump?  What should Attorney Wang, ACLU attorney for petitioners, be prepared to answer?  What should the audience be listening for - clues to how the argument is going?  We provide all this and more, so you can put yourself in the seat of a Supreme Court law clerk, listening to the argument, preparing to offer your thoughts to your justice.  Professor Amar, as an amicus who has submitted a brief to the Court, is your guide.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Akhil and Andy visit a high school in Garden City, NY, to speak with outstanding high school students about Born Equal.  In the process, we trace one of America’s great credos - “All Men Are Created Equal” - from the Founding, all the way to Lincoln - and beyond, to the fourteenth amendment; and finally to birthright citizenship and next week’s momentous Supreme Court case, Trump v. Barbara.  The students’ great questions help show the way.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

We’ve been mentioning the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, and Professor Amar’s amicus brief in the case.  Now we begin to analyze it in depth.  We begin with the structure of the brief; why is it so different from most such briefs?  Why is it uniquely wide-ranging?  How can it cover many aspects of the case with a strict word limit - what is it about the way it is done that allows this when other briefs - well-executed briefs - cannot cover as much ground?  And then, what is the outline of the argument?  We also show where you can go from here; where you can find expansion and discussion beyond the brief.  Or you can come back here in subsequent weeks when we will expand on the outline of the argument presented here.  

Amarica’s Constitution has joined with two other great podcasts! We’re still ourselves, but today we bring all three podcasts together to look at a recent case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, which brings substantive due process back to center stage.  And because we are who we are, we take a look ourselves at some more aspects of - what  else? - the birthright citizenship case.  Learn what the future holds for our listeners, as we bring you what we always have, and more.  Attorneys and judges can gain CLE credit from podcast.njsba.com.

In this shorter-than-usual episode, you are now a Supreme Court clerk getting ready for the Trump v. Barbara case.  What do you do?  What do you read? We guide you. And as we think about what will happen when the argument begins, we give you a taste in this unusual episode.

The Court has ruled Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs unconstitutional.  Vik Amar, who offered important theories that appeared prominently in the opinion, joins us to explain the Major Questions Doctrine, why it applies to this case, and even more importantly, why it attempts to support significant structural features of the Constitution.  We pay particular attention to the concurring opinion by Justice Gorsuch, which offers the most in-depth theoretical explanation for this Doctrine and attempts to lay a foundation for its future use.  Meanwhile, the significance of the opinion as a rebuke to Trump, and as a reassertion of the Court’s credibility,  is also discussed.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Jeff Bezos emasculated the Washington Post; now he has virtually killed it.  Why?  And what does this mean for the nation?  What is the importance of major newspapers to the American constitutional system?  We bring you the great Ruth Marcus, former deputy editorial page editor, long-time columnist, with over 40 years at the Post, to offer an in-depth, insider perspective on this shocking set of events.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

It’s becoming apparent that the theory that Professor Amar put forth 40 years ago in a now-famous law review article, Of Sovereignty And Federalism, is being taken seriously by more and more legislatures, newspapers, and the general public. Therefore, we bring the two leading experts on this – Professor Akhil Amar, and his brother Professor Vik Amar - together to go over the background, theory, and intricacies of this important development. It’s a master class that takes you back to an earlier master class we had, on the venerable and crucial case of McCulloch v. Maryland. What does this have to do with converse 1983? You’ll find out.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

In a wide-ranging episode, we finish looking back - and in doing so, we look into the near future as well.  The birthright citizenship case will be heard in oral argument on April 1, and we go back to our reaction to the executive order.  Unitary executive matters are awaiting court rulings; we look back at our back and forth with Steven Calabresi.  Meanwhile, audience questions on court term limits and the virtues of virtue are addressed, and there are more tidbits to enjoy.  

The look back over our five years of drama, humor, reason, and illogic continues, as perhaps the most notorious opinion of the five year period - the Trump immunity case - reappears in a clip, along with a revisit with Justice Breyer.  Meanwhile, the oral argument in Wolford v. Lopez did, in fact, prompt the Professors Amar to write in SCOTUSblog.com, and we go even further here, with clips from that oral argument and answers to the justices that didn’t find their way into the record, but now, hopefully, enter the public discourse.  CLE credit is available as usual for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

It’s five years of Akhil and Andy on Amarica’s Constitution, and our friends are lining up to talk about it.  In typical fashion, it’s not just testimonials but reflections.  And we do a clip episode, but this time it’s not the justices, or the oral advocates, or the pundits, on the hot seat:  it’s us.  We look back at two episodes per year, playing our sometimes correct, sometimes wildly wrong predictions, and our sometimes prescient, sometimes widely ignored so-called insights.  It’s been quite a ride, and quite a recap - so much so that this part one of at least two.  And still, after five years, CLE credit remains available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

A powerful and aggressive central government sends unwanted forces in huge numbers to a city where the residents oppose and resent this policy.  The undertrained forces unleash violence against the population in the form of an obviously wrongful death.  Minneapolis, yes - but also a seeming repeat of an important American historic event, that shaped a nation’s core beliefs, later reflected in the Declaration and the Constitution.  We tell those stories, and look at the values and basic laws that emerged from them; bring to light important Supreme Court cases  - and bring all this to Minneapolis for examination of how they apply, 250 years later.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The military capture of the Venezuelan leader, Maduro, is an event with giant international strategic, moral, economic, political, and other considerations.  It also raises fascinating constitutional questions, and Professor Amar is ready to discuss some matters that probably did not come to your mind right away.  Much of this stems from the fact that Maduro will be tried in a U.S. civilian, not a military court, so constitutional protections are implicated.  Whatever your thoughts about the policy matters, it behooves you to join us in this exploration of how this escapade reveals a strain in constitutional doctrine that remains unresolved.  Meanwhile, you will learn of cases with names like “Frisbie,” hence our title.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges at podcast.njsba.com.

Our listeners have a talent for inquiry; they follow Professor Amar’s arguments every week, and come up with their own.  This week, we end the year by fielding a wide range of questions, including some related to presidential oath-taking; juries, asked by a Judge; pardons and their abuse; and many related topics.  Akhil invokes Angela Bassett and Tina Turner, as we answer the questions first softly, and then not so softly.  And we end the year with fond wishes sincerely offered.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Presidential power is abridged, for a change, by the Supreme Court in its shadow docket ruling in Trump v. Illinois.  Rather than ruling in silence, however, this time the Court gives us 25 pages and 4 opinions to chew on.  We examine the history behind issues of deployment of the Army as well as the Guard/Militia on domestic soil, which leads us to discussions of Militia Acts, the Military Amendments, and basic constitutional principles.  Professor Amar discusses the implications for the coming big rulings on tariffs and birthright citizenship he sees in the alignment the Court assumes in this ruling. Just as this is not the Court’s last word in this case, we will have more to say in subsequent episodes, but this discussion will leave you armed, if you will, with the tools to see the issues clearly.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

One of the most promising new faces in the US Congress, Representative Maggie Goodlander, joins us for a wide-ranging discussion, including the recent video assuring our troops that they may not obey illegal orders, and the aftermath of that simple offer of support.  You may not know that this first-term congresswoman has served in our military for 11 years; has clerked for a Supreme Court Justice; has served in the White House; has been senior advisor to both Republican and Democratic Senators; has studied under Professor Amar - and much more.  Hear from her, and see that there are still talented American patriots that seek to defend the Constitution.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Oral arguments took place in the highly-anticipated unitary executive case, Trump v. Slaughter. The overruling of the case that seems to govern, Humphrey’s Executor, has been long expected, and indeed, the Chief Justice referred to the “dry husk” that was all that remained of that case after recent years of whittling by the current and recent Court.  However, faced with the extremity of possible consequences, the Court veered this way and that, indicating that while the direction seems clear, the destination may not be.  Fascinating intersections with other cases and theories that Professor Amar has studied and expounded over the years abound, and in our Cosell-like tour of the argument’s twists and turns, you will learn how it fits together.  CLE is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Secretary of Defense Hegseth is making use of his sights.  He is focusing at times on Senator Mark Kelly, seeking to wreak havoc upon him for his utterances which have angered Hegseth’s master.  Meanwhile, purported drug smugglers have found Davy Jones’ locker at the order of Hegseth, it has been reported, including those left helpless after initial lethal strikes.  Yale Professor and Bancroft Prize winner John Fabian Witt joins us to help us make sense of the international law and laws of war issues here. Meanwhile, your poor co-host, Andy, is subjected to a Socratic barrage at the hands of a Kingsfield-like Professor Amar, as the relentless logic - or is it illogic - of Hegseth’s actions run into a Constitutional wall.  This is an entirely new, and entirely irresistible analysis; it’s Professor Amar at his best. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Events in the news once again intersect with Professor Amar’s past work, as a little-known aspect of a clause in the Constitution has surprising relevance to the President’s fire-breathing response to a video from Senators and Representatives reminding our military and other officers of their lawful obligations. We trace other constitutionally newsworthy developments, on the filibuster and on the unitary executive.  And the Born Equal tour continues, with some interesting reflections on the genesis and rationale for some interesting aspects of the book.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

We return to the tariff case and continue to hear from the justices and the advocates in their own voices from the oral argument.  This time, a 20 year old argument from Vik Amar takes center stage with apparent approval from several key justices, and several of the Court’s female justices join forces to make life difficult for the Solicitor General.  We also review some of the emerging implications from the recent election, and a bill coming out of Illinois that takes its inspiration from a 40 year old argument made by Professor Amar. Part 2 of 2. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The economy, trillions of dollars, and consequences unknown are on the line in the tarrifs case, Learning Resources v. Trump.  We present the justices and the advocates in their own voices from the oral argument, and Akhil reacts in real time as he hears the clips for the first time.  It’s a three hour argument, so this is the first of a two-parter.  The Court’s recent doctrines, including major questions and non-delegation are in play, perhaps, and therefore many are watching this case closely for consistency vs politics in the Court itself.  And of course there’s history and constitutional issues at stake, so we are right at home.  Join us! CLE is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

California.  Meanwhile, the tariff case is about to come before the Supreme Court for oral argument.  So it’s timely indeed that Vik Amar joins us with expertise on both topics.  In fact, Vik has submitted an amicus brief in the tariff case. The “brothers in law” take us deep into the gerrymandering world, the major questions doctrine, and we also pause to reflect on the career of former Vice President Cheney who passed away this week.  Insights galore await.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges at podcast.njsba.com.

Our 250th episode has us looking back 250 years, and looking ahead to the next year of commemoration of those 250 year anniversaries.  Sure enough, there is much gold to mine in those momentous events; much to inform us on matters of current import.  We recall and examine a Declaration that is 250 years old - no, not that one.  To top it off, we have a special guest that joins us to tie it all together as only he can.  Tune in and join the celebration!  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, Jeffrey Rosen, joins us for a timely discussion of his new book, The Pursuit of Liberty. The relevance to today’s dilemmas is matched only by the fascination of the deep historical analysis and amazing characters the book unearths.  In the differences that separated Hamilton and Jefferson, Professor Rosen finds the genesis of a divide that he maintains has informed most if not all of American constitutional history.  Centralized power versus states’ rights; industrial centers vs rural life; a robust protest culture vs governmental support, and more.  We are honored to celebrate publication (today!) of this important book with its distinguished author.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

As we continue to wade into the Supreme Court term, developments are taking place in several cases we are following. Professor Amar’s students are making constitutional news all over the place, it seems; several of them have converged on the tariff case once again, as well as now the unitary executive issues.  A new article made a splash, and it prompts us to harken back to an old one - a 1996 article by Professor Amar, in fact, which has new and possibly crucial relevance.  We begin to address some of these matters as this broad landscape takes us on legal travels that we can only begin to traverse.  CLE is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Tarrifs may be Trump’s favorite word, but it remains to be seen if he has the authority he claims to employ them.  The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in November, and ahead of this, Professor Amar takes you inside the argument.  He offers the history and takes us through an originalist approach, a textual approach, a structural approach, a precedential approach, and presents the case as an advocate might.  Listen to a possible amicus brief in the making; a potential opening argument in outline and in any case, arm yourself with an understanding of the issues in this conceivably momentous case.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Professor Amar visits cities that are in the constitutional news these days:  Portland, where the military pays an uninvited visit; Salt Lake City, where gunfire continues this year’s alarming litany of political assassination also seen in Minnesota and elsewhere.  Akhil’s epic trilogy, with Born Equal now taking its place as the second volume, speaks to how our history shows us the constitutional principles at work - or not at work - in these and other happenings in our nation.  And he speaks of New Haven, where work has been and is still done that enables these lessons to be told. All this takes place during a live podcast taping at the Yale Club of New York City, with a live and lively audience that treats us, and you, to their questions and comments. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Born Equal is being read - by academics, pundits, historians, and citizens.  Reaction has begun to pour in, and discussion has begun.  In this episode, we bring you some of the very best flavor of such discussion - an academic symposium held at Penn Carey Law School on the book.  Professors Kate Shaw and Kermit Roosevelt each read the work with great care and deliver extensive remarks on the book, pointing out themes and insights - and raising questions.  Oh, so many questions.  Professor Amar then responds in the moment, and students in the audience pose their own queries.  The constitutional conversation continues, and is never complete.  But this one in particular will go on, as there were so many important questions raised that they could never be answered in this short interval.  But you will thrill to deep engagement and fascinating perspectives from this all-star panel of great thinkers.  Meanwhile, we also have a bonus for you: the great historian Gordon Wood has weighed in having read the book, and his extended remarks can be found at akhilamar.com/podcast.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.