This Constitution

Why has civic education taught students to look to Washington, when citizenship starts in their own neighborhood?In this episode, host Matthew Brogdon sits down with David Bobb, president of the Bill of Rights Institute, to explore the state of civic education in America as the country approaches its 250th birthday. Together, they make the case that civic life begins not in Washington, D.C. but in local communities, mediating institutions, and the habits formed early in life. Bobb introduces BRI's expanding library of free resources, including BRI Jr. for elementary students, and argues that civic education has overindexed on government and underinvested in the kind of local, associational life Tocqueville recognized as the beating heart of American self-governance.The conversation delves into Frederick Douglass's landmark July 5 oration of 1852, unpacking his image of the Declaration as a "ring bolt," the anchor to which the ship of American destiny must cling. Brogdon and Bobb trace how the Declaration's "saving principles" of freedom and equality have served as the touchstone for abolition, suffragists, and the civil-rights movement, and why those principles must be actively chosen, not passively inherited. They also wrestle with what it means to demote politics in favor of human dignity, how Lincoln warned of the danger of alienation from our laws, and why the appeal to universal principles through a specifically American inheritance is not a contradiction but a necessity.In This Episode(01:29) BRI's offerings: thinking about the next 250 years(03:09) Why local civic engagement matters more than national politics(06:37) Civic engagement vs. political engagement(09:05) The telos of civics(11:37) Storytelling as civic education(13:51) American citizenship vs. "global citizenship."(16:16) Lincoln's Lyceum Address and the danger of losing attachment to law(20:39) The shift to primary sources: why textbooks are being set aside(26:25) The Declaration as the "ring bolt" of American destiny(30:01) Frederick Douglass's July 5 oration(39:52) The Declaration as an anchor in storms of change(42:28) The "positive-good" school, Woodrow Wilson, and the fight over the Declaration(49:39) Limited government as ground for consensusNotable Quotes(06:00) "Tocqueville said, if you want to draw an American out of their kind of individual orbit, you propose to build a road through their property." — David Bobb(07:29) "Being engaged in a productive activity, benefiting your community, employing people, bringing services and goods to the public is in fact the fulfillment of a civic role, I think that people play." — Matthew Brogdon(14:06) "I don't understand what the term 'global citizenship' means. It seems to me an oxymoron. We do American citizenship, an education in universal principles, instantiated in the American experiment." — David Bobb(16:16) "About 30 percent of Americans are willing to say that we need a leader who is willing to break or bend things that can lead to the mobocratic spirit. We have to be very careful about that." — David Bobb(30:11) "Frederick Douglass speaks with admiration and alienation, two complex emotions woven through a message of hope and hopelessness. The 'you' is bracing. A ring bolt is an anchor, but also the thing to which an enslaved person could be shackled." — David Bobb(35:13) "You have a choice to cleave to these principles or not. You can choose to abandon them, or you can choose to move into greater conformity with them. It's a powerful reminder." — Matthew Brogdon(48:05) "To demote politics is to elevate the limitless opportunity of every human person. That's the message of ultimate dignity." — David Bobb

Does the freedom of the press protect only journalists with printing presses or everyone with something to say?From the founding era to social media, the line between “speech” and “press” has blurred. In this episode, host Savannah Eccles Johnston talks with legal commentator and former DOJ official Sarah Isgur about how the First Amendment’s protection of the press has evolved and whether it has gone too far.They explore three eras: the original understanding in 1791 (when “press” meant owning a printing press), the Supreme Court’s twentieth-century expansion of free speech, and today’s dilemmas over influencers, citizen journalists, and government access. Sarah explains why she’s a textualist free-speech absolutist (and why that means Jefferson is the bad guy in her bedtime stories), revisits the infamous Skokie Nazi march as the “apotheosis of the First Amendment,” and breaks down two very different recent cases: Afroman (lemon pound cake, police mockery, and a jury victory) and La Gordil Loca (a citizen–journalist arrested for asking a state employee for information).The conversation also covers New York Times v. Sullivan, the Pentagon press access fight, and why Sarah’s new book, Last Branch Standing, argues the Supreme Court is more Ted Lasso than Game of Thrones.In This Episode(00:00) Introduction(00:11) Meet Sarah Isgur and episode overview(01:32) What did “the press” mean in 1791?(03:03) Freedom of the press vs. freedom of speech(03:46) Defamation and truth at the founding(05:43) Are Americans freer today than ever before?(06:17) New York Times v. Sullivan and modern defamation law(09:21) Free speech and the search for truth(09:47) Originalism vs. textualism(12:57) The Skokie Nazi march(13:35) Free speech in extreme cases(14:01) Is Mill wrong in 2026? Echo chambers, algorithms, and truth(17:18) Crisis and the dangers of “this time is different.”(17:26) The Afroman case and viral speech(20:41) Citizen journalism and the Priscilla Villarreal (“La Gordiloca”) case(22:19) Profit, media, and credibility(23:05) Juries and American free speech instincts(24:46) Pentagon press access rules(26:31) The complexity of press freedom in practice(28:09) Viewpoint neutrality and unintended consequences(29:57) Sarah’s book: Last Branch Standing(32:06) OutroNotable Quotes(05:07) “An American living in 2026 has a greater protection under the First Amendment for their speech than at any time in the rest of our history. And it’s not even close.” — Sarah Isgur(10:42) “A textualist would simply look at the text of the First Amendment that says, ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.’ Sorry, that’s an absolutist statement. I don’t really care what you thought you were doing at the time.” — Sarah Isgur(12:11) “Jefferson is the bad guy in every story. When I tell my kids bedtime stories, it’s Jefferson who is the boogeyman coming after them in the night.” — Sarah Isgur(12:58) “The greatest moment in American legal history is when the Nazis marched through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois. 99.9% of people found it repugnant. As a country, we said, fine, say it. See who you can convince.” — Sarah Isgur(17:26) “Doesn’t every road lead us to Afroman?” — Sarah Isgur(31:46) “Congress isn’t doing its job. The President is trying to take over all the jobs of the other branches. The Supreme Court is the last branch standing.” — Sarah Isgur (on her book title)

Is Congress the most underrated institution in American government? Widely criticized for gridlock, partisanship, and dysfunction, it’s often seen as the weakest branch. But what if that frustration reflects a misunderstanding of what Congress is designed to do?In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon sits down with Princeton professor Frances E. Lee, author of A Case for Congress, to challenge the narrative that Congress is broken. They begin by rethinking “gridlock.” While fewer individual laws are passed today, modern legislation is far more expansive, often bundling multiple policies into single bills. By that measure, Congress is doing more, not less.They then delve into what really holds Congress back. It’s not just partisan opposition, it’s internal division. Narrow majorities and cross-pressured members make sweeping agendas difficult, even when one party holds power and procedural barriers like the filibuster are removed.Lee also reframes Congress as one of the most representative institutions in government. Its partisan makeup closely tracks the national electorate, and its members are deeply rooted in the communities they serve. Tune in to challenge what you think you know about Congress and discover why the institution we trust the least may be working more as intended than we realize.In This Episode(00:38) Why Congress is underrated(01:45) Is Congress really gridlocked?(03:53) Congress as an obstacle to parties(05:12) Unified vs. divided government(08:27) Role of cross-pressured members(09:39) The filibuster’s real impact(10:25) Budget-reconciliation process(11:54) Filibuster as a scapegoat(13:01) Congress as a mirror of America(15:03) Diversity and local ties in Congress(18:20) Geographical representation & pluralism(19:51) Bipartisanship in lawmaking(22:32) Voice votes and consensus(24:46) Why Congress is unpopular(26:39) When parties enact big agendas(29:15) Quality of rushed legislation(31:04) Improving Congress: institutional patriotismNotable Quotes(00:54) “The ratings for Congress have been low for a long time. It's really nothing new.”— Frances Lee(03:25) “The contemporary Congress actually passes substantially more legislation than the Congress of the middle 20th century.” — Frances Lee(11:45) “What the filibuster does for a majority party is that it often allows them to hide their divisions behind the other party.” — Frances Lee(13:15) “It’s credibly representative in partisan terms that the parties are getting the share of seats in the House and the Senate that reflects the party’s strength in the national electorate.” — Frances Lee(23:28) “It will surprise you if you take a look back, how many matters go through without any dissent.” — Frances Lee(26:28) “Checking and balancing, when neither party really has the confidence of the American people, is that something we would say is dysfunctional? I tend to think it’s not dysfunctional.” — Frances Lee(32:32) “I would like to see Congress operate in a more pluralistic way; I think it works better when the committees are able to work through the legislative issues, rather than have it all happen behind the scenes in leadership offices.” — Frances Lee(33:27) “I do think members of Congress feel a sense of personal honor that they've been selected as representatives, but I think they also need to feel a sense of pride in the institution of which they're part” — Frances Lee

How did America move from the religious pluralism of the founding era to the “Judeo-Christian consensus” of the twentieth century? Why did that consensus begin to fracture?In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon continues his conversation with James Patterson, associate professor of public affairs at the Institute for American Civics at the University of Tennessee. They explore how religious pluralism evolved during the twentieth century as immigration, world wars, and political movements reshaped the nation’s religious landscape.They begin the conversation with the massive immigration waves of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which dramatically expanded America’s Catholic population while also bringing German Lutherans, Scandinavian Protestants, and other religious communities. These demographic shifts sparked political battles over public education, sectarian funding, and the role of religion in civic life, illustrating how deeply religious differences shaped American politics.The discussion then delves into the emergence of the “Judeo-Christian consensus” after World War II. Influential figures such as Archbishop Fulton Sheen and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. helped articulate a vision of American public life in which Protestants, Catholics, and Jews could cooperate while maintaining distinct theological traditions.The conversation wraps up with an examination of our present moment: the resurgence of religious affiliation after decades of decline, the arrival of significant Muslim and Hindu populations, and the internal tensions within contemporary conservatism between what Brogdon calls ‘South Park conservatives’ and religious traditionalists. The First Amendment consensus, they suggest, remains very much a work in progress.In This Episode(00:00) Introduction and recap of previous episode(01:11) Religious diversity and immigration in the 20th century(04:31) Post–Civil War religious conflicts and school controversies(07:43) Religious violence and media adaptation(09:15) Rise of the Judeo-Christian consensus(11:36) Jewish immigration and inclusion(13:03) Visionary leadership and civil religion(15:00) Religious leaders and the civil rights movement(16:21) Rise of the Moral Majority and partisan religion(21:02) Changing religious and political dynamics(22:28) Media, technology, and generational shifts(25:40) Increasing religious diversity beyond Judeo-Christianity(26:18) Religion, politics, and the Trump era(29:37) Internal tensions among conservatives(30:40) Summary and end of conversationNotable Quotes(01:18) "Even though we're a very religious people, we've got broad freedom to form our own associations and worship freely." — Matthew Brogdon(05:41) "The reason why this was such a harm isn't just because I'm a partisan of Catholicism, but it actually contributes directly to the ignorance of the population." — James Patterson(15:32) "We can't meet in the same pew, the same church, but we can all meet on our knees in prayer." — James Patterson(17:53) "American government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. And at the moment, in spite of the people." — Jerry Falwell (quoted in discussion)(25:05) “American religious institutions have been very adept at using either old but still effective technology or using new technology to reach souls." — James Patterson(30:30) "We have religious pluralism in America. We have great religious diversity in the country. And across those lines, we typically have a very strong attachment. You call it a sort of First Amendment consensus, a strong attachment to the idea that government doesn't tell us what to believe and how to worship." — Matthew Brogdon

When we think of the American Founders, we typically imagine figures like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison—all Protestant gentlemen. But what about the Catholics? And how did a nation built on religious establishments become a model for religious pluralism?In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon and James Patterson, associate professor of public affairs at the Institute for American Civics at the University of Tennessee, explore the religious landscape of early America and the surprising role that Catholics, Baptists, Quakers, and other minority groups played in shaping the nation’s commitment to religious freedom.The conversation begins with the often-overlooked Catholic founders, including Charles Carroll of Carrollton, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and John Carroll, the first Catholic bishop in the United States and founder of Georgetown University. Their experiences reveal how religious minorities helped shape the early republic.Brogdon and Patterson then turn to the debates that led to disestablishment in the states, focusing on Virginia’s struggle over whether the government should tax citizens to support clergy. Ultimately, Americans discovered that removing religion from political competition lowered tensions among religious groups and protected liberty of conscience for all. The result was a uniquely American approach to religion and politics: a system where many faiths could flourish without direct state control. Let’s dive in.In This Episode(01:12) Catholic founders and Maryland’s history(02:19) Catholic experience in colonial America(03:17) Catholic representation and treatment(04:34) Religious pluralism in colonial America(07:27) Suspicion of Catholics and religious freedom(09:13) Reasoning behind religious pluralism(10:01) Jefferson, Madison, and the religious freedom bill(12:33) Weakness of the Anglican establishment in the South(15:57) Class and financial issues in church establishments(19:29) Disestablishment and religious pluralism(20:24) Harvard and the concentration of religious power(21:14) Support for pastors vs. modern vouchers(23:30) Patrick Henry’s defense and its limits(24:23) Religious schools vs. church subsidies(27:15) Catholic bishops and American ecclesiology(29:02) John Carroll’s appointment and Georgetown(31:24) French Catholic influence and Washington’s supportNotable Quotes(06:52) "They were also very upset that the British, after winning Quebec, retained its Catholic establishment. They could not believe this.” —James Patterson(08:05) "One of the causes for unique suspicion of Catholics was a very legitimate concern that Catholics were trying to usurp political authority. I mean, this is the thing that happened with Mary, Queen of Scots. There was the Guy Fawkes attack on Parliament, and then there had been the tumult of James II. And so there was a very big concern." —James Patterson(08:59) "So religious freedom was, as Michael Breidenbach puts it, it was 'dear-bought,' right? " It was one that they fought on the battlefield to secure, and it was important that they did so in order to earn that trust that was maybe not so earned yet." —James Patterson(13:08) “Madison actually traveled to see one of these people preach from his prison cell. Their congregants would gather outside, and they would preach through the prison bars.” —Matthew Brogdon(24:00) "Why do people have to tithe to the state first for the state to then give that to the church? Can't they just tithe to their own church?" —Matthew Brogdon(25:55) “You mutually benefit from the protection of conscience rights much more than you do from the competition over state patronage.." —James Patterson

Did you know that while Americans were celebrating independence on July 4, 1776, it took until August for the news to reach London? Across the Atlantic, the reaction was far more muted, highlighting how information traveled slowly in the 18th century and how the bold step of declaring independence was experienced differently on each side of the ocean.In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon explore how the world reacted to America’s bold declaration of independence. They trace the document’s uncertain journey across the Atlantic, with copies lost in shipwrecks and others seized by British vessels, and examine how foreign governments and the press responded once the news finally reached them.In Britain, officials publicly dismissed it, but the press debated it vigorously. Some magazines printed the full text alongside loyalist rebuttals. Jeremy Bentham issued a sharp critique, and King George III cast American leaders as reckless agitators misleading their people.France paid close attention, but real support only came after the American victory at Saratoga proved the revolution could succeed. Savannah and Matthew also examine the Declaration’s built-in restraint, especially its warning against changing governments for light and transient causes. That note of prudence may explain the world’s initial shrug. Military victory secured independence, but over time, the Declaration’s ideas reshaped global thinking about liberty and self-government.In This Episode(00:00) Opening and introduction(00:17) International reaction overview(01:56) Universal and provocative language(03:53) Prudence and limits on revolution(05:19) Comparison to other revolutions(06:47) Declaration as diplomatic statement(07:23) Spread of the Declaration in Europe(08:11) Suppression in Russia and Spain(10:06) British reaction: official response(11:57) King George III’s speech(13:57) Parliamentary debate(16:53) British press reaction(23:32) Impact on US-British relations(23:55) French reaction and delayed support(26:32) Spanish reaction and suppression(30:43) Summary and long-term impactNotable Quotes(00:30) "The Declaration of Independence is wonderfully important within the colonies, but internationally it's kind of met with a bit of a yawn.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston(00:44) "The rest of the world, now they know that this isn't a British civil war, but these colonists think they're actually independent. But mostly it's still a shrug." — Savannah Eccles Johnston(05:53) "This is the place where I think the American Revolution is revolutionary, but it doesn't become global in the sense that the French Revolution does. The French Revolution sparked basically a world war." — Matthew Brogdon(09:06) "These Germans living in St. Petersburg knew that the Russian government would never put up with them printing the word 'independence' in a newspaper." — Matthew Brogdon(09:27) “The Spanish government suppressed the Declaration, even though the Spanish are going to play a very important role in the American Revolution. The Spanish will suppress it.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston(12:23) "No people ever enjoyed more happiness or lived under a milder government than those revolted provinces." — King George III (quoted by Savannah Eccles Johnston)(18:43) "The unalienable right of talking nonsense." — British magazine editorial aside (quoted by Savannah Eccles Johnston)(27:53) "It's a bit of a compliment to the British, actually. The country with which we're actually at war has a robust discussion about our claims in its newspapers. The allies that we wind up with in the war do not want this published." — Matthew Brogdon

Was the American presidency meant to be weak, or was it powerful from the start?In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston sits down with Dr. Sai Prakash to examine the original design of Article II and how George Washington shaped the presidency in practice. They explore the Vesting Clause, the creation of a unitary executive, and why early Americans ultimately embraced a strong president after rejecting monarchy.The conversation then turns to the modern “living presidency.” Executive power has expanded through precedent, practice, and political necessity rather than constitutional amendment. From war powers to campaign mandates, Professor Prakash argues that today’s presidency is stronger than ever while Congress grows weaker.At stake is a central question. Can constitutional balance be restored, or are we drifting toward government by executive alone?In This Episode(00:00) Introduction to Dr. Sai Prakash and his forthcoming book on the presidential pardon(02:11) Washington as commander in chief and father of the Constitution(03:26) The anti-monarchical moment and weak state executives(04:36) The Philadelphia Convention and the move to a unitary executive(06:50) Creating the presidency with George Washington in mind(07:44) Comparing the presidency to an elective monarchy(11:27) Washington’s theory of executive authority(12:39) The Vesting Clause and foreign-affairs power(15:07) How Article II came to be seen as weak(17:31) The rise of the living Constitution(19:09) War powers and presidential precedent(21:27) Delaying statutory mandates and administrative reinterpretation(23:24) Is a living presidency necessary?(25:58) Campaign promises and the idea of a presidential mandate(27:00) The presidency as law-enforcement officer, not policy engine(28:30) Congress’s institutional decline(29:19) Restoring constitutional balanceNotable Quotes(06:50) “We kind of created this office with George Washington in mind.” — Sai Prakash(12:39) “The Constitution grants executive power. It’s a suite of powers related to law execution and foreign affairs.” — Sai Prakash(19:29) “The strongest declaration of war is from the mouths of cannons.” — Sai Prakash(25:03) “We can’t wait.” — Referencing modern executive justification for unilateral action(27:00) “The president is meant to be the institution of law enforcement, not primarily about making law.” — Sai Prakash(29:19) “Letting a president get away with usurping another branch’s authority today might be in your short-term interest, but it isn’t healthy for the country.” — Sai Prakash

What good is a declaration if no one hears it? After the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, the real work began: Announcing it to the American people and the world. In this episode of This Constitution, host Savannah Eccles Johnston is joined by Matthew Brogdon to explore how the Declaration of Independence was published, proclaimed, and received in 1776. Together, they trace the Declaration’s journey from Congress to the public square, examining how a fledgling nation used print culture, public readings, and a robust free press to unite the colonies and justify rebellion to the world.Savannah and Matthew walk through the critical timeline from July 2 to July 4, explaining why Independence Day commemorates publication rather than the vote itself. They unpack the importance of John Hancock’s role as the public face of the Declaration, the significance of the Dunlap Broadside as the first printed versions Americans actually read, and why the famous handwritten parchment played little role in the document’s original impact.The episode highlights how the Declaration spread rapidly through newspapers, churches, courthouses, and military camps, becoming as much an oral event as a written one. Public readings mobilized soldiers, artisans, farmers, women, and those unable to read, transforming the Declaration into a shared civic experience. Savannah and Matthew also explore the dramatic colonial reactions from celebrations and statue-toppling to loyalist resistance and rebuttals, revealing a nation deeply divided even at the moment of independence.Finally, the conversation turns to the Goddard Declaration, the first printed version to include the signers' names, produced by Mary Katherine Goddard in 1777. The episode argues that the successful announcement of independence was not just a political achievement, but a triumph of the American free press and a powerful early expression of democratic communication.In This Episode(00:18) The challenge of announcing independence(01:04) What’s new about the Declaration?(01:31) Congress’s role and the importance of eloquence(02:47) The Declaration’s immediate impact and fading(02:57) Timeline: July 2 vs. July 4(03:28) Why July 4th matters(05:24) John Hancock’s role in publication(08:10) The Dunlap broadside: the first printed Declaration(10:33) Dunlap’s editorial changes and official record(12:10) The engrossed copy vs. the Dunlap broadside(15:38) The technology and democratization of the Declaration(16:11) Distribution and public readings(17:45) First public readings and military announcements(19:11) The Declaration’s oral and print spread(21:07) The Declaration in print culture(23:20) Speed and reach of distribution(24:20) Colonial reactions: revolutionary celebrations(28:19) Colonial reactions: loyalist responses(32:13) The Goddard broadside: publishing the signers(35:21) The Declaration’s enduring legacyNotable Quotes(03:32) “A declaration doesn’t matter unless you make it public.” — Matthew Brogdon(05:47) “It’s not Jefferson who is the face of the Declaration at first. It’s John Hancock.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(10:23) “It  was the eighteenth-century version of going viral.” — Matthew Brogdon(16:11) “There’s something very democratic about the Dunlap broadsides.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(17:24) “The Declaration was written to be read out loud.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(25:22) “We’ve been tearing down statues since the very beginning.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(35:34) “The Declaration of Independence announcement is a testament and a victory of the American Free Press.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston

Who really wrote the Declaration of Independence? Was it Thomas Jefferson’s carefully crafted vision, or the outcome of an intense, compromise-driven process inside Congress?In this episode of This Constitution, host Savannah Eccles Johnston is joined by Matthew Brogdon to examine how Congress transformed Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence into the document the world would come to know.The conversation traces the Declaration’s path from the Committee of Five to the Committee of the Whole, where Congress cut a quarter of Jefferson’s draft. Savannah and Matthew unpack the most significant changes, including the removal of the slavery passage, the shift from emotionally charged rhetoric to a more legal tone, and the deliberate decision to aim grievances at the Crown rather than the British people. These revisions, they argue, were driven by prudence, diplomacy, and the need to persuade both domestic and foreign audiences.The episode also highlights Congress’s surprising additions. References to divine providence and a Supreme Judge of the world were strengthened, shaping a civil religious language that would echo throughout American political life. In the end, Savannah and Matthew argue that while Jefferson’s genius is undeniable, the Declaration is best understood as Congress’s declaration. It is a democratic document, forged through collaboration, compromise, and representation, and a model for how Americans would speak and govern themselves from the very beginning.In This Episode(00:00) Opening and introduction(00:17) Background to the Declaration(01:00) Drafting and committee process(02:12) Congressional revision process(03:23) Major edits and reactions(04:34) Removal of the slave passage(06:57) Strengthening legal arguments(07:31) Toning down emotional language(08:30) Example of emotional language removed(10:41) Toning down anti-British rhetoric(12:06) Example of anti-British language removed(15:07) Summary of major changes(15:17) Addition of religious language(16:22) Significance of religious additions(20:27) Motivations for religious language(20:45) Is Congress’s version better?(23:00) Examples of improved rhetoric(25:00) The Declaration as a collaborative product(26:44) Conclusion and podcast outroNotable Quotes(04:25) “25% Congress slashes and burns. I mean, they took a red pen to the thing.” — Matthew Brogdon(01:34) "So this wasn't just Jefferson's hand. You know, it wasn't like Jefferson the author. Everybody else is a clerk. There's actually quite a lot of collaboration." — Matthew Brogdon(07:32) “By making it more legally efficacious, some of that means making the document a little more boring.” — Matthew Brogdon(08:07) "Adam says he defended every word of the draft like he didn't want to see any of this change, as though he grudgingly admits to Abigail later that maybe some of this was prudent, making this less personal, less antagonistic." — Matthew Brogdon(14:10) “The road to glory and happiness is open to us too. We will climb it in a separate state and acquiesce in the necessity which pronounces our everlasting adieu." — Matthew Brogdon(22:41) "All the changes seem to be for the better." — Savannah Eccles Johnston(25:05) "Yes, Jefferson is the primary author of the declaration, but it's actually Congress's declaration." — Savannah Eccles Johnston(26:30) “I think the best way to sum this up is with the title of the declaration itself.” — Matthew Brogdon(26:42) "It's Congress's declaration. It's not the committee's, and it's not Jefferson's. It's not Adams's. It's Congress's declaration speaking for the United States of America." — Matthew Brogdon

How can the same Declaration of Independence lead Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. to such different conclusions about the Constitution? In this special MLK Day episode of This Constitution, host Savannah Eccles Johnston is joined by Dr. Lucas Morel, professor of ethics and politics at Washington and Lee University, to delve into how Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. interpreted the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the American political order.The conversation traces Douglass’s intellectual evolution from initially condemning the Constitution as a pro-slavery pact, influenced by William Lloyd Garrison, to later embracing it as a “glorious liberty document” capable of delivering on the Declaration’s promise of natural rights and equality. Dr. Morel explains how Douglass came to see the Constitution as fundamentally anti-slavery when read according to its text and purpose, rather than the clouded intentions of its framers.The episode then turns to Martin Luther King Jr., examining how King remained deeply committed to the Declaration’s ideals while growing increasingly skeptical of whether the constitutional order and the American people could fully realize them without massive federal intervention. From I Have a Dream to Where Do We Go From Here, the discussion highlights King’s shift toward arguments for reparations, equality of outcomes, and expanded federal power.Ultimately, Savannah and Lucas ask a profound constitutional question: Which vision better preserves America’s founding principles? Is freedom best secured by equal laws and fair play, as Douglass believed, or by equity-driven reforms designed to correct historic injustice, as King increasingly argued? The episode offers a rigorous, thoughtful comparison of two towering figures whose legacies continue to shape debates over equality, rights, and constitutional meaning.In This Episode(01:07) Why Frederick Douglass matters(03:21) Douglass’s early constitutional views and Garrison(07:37) Douglass’s break with Garrison and shift in views(07:51) Douglass’s reinterpretation of the Constitution(12:08) Douglass’s arguments for congressional power over slavery(13:46) Douglass vs. Lincoln on federal power(18:41) Principled vs. rhetorical shift in Douglass’s views(19:53) Douglass and Lincoln as statesmen, not founders(25:45) MLK’s relationship to the Declaration and Constitution(27:15) MLK’s shift toward reparations and federal intervention(28:28) MLK’s critique of colorblindness and equality(30:30) MLK’s influence on modern equality debates(31:04) MLK’s reinterpretation of the Constitution(35:41) Competing notions of liberty and the Declaration(36:14) Who got it right, Douglass or MLK?Notable Quotes(07:24) “Douglass believed in the Declaration more than Garrison did.” — Lucas Morel(00:27:15) "Frederick Douglass can be considered a statesman because of the way he used the English language, the king's English, as it were, on behalf of the principles of the regime." — Lucas Morel(36:40) “I’ll put all my eggs in the Douglass basket.” — Lucas Morel(37:08) “Frederick Douglass, as you said earlier, was a true believer in these principles. He believed in them more than most white Americans believed in their principles.” — Lucas Morel(37:37) “King came to believe what he called this thing called color shock, that there was a way in which color still has this power over people in the United States.”— Lucas Morel(38:51) “At the end of the day, Frederick Douglass vision overlapped much more closely to Lincoln than Martin Luther King's did.”— Lucas Morel

Was Thomas Jefferson the sole author of the Declaration? In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon sits down with Holly Megson, senior documentary editor on the Quill Project at Pembroke College, Oxford, to trace how the Declaration of Independence actually took shape inside the Second Continental Congress. Together, they move beyond the familiar image of Jefferson writing alone and uncover the collective effort that produced one of history’s most influential political texts.Matthew and Holly explore the formation of the Committee of Five—Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston—and examine what little documentary evidence survives of their work. From Jefferson’s heavily marked “rough draft” to the conflicting memories Adams and Jefferson recorded decades later, the episode reveals how the Declaration emerged amid secrecy, overwhelming workloads, and deep uncertainty about whether independence would even be approved.The conversation also asks a critical historical question: how should credit be assigned? While Jefferson clearly served as the Declaration’s primary draftsman, Holly explains why the document is best understood as a collaborative act of statesmanship, shaped by shared grievances, inherited political language, and editorial interventions from Adams, Franklin, and Congress itself.This episode ultimately shows that America’s most iconic statement of independence was not the product of a single moment of inspiration; instead, it was the result of collective judgment under extraordinary pressure.In This Episode(00:14) Meet Holly Megson and the Quill Project(01:13) Why the lone-author myth persists(01:25) The Committee of Five explained(02:23) Sources Jefferson consulted while drafting(03:17) How legislative committees actually write documents(04:24) What instructions Jefferson may have received(05:47) Earlier grievances and preexisting language(07:44) Why Sherman and Livingston fade from the record(08:52) Adams vs. Jefferson: conflicting memories(10:10) Jefferson’s response to Adams’s account(12:58) The crushing committee workload(14:33) Drafting under wartime pressure(16:25) Congress edits, Jefferson objects(17:38) Was Jefferson the author or the draftsman?(18:44) Why contemporaneous records matterNotable Quotes(00:46) "Americans sort of walk around with an image in mind that Jefferson sat down in his boarding room and drafted the declaration, showed it to a few people, and then Congress adopted it. And there's a much more complex drafting process." — Matthew Brogdon(01:46) " There are no records, unsurprisingly, of when they met because of the nature of what they were discussing." — Holly Megson(07:02) "Jefferson, very helpfully after the Revolutionary War, decided that he wanted to mark [the Rough Draft] document... he doesn't attribute any of the changes to Livingston or Sherman." — Holly Megson(10:13) "The committee unanimously decided that he should write the draft, refuting the idea of any kind of subcommittee and really reinforcing that. It was a one-man endeavor,"— Holly Megson(17:53) " Jefferson is definitely the primary author, but if he were an academic, he'd be quite a bad academic. He hasn't properly cited his co-authors." — Holly Megson(17:39) "I don't necessarily dispute that he was the author. I do think the term draftsman is more appropriate." — Holly Megson(19:04) “I do think it is important, in summary, to say Jefferson plays the principal role. He is in many ways the draftsman author of the Declaration, but owes so much to the collaborative work that goes on in this committee.” — Matthew Brogdon

What if the Declaration of Independence wasn’t just Jefferson’s triumph, but John Adams’s victory too?In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon make the case for giving John Adams his due. Often remembered as prickly, pompous, or perpetually overshadowed, Adams was in fact one of the most important and hardest-working architects of American independence.Savannah and Matthew trace Adams’s rise from a New England farmer’s son to the fiercest and most relentless advocate for independence in the Continental Congress. Long before July 4, 1776, Adams was pushing Congress toward self-government, drafting foundational documents, organizing the war effort, and building the coalition that made independence possible.The episode explores Adams’s deep commitment to the rule of law, his principled defense of the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, and his decisive role in nominating George Washington as commander in chief. It also reveals how Adams shaped the Declaration itself, not just as Jefferson’s editor, but as the strategist who insisted a Virginian write it, helped outline its structure, supplied key ideas and language, and then defended it on the floor of Congress as its fiercest champion.Along the way, Savannah and Matthew unpack Adams’s political philosophy, especially his emphasis on consent, safety, and happiness as the true ends of government, and show how his thinking echoes throughout the Declaration and later American constitutional design.The episode concludes with Adams’s enduring legacy, a founder who may never have been popular, but whose ambition, integrity, and relentless work helped create a nation and who deserves far more credit than history often gives him.In This Episode[00:10 Introduction and justice for John Adams[01:20] Adams’s early life and background[03:14] Personality and public perception[07:17] Principles and the Boston Massacre defense[08:23] Role in the Continental Congress[09:21] Adams’s push for new governments[12:55] Lee’s resolution and Adams’s advocacy[15:48] Adams’s personality and coalition building[18:23] Formation of the Committee of Five[22:43] Adams’s self-awareness and Jefferson’s drafting[24:20] The drafting process and Adams’s influence[27:13] Adams as defender of the Declaration[28:10] Adams’s language and philosophy in the Declaration[32:59] Adams’s post-revolution contributions[34:27] Adams’s legacy and death[35:28] Adams in popular culture and the need for a monument[38:04] Conclusion and call for justiceNotable Quotes(00:21) “The theme of this episode is justice for John Adams.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston(11:07) “Adams pushed Congress in the fall of 1775. We're months, half a year from independence. And Adams is saying Congress should tell states to establish new governments based on the consent of their own people, exercising their own judgment with the idea that they would conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents and America in general.”— Matthew Brogdon(18:07) “It does take a person like John Adams who will just ignore the social cues, like ignore all of the social opprobrium attached to being caught making trouble, to actually induce everybody to move, get the job done right.”— Matthew Brogdon(23:00) “You are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business.”— John Adams(27:50) “In many ways, yes, Jefferson wrote the Declaration, but it’s Adams’s Declaration too.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston(34:29)“John Adams deserves a lot more credit for the Declaration of Independence and for the American system of government in general.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston

Did you know that Thomas Jefferson originally wrote a fierce condemnation of slavery into the Declaration of Independence, only for Congress to remove it before signing the final document? And did you know that in 1776, no one was certain whether slavery in America would fade away, transform, or expand?In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Dr. Nicholas Cole, Pembroke College, University of Oxford, explore the complicated world of slavery at the time the Declaration was written. Together, they walk through why Jefferson’s anti-slavery passage was removed, how Americans understood slavery in 1776, and why the institution stood on a very uncertain foundation during the revolutionary period.Dr. Cole explains how the Atlantic world, English legal rulings, gradual emancipation proposals, and the widespread reading of Montesquieu shaped early American thinking. The conversation also explores the financial barriers to ending slavery, the moral and religious arguments circulating in the colonies, and the troubling realities within slaveholder families, including Jefferson’s own. They then discuss figures like George Washington and John Adams and how their attitudes toward slavery reveal a more complex political and moral landscape than many assume.This episode shows how the Declaration of Independence emerged from a moment filled with unresolved questions, intense debate, and moral tension. It challenges the idea that the founders were blind to the contradictions of slavery and highlights how close the nation may have been to choosing a very different path.In This Episode(00:00) Introduction and episode setup(01:17) Jefferson’s stricken slavery passage(01:28) Physicality and emphasis in Jefferson’s draft(04:29) Context and debates on slavery in 1776(06:00) Legal and social shifts against slavery(09:20) Gradual emancipation and economic obstacles(12:53) Humanity vs. property: enslaved persons as ‘men.’(14:29) Changing racial attitudes and moral regression(15:38) Jefferson, Sally Hemings, and family complexities(17:47) Christian and moral arguments against slavery(19:09) Philosophical and legal arguments on slavery(21:10) Montesquieu, republicanism, and slavery’s contradiction(22:08) George Washington, Adams, and founders’ approaches(25:13) Slavery and the founding compromisesNotable Quotes(06:01) “Montesquieu said you can't really have a republic and slavery, and that the arguments in favor of slavery are illegitimate.” - Dr. Nicholas Cole(11:08) “But I think there is this real problem that so much money has been loaned in order to allow people to own slaves. And so that makes ending it very difficult.” - Dr. Nicholas Cole(13:14) “Jefferson knew his property consisted of men. He understood the moral weight of that contradiction.” - Dr. Nicholas Cole(23:41) “Washington does things as a slave owner that we would find utterly abhorrent, including rotating slaves from his household when he's president and in a state that doesn't recognize slavery.” - Dr. Nicholas Cole(24:37) “Maybe it's better to speak more about Washington and certainly Adams and less about Jefferson as kind of core founding fathers. Hopefully, we're more Washingtonian and more like Adams, the American political project, than Jefferson.” - Savannah Eccles Johnston(25:20) “If anybody had tried to use the convention to settle the question of slavery, there would have been no union. That is absolutely clear."- Dr. Nicholas Cole(26:19) “1776 is murky on the question of slavery, and this actually helps us understand the moment and the document and what it represents and what it led to understand that everything was kind of up in the air.”- Savannah Eccles Johnston

What if the story of American independence didn’t actually begin with Jefferson at his writing desk? What if long before the Declaration of Independence, more than a hundred towns, counties, militias, and even grand juries had already taken matters into their own hands and declared themselves free of Britain?In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon uncover the astonishing world of forgotten declarations that came before July 4, 1776.Savannah and Matthew trace how these early statements emerged from every corner of American life: Massachusetts town meetings, South Carolina grand juries, militia battalions in Pennsylvania, and even groups like the New York Mechanics Union. These weren’t fringe ideas. They were the building blocks of a national identity forming from the bottom up. Long before Congress acted, Americans were already asserting natural rights, condemning monarchy, and proclaiming themselves a new people.They also walk through the most famous example, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, whose language helped inspire both Jefferson and the later Bill of Rights. Along the way, they explore why virtue, frugality, temperance, and justice were once considered essential political principles, and how Americans gradually shifted from moral to material thinking in the Progressive Era.This episode reveals a powerful truth: America wasn’t created by one declaration. It was created by hundreds of voices speaking the same political language long before the nation was officially born.In This Episode(00:00) Introduction(00:52) The Quill Project and early declarations(01:25) Season of declaring independence(02:31) Who issued declarations?(03:31) Examples of local declarations(04:43) Massachusetts town declarations(05:51) Elements of declarations(07:48) Declaration as national restatement(08:46) Virginia Declaration of Rights(10:41) Philosophical statements and rights(11:02) Virginia Declaration’s enduring language(12:44) Virtue and state constitutions(16:56) Virtue’s decline in the Progressive Era(19:23) Common elements in all declarations(20:09) What does declaration writing say about America(21:35) Federal character and consensus building(22:16) Distinctly American rights and traditions(23:03) Conclusion and further resourcesNotable Quotes(00:44) “Politico estimated that there are over 100 such declarations, but now we have them all in one location.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston(03:37) “There's a grand jury indictment in Charleston, the 23rd of April in 1776, that declares that the local government is, in the opinion of the local government, the American colonies are independent.” — Matthew Brogdon(05:40) “Thomas Jefferson says, the Declaration is just a statement of the American mind. And quite literally, that's what it is.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston(07:25) “You should really think of these like a list of elements. Grievances. Independence. Form of government. Statement of political principles.” — Matthew Brogdon(08:25) “So who really is the spirit of America, Massachusetts? Is it you or is it North Carolina? I'm going for Massachusetts.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(09:22) “That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights...That's just the philosophical statement of the Declaration of Independence in a little clunkier form.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(23:03) “Let's end with that line that these declarations, both the National Declaration and the State Declarations, the local declaration, the Association declarations, are what constituted America.” — Matthew Brogdon

Did you know the man who wrote Common Sense, the pamphlet that inspired Americans to fight for independence, died alone with only six mourners at his funeral? In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon unpack the fascinating and tragic story of Thomas Paine, a man who helped spark the Revolution but couldn’t find a home in the nation he helped create.They follow Paine’s incredible journey from a struggling English immigrant to one of the most gifted writers of his generation, standing shoulder to shoulder with Franklin, Jefferson, and Hamilton whose words gave the colonies a sense of identity and purpose. Common Sense and The American Crisis didn’t just rally troops; they shaped what it meant to be American. But the same bold, uncompromising spirit that made him a hero would also turn him into an outcast.Savannah and Matthew trace how Paine’s time in France, his open attacks on George Washington, and his controversial book The Age of Reason, where he challenged organized religion, left him alienated and forgotten. Was he a patriot or just a perpetual revolutionary? This episode dives into that question and reminds us how someone can be absolutely right for their moment in history yet completely lost in their own time.In This Episode(00:00) Introduction(00:17) Thomas Paine’s early life and arrival in America(01:02) Paine’s early career in America and Common Sense(01:24) Impact and success of Common Sense(01:59) Why Common Sense was so powerful(02:26) Paine’s attack on monarchy and hereditary rule(04:13) Biblical arguments against monarchy(05:15) Paine’s writing style and rhetorical skill(06:40) The case for American independence and identity(09:31) Immigrants and the American identity(10:31) Paine and the naming of the United States(11:28) Speculation on Paine and the Declaration of Independence(11:41) America’s duty and revolutionary purpose(12:17) Providence, history, and revolutionary ideals(13:07) American vs. French revolutionary ideals(14:38) Common Sense’s public reception and influence(15:38) Copyright, authors’ rights, and Paine’s finances(16:14) The American Crisis and its impact(18:36) Paine’s decline and involvement in the French Revolution(20:08) Paine’s imprisonment and rescue(24:17) Paine’s break with Washington and controversial writings(25:35) The Age of Reason and alienation from America(27:01) Paine’s radical ideas on property and universal income(29:10) Paine’s legacy: revolutionary vs. patriot(32:23) Lessons from Paine’s life and deathNotable Quotes(02:26) “Paine is an excellent writer. I mean, he's got a claim to being one of the most talented writers of the founding in a generation that boasted Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and Gouverneur Morris and Alexander Hamilton.." — Matthew Brogdon(02:46) "I think he has a way of identifying the sort of core arguments, the core complaints. I mean, he's anticipating, in many ways, the argument of the declaration, because he's identifying the principal target as monarchy." — Matthew Brogdon(04:18) “He uses kind of a biblical argument against monarchy, which is very common in this day to do. But given the fact that he doesn't believe in the Bible, this is an interesting thing for him to do.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston (06:18) "The great joke of monarchy is that it so often gives us an ass for a lion. You know, you start out with a lion and then you wind up with the kids or just not what they ought to be." — Matthew Brogdon(10:33) "Thomas Paine is, in some quarters, credited with creating the name United States of America." — Savannah Eccles Johnston (20:02) "T

How did the Americans go from loyal British subjects to full-blown revolutionaries? Were the British really that bad, or were the colonists simply overreacting?In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon unpack the long and escalating list of grievances that transformed loyal British subjects into determined revolutionaries.Moving beyond the myths of the Boston Tea Party, they trace a history of constitutional conflict, from the Proclamation of 1763 and the Stamp Act to the Boston Massacre. The conversation reveals how British attempts to reassert control, such as closing the Boston Harbor and dissolving local legislatures, were seen not as legitimate governance but as a fundamental attack on a 150-year tradition of American self-rule.Discover the compelling "Dominion Theory" that American colonists advanced as a peaceful alternative to independence, and explore the pivotal moment when Britain's heavy-handed response to protest united the colonies and made revolution inevitable. If you've ever wondered whether the Founders were justified in their rebellion, this episode provides the evidence.Tune in to explore how real grievances, not reckless rebellion, sparked the birth of American independence.In This Episode(00:00) Introduction(00:44) Reading the declaration’s grievances(02:14) First Continental Congress and the Declaration of Resolves(04:29) Second Continental Congress and taking up arms(06:36) Lexington and Concord: the first shots(08:49) Colonial grievances as reactions to British actions(09:25) Colonial-British relations before the French and Indian War(10:54) The French and Indian War and its aftermath(11:11) Proclamation of 1763 and colonial expansion(12:41) New taxes: Sugar Act, Stamp Act, Townshend Acts(13:44) Homespun movement and boycotts(15:54) Boston Massacre and escalating tensions(16:34) The Tea Act and the Boston Tea Party(18:37) Internal colonial debate and Sons of Liberty(20:36) British reaction: the Intolerable Acts(21:39) Impact of the Intolerable Acts on colonial unity(22:34) Suspension of local governments and trial rights(24:13) Quartering of troops and widespread alarm(25:37) The Quebec Act and religious tensions(25:58) Why the Intolerable Acts were the breaking point(28:11) Dominion theory and alternative constitutional proposals(31:00) Missed opportunities for reconciliation(33:03) British conduct during the war(34:04) Conclusion: Were the British really that badNotable Quotes(03:21) “The keeping of standing armies in these colonies in times of peace, without the consent of the legislature of that colony, is against the law.” — Matthew (06:48) “ General Gage... sent out from Boston a large detachment of his army, who made an unprovoked assault on the inhabitants at Lexington.” — Matthew (13:56) “They would all meet in these spinning clubs and make homespun clothes and really shame other people who were buying any British-made goods.” — Savannah (16:07) “The propaganda wheels are turning. The idea is not only are they taxing us, but now they’re actually shooting us.” — Savannah (21:43) “The effect of this is that Boston’s going to starve. It’s a trade economy. You close Boston Harbor, you destroy the economy.” — Savannah(33:13) “They wound up sending German mercenaries, the Hessians  to fight on their behalf, and this actually results in widespread sexual violence against American women.” — Matthew (34:04) “So to answer the question, were the British really that bad? Yes. Yes, they were.” — Savannah 

Have you ever wondered where America’s revolutionary ideas really came from? Was it the genius of the Founders? What if the story of the Constitution didn’t begin in Philadelphia in 1776, but in colonial homes, small-town churches, and the stubborn belief that no one has the right to rule another?In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon trace the folk origins of American self-government. Through the voices of farmers, ministers, and everyday colonists, they uncover how the principles of liberty and equality were not imported from Europe’s philosophers but born from generations of lived experience.From the self-written laws of the early colonies to the fiery courage of men like Captain Levi Preston, who famously said, “We always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to,” this conversation reveals that America’s Revolution was not just a political one. It was deeply personal.If you think the Declaration of Independence was the start of freedom’s story, think again. This episode examines how the American spirit of self-rule was already alive, thriving, and waiting to be documented.In This Episode(00:18) Introduction to discussion topic(00:55) Captain Levi Preston and folk origins(02:13) Colonial self-government traditions(04:53) 150 years of self-government(06:14) Cultural and political ties to Britain(07:16) Influence of American colonies on Britain(08:58) Speculation on the empire’s future(09:39) Radical ideas: No man has a right to rule another(10:32) Sam Whittemore’s story and individual action(11:26) “A man can stand up” – Johnny Tremain reference(13:41) The principle of equality and self-government(14:48) Folk origins and pervasiveness of the idea(15:26) Contradictions: Slavery and self-government(17:28) Revolutionary spread of equality(18:10) Inherited and revolutionary aspects(19:25) Washington’s change and sentiment revolution(20:27) Twin dynamics: Inheritance and improvement(22:20) Is self-government core to American identity?(22:28) Tocqueville: Freedom and religion(24:19) Pragmatic wisdom in the Declaration(24:33) Recap and folk origins summaryNotable Quotes(01:43) “What we meant in going for those redcoats was this. We always had governed ourselves and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should.” — Captain Levi Preston(01:57) “The folk origin of the Declaration, if you will, is to preserve the traditional way of life, which is just to govern yourself, just to be in charge of yourself.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(05:41) “It’s tempting to think of revolution as we start off as British colonies and we gradually become American. Actually, the colonies were very distant, very separate, and very independent from Great Britain in the 17th century.” — Matthew Brogdon(06:57) “It’s kind of like you’ve been ignored by your parents and now you’re 17 and suddenly they want to be your parents again, and now you’re ready to be independent.” — Savannah (11:19) “No man has a right to rule another. And you actually brought this up before the podcast, this idea of a man’s right to stand up.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(12:34) “We’re fighting so that a man can stand up.” — Matthew Brogdon quoting James Otis(22:30) “The distinctive thing that Americans did, that no one had done in republican societies before us, was we combined the spirit of freedom and the spirit of religion.” — Matthew Brogdon(24:40) “The idea of self-government is not new with the Declaration. You said earlier that people didn’t read the Declaration and go, oh really? That’s good to know. No, they already knew this.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston

What if the American Revolution didn’t begin in the halls of Congress, but in the pews of colonial churches? In this episode of This Constitution, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon uncover the spiritual and intellectual fire that helped ignite the Revolution. Before muskets were fired at Lexington and Concord, preachers across New England were already preparing their congregations for rebellion, not just politically but theologically.From the sermons of Reverend Jonas Clark to the democratic church governance of the Puritans, and from Jonathan Mayhew’s biblical case for resistance to tyranny to Peter Muhlenberg’s dramatic call to arms, Savannah and Matthew trace how America’s revolution was born in the pulpit long before it was fought on the battlefield.Together, they explore how this Black-Robed Regiment of clergymen bridged faith and politics, shaping the moral vocabulary of liberty that defined the nation’s founding.In This Episode(00:17) Introduction and overview of “The Black Robed Regiment”(00:53) Reverend Jonas Clark and the Battle of Lexington(04:37) Puritan origins of political liberty and separation of church and state(07:14) How congregational church governance shaped early democracy(10:21) Thomas Hooker, Connecticut, and the first written constitution(17:00) Jonathan Mayhew’s sermon and the theology of rebellion(23:19) Samuel Cook’s fearless sermon after the Boston Massacre(27:29) Tocqueville, Frederick Douglass, and the moral force of the pulpit(32:58) John Witherspoon and Peter Muhlenberg — faith in action(38:06) Takeaway: The Revolution began in the pewsNotable Quotes(00:08:44) “Democratic governance in America didn’t begin in politics. It began in the church.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(00:24:45) “The bravery it took for Samuel Cook to stare down the loyal governor and call him a tyrant… that’s a different kind of courage.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(00:25:09) “People say religion and politics should be kept separate. But that view ignores our founding. Religion was the spark.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(00:20:36) “If obedience to rulers who govern on God’s behalf is obedience to God, then obedience to a tyrant would be obedience to the devil.” — Matthew Brogdon(00:23:40) “It’s a dangerous thing when theology fuels revolution, but without it, we wouldn’t have political progress.” — Matthew Brogdon(00:27:55) “Religion in America has always shaped politics—not through force, but through conscience.” — Matthew Brogdon

Season 3 of This Constitution focuses on the people and events surrounding the making of the Declaration of Independence.What if America’s Revolution had collapsed before it truly began? In this episode of This Constitution, host Savannah Eccles Johnston sits down with Dr. Kevin Weddle, retired U.S. Army colonel, military historian, and author of The Compleat Victory, to explore how George Washington survived the most dangerous year of the war.From the daring crossing of the Delaware to the humiliating loss of Fort Ticonderoga, Washington faced both battlefield disaster and political backstabbing. Yet, in the fire of 1777, he learned to balance three roles at once: front-line commander, national commander-in-chief, and political strategist. Together, Johnston and Weddle trace how Washington’s leadership in this single year transformed him into the indispensable man of the Revolution and laid the foundation for his presidency.In This Episode(00:11) Introduction and guest welcome(01:00) The army on the brink: Washington’s retreat through New Jersey(04:10) The “Ten Crucial Days”: Trenton and Princeton victories(08:30) Washington’s Fabian strategy and morale revival(11:20) Saratoga campaign and the fall of Fort Ticonderoga(15:00) Skyler, Gates, and a command crisis in the north(20:45) Washington’s reinforcements: Arnold, Lincoln, Morgan’s riflemen(27:30) Talent management and leadership lessons(31:10) The Conway Cabal and Gates’ political maneuvering(36:00) Washington’s confrontation with Conway and political savvy(39:00) How Washington neutralized rivals and preserved authority(40:35) Lessons of 1777 for Washington’s presidencyNotable Quotes(05:45) “Just pulling something like that off with an army that’s falling apart—bad morale, desertions everywhere—is brilliant. It’s a tribute to Washington’s leadership.” — Kevin Weddle(10:01) “It’s considered the ‘Ten Crucial Days’ of the American Revolution because those two victories really turned things around.” — Kevin Weddle(28:09) “Talent management—that’s exactly what Washington was doing. He knew where the right leaders needed to be, even if it meant sending his best away.” — Kevin Weddle(33:39) “I think this is a brilliant move on Washington’s part… he goes to Congress and says: I am commander-in-chief. Reinforce it. And they do.” — Kevin Weddle(39:57) “By eliminating rivals and strengthening his own position, Washington emerged from 1777 not weaker, but indispensable.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston

What if America’s greatest strength wasn’t just its leaders, but the way everyday people came together to shape history? In this episode of This Constitution, host Matthew Brogdon sits down with Nicholas Cole of Oxford’s Pembroke College, creator of the Quill Project, to dig into the overlooked story of America’s founding.Far from being the work of a single “lawgiver” like Solon or Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence and other revolutionary texts were born out of spirited collaboration. From town halls in Massachusetts to Virginia’s Fairfax Resolves, communities debated, revised, and ultimately claimed ownership over the words that would launch a nation. Cole explains how this culture of deliberation, grand juries, militias, assemblies, and conventions set America apart from revolutions elsewhere, transforming ordinary gatherings into the foundation of popular sovereignty.Together, Brogdon and Cole trace how these practices not only produced the Declaration but also laid the groundwork for the U.S. Constitution and federal union. They explore how Jefferson’s draft drew on community voices, and how America’s deliberative spirit still shapes our civic life today.If you’ve ever wondered what truly makes America’s founding unique, this conversation offers a fresh lens and a reminder of the power of collective decision-making.In This Episode(00:11) Introduction and guest welcome(00:31) Origins of American deliberation(02:14) Jefferson and collective authorship(05:04) Spirit of the American Revolution(05:51) Colonial and local deliberative traditions(09:29) Fairfax Resolves and local assemblies(13:01) Community sense and delay of independence(14:33) Popular sovereignty and ratification(15:43) Variety of deliberative bodies(16:39) Parliamentary law and deliberative procedure(19:26) Grand juries and public service(22:02) Distinguishing public bodies from mobs(24:54) Non-importation agreements and authority(26:19) Compulsory support and revolutionary action(28:04) American Revolution’s distinctiveness(30:06) British and American deliberative traditions(33:22) Comparisons to English and European precedents(34:20) Ancient and English precedents(35:42) Crystallization of deliberative traditions(37:07) Federal system and popular constitution-making(38:26) The Quill Project overview(39:38) Quill Project’s Declaration of Independence work(41:12) Resource collections and acknowledgmentsNotable Quotes(01:00) "Before the American Revolution, most constitutions were the product either of accident and force or the wisdom of a lawgiver. America's different. These things are written by groups of people who deliberate and worry about every word." — Nicholas Cole(03:01) "All of those things that Jefferson takes credit for are things that he did in concert with other people. He wasn't starting with a completely blank page." — Nicholas Cole(04:44) "The idea that human beings do their best work when they act together, that feature of American thought in the 18th century, was one of the things that really captured my interest." — Nicholas Cole(16:54) "There was an idea that there was a proper way for groups of people to behave when they were deliberating together. This often went under the name of something like parliamentary law." — Nicholas Cole(28:34) "Most revolutions do not look like the American Revolution in this sense. Other alternatives are definitely available." — Nicholas Cole(38:58) "The Quill Project is an attempt to help people understand these sometimes very extended and complicated processes of deliberation. You can think of it as kind of track changes for historians." — Nicholas Cole

Did you know that George Washington could have become an American Caesar, but instead chose to walk away from power? Unlike Napoleon or Cromwell, he rejected dictatorship and dynasty, setting the precedent for civilian control of the military, limited executive authority, and the peaceful transfer of power.In this episode of This Constitution, host Matthew Brogdon sits down with eminent historian Jeremy Black to trace Washington’s extraordinary balancing act. From the battlefields of the Revolution to the presidency, Washington navigated fragile institutions, fractious states, and the lure of personal power and, in doing so, set precedents that continue to define American politics.The conversation explores Washington’s role as a “meritocratic monarch,” how he differed from figures like George III, Napoleon, and Oliver Cromwell, and why his restraint proved essential to building a constitutional republic. They discuss the challenges of commanding a multi-state army, the dangers of potential coups, his deliberate retirement, and the legacy of leadership “for country, not party.”They also tackle a deeper question: what does Washington’s example teach us about the relationship between military power and constitutional government? His decision to submit force to law, ambition to restraint, and leadership to the service of the people remains one of the defining features of American constitutionalism.In This Episode(00:03) Opening and introduction(00:56) Washington as a "meritocratic monarch"(02:34) Contrasts with George III and Napoleon(04:09) Washington’s challenges with Congress and state governments(05:31) Comparison to the French Revolution and use of force(07:01) Civilian control of the military: Historical continuity(08:20) Presidential power and restraint(09:37) Washington’s post-war precedent(10:54) Use of force in domestic rebellions(12:23) Continuity from military to executive leadership(13:04) Constitutional practices in the Continental Army(14:48) Managing rivalries and federalism in the army(16:12) Geographic shifts in the Revolutionary War(17:25) Washington’s political skills and resource allocation(19:41) National identity and the crucible of war(22:29) Army vs. Navy in American political culture(23:48) Washington’s non-autocratic leadership(24:32) Washington as American Cincinnatus(25:56) Washington’s farewell address and peaceful transfer of power(27:44) Conclusion and legacy(28:08) Podcast outro and next episode teaserNotable Quotes(01:00) "I see George Washington as a formative figure in America and an example of the best type of what I call a meritocratic monarch." — Jeremy Black(04:13) "Washington does this with enormous skill, not in easy circumstances." — Jeremy Black(08:21) "One of the patterns that derives directly from Washington is that of the subordination of the military to civil authority." — Jeremy Black(08:37) "Washington was not an American Caesar. He did not create himself as a dictator either." — Jeremy Black(19:44) "America is born in the crucible of war, because that defines the boundaries of America." — Jeremy Black(23:06) "The expression of liberty becomes that of serving on land in military forces." — Jeremy Black(27:35) "I think one could say his politics were for the people, for his country, rather than for himself or his party." — Jeremy Black

How did a political system founded by leaders who warned against factions end up making political parties an indispensable part of democracy? And why has the United States remained a two-party nation for nearly two centuries?In this episode of This Constitution, host Matthew Brogdon sits down with political scientist Daniel DiSalvo to trace the fascinating constitutional and political journey of America’s party system. From Jefferson’s “party to end all parties” to Martin Van Buren’s invention of the enduring two-party model, they unpack the forces that created, shaped, and sustained the parties we know today.The conversation explores how early mechanisms like the “King Caucus” gave way to national conventions, how parties managed (and sometimes suppressed) divisive issues like slavery, and why the two-party system has proven so resilient thanks to first-past-the-post elections, the Electoral College, and state ballot laws.They also tackle a deeper question: how political parties and the Constitution are in constant tension. The Constitution disperses power through the separation of powers; parties try to assemble it to win and govern. That push-and-pull has defined American politics from the 1790s to the present.In This Episode(00:13) Introduction to Daniel DiSalvo and the study of political parties(01:16) Founders’ skepticism toward parties and their early emergence(04:30) State governments’ role in shaping elections(06:03) The “King Caucus” and constitutional concerns(09:44) Jefferson’s “party to end all parties”(10:58) Van Buren’s case for permanent parties to avoid sectionalism(12:16) National conventions as a political safety valve(15:19) Tariffs, internal improvements, and keeping slavery off the agenda(18:18) How parties suppressed abolitionist voices(20:38) The Republican Party’s rise as the only successful third party(24:22) Why the U.S. has a two-party system(26:19) First-past-the-post elections and the Electoral College(31:13) The appeal (and limits) of the two-party model(36:00) Consensus politics in a separated-powers system(39:32) Why parties remain essential to democratic accountabilityNotable Quotes(01:23) "Jefferson's opposition didn't last very long. You could say that maybe his statement shows that many statements in politics are in bad faith, since he still hopes to go to heaven, even though he was one of the founders of the first political party." — Dan DISalvo(02:10) "The Constitution, which sets up all these institutions, doesn't specify a way that these offices are gonna get filled up. So how are you gonna get people to be elected to these offices?" — Dan DISalvo(03:15) "Parties become the ligaments and the muscles that tie it together, tying citizens to the institutions set up by the Constitution." — Dan DiSalvo(06:30) "The process for electing presidents became what was then called the King Caucus, which was what these nascent parties in Congress were." — Dan DiSalvo(13:00) "Van Buren's idea is we're going to take away, get rid of this King caucus, and we're going to have this idea of national conventions." — Dan DiSalvo(29:00) "The Electoral College system makes it very hard for third parties to get in." — Dan DiSalvo(32:30) "In our system, you campaign inside your own party to win a primary election, then you campaign on what you think is good." — Dan DiSalvo

How should a democracy balance the need for independent investigations of government wrongdoing with the president’s constitutional authority over prosecutions? Where do we draw the line?In this episode of This Constitution, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon dig into the fascinating and often murky world of special counsels. From their origins in President Grant’s efforts to distance himself from scandals, to the dramatic moments of the Watergate era and the "Saturday Night Massacre," the history of special counsels is anything but straightforward.They break down the creation of independent counsels under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, a powerful legal framework that was later undone by high-profile investigations like Iran-Contra and the Clinton impeachment. Fast forward to today, and the special counsel role has become a battleground for constitutional debate, raising tough questions about who holds the power to fire them and when.Matthew makes a compelling argument for why prosecutorial power must remain politically accountable, warning against a future where legal battles spiral beyond the courts’ control. They wrap up the episode with a powerful reminder to rethink our reliance on legally ambiguous mechanisms and consider the Constitution’s built-in safeguards, like impeachment, as a much-needed check on power.Tune in for an eye-opening dive into the constitutional tension between justice and executive authority.In This Episode(00:15) Topic Introduction and definition of special counsels(01:16) Historical origins: Grant and Roosevelt(01:57) Watergate and Nixon: The rise of controversy(03:37) The Saturday night massacre(06:03) Aftermath of Watergate: Impeachment and resignation(07:14) Constitutional issues: Executive power and accountability(09:53) The Ethics in Government Act of 1978(11:31) Independent counsel vs. special counsel: Key differences(12:44) Scope and jurisdiction of independent counsel(14:35) Controversies: Iran-Contra and Whitewater(15:05) Supreme Court and Morrison v. Olson(17:20) Problems with removal and accountability(20:48) Expiration of the independent counsel statute(25:38) Return to special counsels: DOJ regulations(26:52) The Mueller investigation and modern special counsels(29:12) Removal and oversight of special counsels(31:51) Unresolved constitutional questions(33:23) Political vs. legal controls: Impeachment and accountability(37:38) Checks and balances: Political structure vs. legal processNotable Quotes(09:07) "The prosecutorial power is a very dangerous power. Even if you can't get a conviction, to bring an indictment and to pursue a prosecution against someone can ruin their life." — Matthew Brogdon(12:26) "The independent counsel has, quote, full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers of The Department of Justice, the Attorney General, and any other officer or employee of the Department of Justice." — Matthew Brogdon(34:09) "I think the founding generation expected the impeachment power to be a far more widely utilized power. That's been extremely rare. And I think we've actually underutilized it." — Matthew Brogdon(37:43) "Checks and balances work best when you lean into their political structure. They're inherently political structure, and they get really murky, and we get lots of problems or potential problems when we ignore that structure in favor of a more legal structure and rely more on the courts." — Savannah Eccles Johnston

When we hear “impeachment,” most of us immediately think: the President. But what if that’s only part of the story? In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon explore the lesser-known history of impeaching cabinet secretaries and other executive officials, revealing how the process has always been more political than legal.They revisit the case of Secretary of War William Belknap, who resigned in tears in 1876, hoping to dodge impeachment—only to face it anyway. Fast-forward to 2024, and Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is at the center of a modern-day controversy that reopens the same unresolved questions. Can officials be impeached after they’ve left office? What actually qualifies as a “high crime or misdemeanor”? And who decides?Through historical case studies, sharp legal insight, and a few surprising turns (including George Washington daring Congress to impeach him), this episode digs into how impeachment functions as a tool of accountability—and a reflection of the political moment.If you think impeachment is just about criminal wrongdoing, think again. This conversation will shift how you view one of the Constitution’s most powerful and misunderstood mechanisms.In This Episode(00:13) Introduction and overview(00:59) Impeachment process and constitutional ambiguity(02:52) Impeaching former officials: The Belknap case(05:32) Impeachment after resignation: Nixon and precedents(07:50) Trump’s second impeachment and unresolved legal questions(08:21) Senate jurisdiction and the Blount case(11:30) Defining high crimes and misdemeanors: Johnson’s impeachment(13:07) Political vs. legal grounds for impeachment(15:23) Impeachment standards for judges vs. executives(16:12) Early impeachment threats: Washington and the Jay Treaty(17:39) Modern debates: Mayorkas's impeachment and political disputes(19:19) Impeachment responsibility: Cabinet secretaries vs. presidents(22:32) Impeachment as a congressional tool(23:16) Impeachment’s political nature and checks and balances(24:36) Impeachment vs. criminal prosecution(27:05) Conclusion: Impeachment’s role in American governmentNotable Quotes(00:43) "When it comes to executive impeachments, we have a history of failed impeachments." — Savannah(03:01) "Can you impeach former government officials? The Constitution does not tell us... This is something that had to be figured out in the moment that it became an issue." — Savannah (05:10) "I just hope at some point in my life I can find an occasion to look at an office holder and say, you have prostituted your high office out of a lust for private gain." — Matthew(06:43) "Impeachment is not just about removing people from office. It's also about the possibility of excluding them or disqualifying them from future office holding." — Matthew (17:05) "Washington was saying, impeach me if you think I can't be trusted and I violated the public interest in negotiating this treaty." — Matthew (26:29) "One use for impeachment is to remove a president so that he can be successfully criminally charged." — Savannah (27:07) "Impeachment is a tool in the checks and balances toolbox when it comes to working out disputes between the branches." — Matthew 

In This EpisodeIn this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon explore one of the least understood and most powerful tools in the U.S. Constitution: impeachment. But forget presidents for now, this episode dives deep into judicial impeachments: how they work, why they're rare, and why judges have historically been the ones who get removed.Savannah and Matthew unpack what it means for Congress to wield this political sword, why it's not a criminal process, and how colorful cases like Samuel Chase and Alcee Hastings shaped our understanding of judicial accountability. Along the way, they raise big questions about what "high crimes and misdemeanors" really means—and whether just being bad at your job is enough to get you booted off the bench.(00:00:13) Introduction to judicial impeachment and constitutional process(00:01:00) The House indicts, the Senate convicts(00:02:23) Impeachment is a political, not criminal process(00:03:42) The Senate as jury and the role of the Chief Justice(00:05:13) Historical focus: judges, not presidents(00:05:58) Corruption, perjury, and Florida judges(00:06:29) Why cabinet members get fired but judges get impeached(00:07:00) Life tenure vs. good behavior(00:08:00) Samuel Chase and the partisan bench(00:10:00) The Jeffersonian purge of the courts(00:12:00) Why Chase avoided conviction(00:13:30) Fast forward to Alcee Hastings (and yes, Florida again)(00:14:30) No conviction? No problem—still impeached(00:15:20) Hastings’s comeback as a Congressman(00:17:00) Can you impeach just for bad rulings?(00:18:13) Defining “high crimes and misdemeanors”(00:20:00) Bad judgment vs. misconduct(00:21:26) The Senate is the ultimate check(00:24:01) The case of Judge Pickering and judicial incompetence(00:26:05) Balancing judicial independence with accountability(00:28:00) Why judicial impeachments are so rare and so hardNotable Quotes(00:03:00) "Though this is set up like a criminal trial, it’s important to note this is a political process. This is not a criminal process." — Savannah Eccles Johnston(00:07:05) "You only get to hold this office as long as you behave yourself. And there’s a way to get rid of you if not." — Matthew Brogdon(00:12:25) "Had they impeached Chase, it would’ve telegraphed to the court: if you act like a partisan hack on the bench, we will kick you off." — Matthew Brogdon(00:15:00) "He’s no longer a judge, but Florida elects him to Congress. So I guess… he wins?" — Savannah Eccles Johnston(00:18:57) "High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined in the Constitution. But 'misdemeanor' back then just meant to misbehave." — Matthew Brogdon(00:26:05) "There is a fine balance between judicial independence and oversight by Congress. And impeachment is the only tool Congress has." — Savannah Eccles JohnstonResources and LinksThis Constitution  https://bit.ly/4fYWnViSavannah Eccles Johnstonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/savannah-eccles-johnston-515a72198/https://www.instagram.com/savypolitics/Matthew Brogdonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-brogdon-8a21bb89https://www.uvu.edu/ccs/people/matthew_brogdon.html

In this Independence Day episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon is joined by Dr. Jane Calvert, Director of the John Dickinson Writings Project and author of Penman of the Revolution. Together, they explore the legacy of John Dickinson, one of America’s most influential yet often overlooked founders.Best known for Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, Dickinson was a leading advocate for colonial rights but notably opposed the rush toward independence. Jane explains how Dickinson’s belief in natural rights, his cautious approach to revolution, and his commitment to unity positioned him as both a voice of reason and a strategic architect of America’s founding.Matthew and Jane dive into Dickinson's critical contributions to the Articles of Confederation, his overlooked role in shaping early American foreign policy, and how he continued to influence the nation, leading troops, freeing enslaved people, and playing a vital part in the Constitutional Convention.If you think the American Revolution was driven only by firebrands and radicals, this episode will challenge that view and reveal how one of the most cautious founders helped lay the foundation for American independence and unity.In This Episode(00:00:37) Introduction (00:00:27) Dickinson’s Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania(00:01:22) Sources of rights: British law vs. natural rights(00:03:45) Dickinson’s ambivalence toward independence(00:06:20) Colonial status and constitutional debates(00:07:21) Dickinson’s views on Parliament, trade, and executive power(00:11:08) The onset of war and Dickinson’s role in Congress(00:12:23) The Olive Branch Petition and the Declaration of Taking Up Arms(00:17:10) Dickinson’s strategic use of time and preparation for war(00:19:29) Dickinson’s leadership in the Pennsylvania militia and committees(00:20:36) Congressional debates: diplomacy, union, and independence(00:21:58) Dickinson’s position on independence and committee work(00:24:01) Drafting the Articles of Confederation and the Model Treaty(00:29:10) Dickinson’s post-Declaration statesmanship(00:31:51) Dickinson’s role in the Federal Convention and later life(00:35:36) Conclusion and legacyNotable Quotes(02:32) "Dickinson was one of the earliest people who said, actually, that is not right. Our rights are not bestowed upon us by any kind of paper or parchment. They come to us from God" — Jane Calvert(05:51) "Understand that  from the vantage point of the 1760s and early 1770s, the safest course for securing rights was within the confines of the British Constitution." — Jane Calvert(06:28) “The British considered themselves to have a constitution. They had certain institutional relationships, just like we argue over the relationship between the President and Congress and the relationship between the federal government and the states.”— Matthew Brogdon(16:14) "Dickinson’s goal with the Declaration was to produce such apprehensions in the British that they would think twice about coming over here." — Jane Calvert(24:08) "If Dickinson had supported independence, he would have written the Declaration." — Jane Calvert(26:37) "The model treaty Dickinson helped draft became the blueprint for American foreign policy until World War II." — Jane Calvert (26:45) "So it is a shame in a way that when we think about the Continental Congress, we often think about the Declaration of Independence and the conduct of the war. But forget some of these other crucial things that are happening and don't really happen,." — Matthew Brogdon

What happens when nine unelected judges have the final say on the most divisive questions in American life? In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon break down the Supreme Court’s most consequential and contentious tool: judicial review.They explore how this authority allows nine unelected justices to strike down laws, reshape policy, and act as a final check on Congress and the presidency. But where does this power actually come from? Is it rooted in the Constitution or in political tradition? And does it strengthen or weaken democracy?Savannah and Matthew examine the origins of judicial review, from the Supremacy Clause to Marbury v. Madison, and how the courts have used this power to decide the nation’s most polarizing issues—from marriage equality to abortion rights. They also unpack the tension between constitutional stability and democratic self-rule, and why judicial review has become both a cornerstone of American government and a lightning rod for controversy.In This Episode(00:00:15) Judicial Review: Introduction and definition(00:01:26) Scope and constitutional basis(00:03:13) Judicial review in Article III and historical assumptions(00:04:01) Marbury v. Madison and early judicial review(00:05:25) Hamilton, Federalist 78, and popular sovereignty(00:07:05) Jefferson vs. Hamilton: The dead hand of the past(00:08:31) Jefferson’s revolutionary perspective(00:12:06) Judicial review as upholding the original bargain(00:12:47) Amendments and overturning Supreme Court decisions(00:15:09) Marbury v. Madison and precedents(00:19:01) Frequency and notification of judicial review(00:20:22) Political impact of Marbury v. Madison(00:23:01) Judicial review and modern controversies(00:25:33) Congressional response to Supreme Court decisions(00:28:28) The Supreme Court’s aristocratic nature and democratic tension(00:29:32) Judicial review as a tool of national majorities(00:31:36) Deliberation and the Court’s effect on democracy(00:34:20) When should the Court intervene?(00:35:31) Origins and alternatives to judicial review(00:39:09) Judicial review: Supreme but not finalNotable Quotes(00:51) “When judges declare a law unconstitutional, they're saying that the law is in effect, unenforceable.”— Matthew Brogdon(01:53) “There's one provision in article six and what's called the Supremacy Clause that tells state judges they're supposed to declare state laws and constitutional provisions unconstitutional, or declare them void if they conflict with a federal law or the federal constitution.”— Matthew Brogdon(05:25) “This is something Alexander Hamilton will talk about in Federalist 78, where he will defend judicial review as a necessary check on legislative power, basically, legislative overreach, violation of rights. And this is very interesting.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston(00:09:06) “The hardest thing about revolution is ending it.It's creating a stable government. And the way you do that is stability and veneration in the laws” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(15:58) “Marbury is the first time the Supreme Court openly exercises the power of judicial review and declares a federal law unconstitutional.”— Matthew Brogdon(00:23:10) “Judicial review is the basis for the court being a co-equal branch of government. It’s what makes them powerful—and potentially problematic in a democratic system.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(00:30:06) “Judicial review is a kind of tool of national majorities to discipline states that want to stay out of the prevailing direction in the country.” — Matthew Brogdon(00:39:09) “Judicial review is a supreme power—but not a final power.” — Mat

Abraham Lincoln claimed he only wanted to save the Union. So how did he end up freeing millions of enslaved Americans?In this special Juneteenth episode, host Savannah Eccles Johnston is joined by Diana Schaub, professor emerita of political science at Loyola University Maryland and nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. A leading Lincoln scholar, Schaub brings deep insight into the political, legal, and moral complexity of emancipation.Together, they explore how Lincoln’s views on slavery evolved, how he balanced his constitutional oath with his personal convictions, and why his famous executive order—though limited in scope—became the most consequential in American history. The episode also traces the military strategy, legal ambiguities, and political finesse that led to the 13th Amendment and the legacy of Juneteenth.In This Episode(00:00:00) Opening and introduction(00:01:16) Lincoln’s stance on slavery and the Constitution(00:01:44) Slavery as a state vs. federal issue(00:02:18) The battle over territories and the spread of slavery(00:03:28) Lincoln’s strategy: Quarantine and gradual extinction(00:05:44) Changing Southern attitudes: Slavery as a positive good(00:07:14) Lincoln’s efforts with border states and gradual emancipation(00:08:41) Decision for executive action: Emancipation Proclamation(00:10:51) Scope and strategy of the Emancipation Proclamation(00:11:46) Reassuring border states and shaping public opinion(00:13:55) Effectiveness of the Emancipation Proclamation(00:15:26) African American troops and military impact(00:17:19) Legal status of the Emancipation Proclamation post-war(00:18:32) The need for the 13th Amendment(00:20:16) Lincoln’s political strategy for the 13th Amendment(00:22:29) Lincoln’s signature and ratification process(00:23:05) Failure of the first House vote(00:24:17) Lincoln’s sense of timing and political skill(00:25:28) Black troops and the right to vote(00:26:31) Civil War: Union vs. abolition motives(00:27:32) Gettysburg Address and the moral meaning of the Union(00:29:06) Gettysburg Address vs. Second Inaugural Address(00:30:31) National responsibility and postwar reconciliation(00:33:22) Final reflections and closingNotable Quotes[00:01:45] “Slavery was regarded as a domestic institution... governed at the state level, it was considered a state matter.” — Diana Schaub[00:04:36] “Lincoln thought that the Founders put slavery in a position of moral and physical quarantine.” — Diana Schaub[00:05:07] “The Southerners took that as the death knell of slavery and were prepared to secede over it.” — Diana Schaub[00:14:11] “The Emancipation Proclamation assumes that slaves will take action on their own. It in fact invites them to take action on their own.” — Diana Schaub[00:15:45] “By the end of the Civil War, one-fifth of the Union troops were African American.” — Diana Schaub[00:26:46] “The Union is everything because the Union has moral worth. It has moral content.” — Diana Schaub[00:27:16] “Lincoln believed that if slavery were to have spread into the territories, then it would actually become perpetual.” — Diana Schaub[00:32:49] “The point of the theological interpretation is to try to get Americans to transcend those bad passions and move in the direction of charity.” — Diana Schaub

Can Congress say no after it already said yes? For more than 50 years, the legislative veto let Congress give power to the president, then yank it back when it didn’t like the results. It was a political safety net, a constitutional gray area, and a ticking time bomb.In this episode, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon unpack how this backdoor power worked, why it exploded in the landmark case INS v. Chadha, and what that means for modern government.They trace its roots from tariff tweaks and emergency powers to immigration enforcement and massive presidential discretion. The Supreme Court said the legislative veto was unconstitutional. But here’s the twist: Congress’s sweeping delegations of power to the president stayed in place. So now we’re stuck with a powerful executive and no real legislative check.In This Episode(00:00:02) Introduction and overview(00:00:16) Executive veto vs. legislative veto explained(00:02:25) Historical background of legislative veto(00:03:26) Types of legislative vetoes(00:04:24) INS v. Chadha case introduction(00:04:50) Details of the Chadha case(00:06:46) Judicial and due process concerns(00:09:09) Constitutional issues with legislative veto(00:11:36) Supreme Court ruling in INS v. Chadha(00:12:11) Impact on existing laws(00:13:52) Tariffs and legislative-veto example(00:15:01) Expansion of presidential power post-Chadha(00:17:04) Political and constitutional implications(00:19:20) Three options for addressing legislative veto(00:20:28) Supreme Court’s dilemma, possible solutions(00:27:18) Alternative legislative solutionsNotable Quotes[00:01:10] “Imagine Congress authorizes the President to tear down some of the hideous brutalist architecture in Washington, D.C., and put beautiful buildings, big, beautiful buildings in its place. Right. Which I'm in favor of.” — Matthew Brogdon[00:08:23] “If you had to pick any deliberative body to decide a question about your fate... no one would look at a congressional committee and go, that's the group I want deciding.” — Matthew Brogdon[00:12:38] "We live in a post-Chadha period now where presidents still have this delegated authority, but there is no congressional check."— "Savannah Eccles Johnston [13:57] “So the Congress passed back in the early 1900s, something called the TWEA. And you know a good chunk about this. It's gives the President the capacity to have some discretion over certain tariffs and how Congress can respond to that then."— "Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:17:38] “The legislative veto was actually a sort of incentive for Congress to delegate away absolutely way too much of its authority.” — Matthew Brogdon[00:19:25] “You can either say the legislative veto is necessary in modern government, we're going to overlook constitutional issues. Two, you can say the legislative veto is unconstitutional and deny it, but be okay with delegations of authority to the president continuing anyway."— Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:16:37] "Did Congress intend to grant the President that level of unchecked tariff power where it's unquestionably a power of Congress to control tariffs in the Constitution? They've delegated some of this authority without the capacity to say, except we don't like it in this circumstance.— "Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:21:03] “The legislative veto is pretty clearly unconstitutional. I mean, as a matter of constitutional structure, it's very hard to square it with Article 1, Section 7.” — Matthew Brogdon

In this episode, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon examine the presidential veto — what it is, what it isn’t, and why it remains one of the most potent constitutional powers in modern governance.They dissect the mechanics of Article I, Section 7, and explain the differences between the qualified veto (which Congress can override) and the pocket veto (which Congress cannot). Along the way, they revisit presidential losers like Andrew Johnson, discover why Reagan and Clinton both wanted a line-item veto and explore why even the threat of a veto is often more powerful than the veto itself.Plus, a special focus on the institutional tug-of-war that defines the separation of powers and how the veto isn’t just a tool for lawmaking, but a key part of constitutional interpretation.In This Episode(00:00:00) Reading the Constitution’s veto clause(00:01:42) Why the word “veto” never appears in the Constitution(00:02:17) Qualified vs. absolute veto power(00:03:58) How pocket vetoes work and why they’re sneaky(00:04:56) Override math: why two-thirds matters(00:06:46) Less than 10 percent of vetoes are overridden(00:07:54) Veto failures: Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, George W. Bush(00:10:49) The veto as a political threat(00:13:00) Institutional vs. partisan power struggles(00:14:00) Madison's veto dreams and regrets(00:18:28) Reagan, Clinton, and the failed line-item veto(00:20:00) Clinton v. City of New York (1998)(00:24:23) Congress’s habit of abdication(00:25:26) Can the line-item veto return? Maybe.(00:26:00) Why do presidents explain their vetoes(00:28:00) Veto messages as constitutional arguments(00:29:14) Nixon’s War Powers Resolution veto lives on(00:30:00) Who interprets the Constitution? Everyone.(00:32:00) Checks, balances, and constitutional fights that matterNotable Quotes[00:02:06] “The president can veto a bill, subject to two-thirds override, but the word ‘veto’ doesn’t even appear in the Constitution.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:04:29] “The pocket veto isn’t in your face. It’s like, ‘Oops, I forgot to act and now all your legislative effort is dead.’” — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:11:24] “This almost feels like an absolute veto because you could never muster the political will to override it.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:24:30] “Congress can’t get its house in order, so they ask the president to run it for them.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:29:14] “Sometimes a veto message gets overridden, but the constitutional argument inside it eventually wins.” — Matthew Brogdon[00:31:00] “The constitutional system is structured so that each branch has to interpret the Constitution for itself.” — Matthew BrogdonResources and LinksThis Constitution  WebsiteSavannah Eccles Johnstonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/savannah-eccles-johnston-515a72198/https://www.instagram.com/savypolitics/Matthew Brogdonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-brogdon-8a21bb89https://www.uvu.edu/ccs/people/matthew_brogdon.html

This Constitution |  Season 2, Episode 7Checks, Balances, and Budget ShowdownsThe President can’t spend a dime without Congress. But how often does Congress actually say no?In this episode, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon examine the constitutional power of the purse and how budget appropriations and oversight give Congress a critical check on the presidency. From historical roots in the British monarchy to today’s broken appropriations process, they unpack how Congress’s power to control money—and monitor how it’s spent—shapes our modern government.They also explore the decline of meaningful oversight, the rise of political theater, and why the legislative branch struggles to rein in a powerful executive. From Defense Department spending to GAO reports no one reads, this episode dives into how Congress could reclaim its institutional strength… if it wanted to.In This Episode(00:00:00) Introduction to oversight and budgets(00:00:51) The power of the purse—Congress controls spending(00:02:12) Stopgaps, omnibus bills, and budget dysfunction(00:03:31) Tinkering with executive budget requests(00:04:25) FDR and the rise of presidential budgeting(00:06:17) Congressional restraint and presidential discretion(00:06:44) Why Congress won’t cut war spending(00:09:32) Standing armies and shifting public sentiment(00:11:05) Can presidents impound money Congress appropriates?(00:13:25) The Impoundment Control Act(00:14:42) Appropriations vs. expenditures—who writes the check?(00:18:03) How Congress uses budgets to shape foreign policy(00:20:34) Oversight as a check on executive agencies(00:22:32) The promise (and failure) of congressional oversight(00:24:28) Oversight vs. journalism—what’s Congress’s role?(00:26:42) Theater vs. actual oversight behind the scenes(00:28:56) Committees, staffing, and the hollowing of Congress(00:34:10) Losing institutional knowledge in public service(00:36:15) How to fix it—pay, staffing, and retentionNotable Quotes[00:04:25] “Without that constitutional requirement, you would see the complete collapse of the checks and balances system in favor of just presidential dictatorship.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:07:49] “You don’t want to be seen as the Congress who cuts the budget for the Defense Department.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:13:25] “The President doesn’t get that kind of discretion—though they’ve created a method by which he could if he needed to.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:20:34] “Not only does Congress fund agencies—they also get to ask: ‘Do you suck at your job?’” — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:25:52] “Congress is trying to go viral on YouTube instead of doing oversight.” — Matthew Brogdon[00:33:32] “Budgets and oversight have been hollowed out. But if Congress reclaimed regular order and institutional thinking, it could pull power back from the presidency.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston

Executive Agreements vs. Treaties: Skirting the Constitution?What makes a treaty binding? Who holds the power to shape U.S. foreign policy, the President or the Senate?In this episode, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon unpack the constitutional roots and modern challenges of the U.S. treaty-making process. From Washington's awkward Senate visit to Wilson’s League of Nations failure, they trace the battle over presidential diplomacy and legislative oversight.The conversation moves from 18th-century compromise to 21st-century executive agreements, exploring how the Constitution’s sparse language on treaties has led to decades of political, legal, and procedural improvisation.If you’ve ever wondered why the Senate approves treaties, how executive agreements avoid that step, or whether a president can unilaterally exit NATO, this episode is for you.Key TakeawaysThe treaty power is constitutionally assigned to the President with Senate oversight requiring two-thirds Senate approval.Historical precedent, including Washington’s early attempt at direct consultation, has shaped today’s treaty process as more formal and less collaborative.Executive agreements are not constitutionally equivalent to treaties but have become a common tool for presidents to shape foreign policy without Senate approval.Whether a president can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty (like NATO) remains a legally unresolved question with major implications for the separation of powers.The rise of executive agreements reflects both practical political realities and blurred constitutional boundaries, raising questions about long-term democratic accountability.Courts have largely avoided intervening in treaty termination and executive agreements, often treating them as political questions.Despite growing reliance on executive agreements, if a nation wants a lasting and enforceable deal with the U.S., it still needs a treaty.In This Episode(00:00:00) Introduction to treaty power(00:00:30) Debate at the Constitutional Convention(00:01:04) Hamilton’s push for executive diplomacy(00:03:22) Washington’s failed in-person treaty consultation(00:05:22) The Jay Treaty and Senate consent precedent(00:09:00) Wilson, the League of Nations, and the Senate backlash(00:13:35) Mutual defense and declaring war(00:20:45) Can a president leave NATO?(00:23:49) Carter, Taiwan, and Goldwater v. Carter(00:27:48) Executive agreements vs. treaties(00:32:00) Senate’s quiet acceptance of executive agreements(00:35:08) Recap of constitutional treaty principlesNotable Quotes[00:03:48] "This is the only time that Washington sort of loses his cool in public as president… he winds up storming out of the Senate chamber." — Matthew Brogdon[00:07:18] "Washington basically says, 'I tried that. That doesn’t work. All you get to do is say yes or no.'" — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:12:42] "The Constitution puts the Senate in the president's sandbox whenever it comes to the treaty power." — Matthew Brogdon[00:19:35] "So much of America’s interactions with the world are kind of weird because we act as if the president has unilateral authority on foreign affairs—and he doesn’t." — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:24:55] "We had a treaty obligation to Taiwan... In order to establish diplomatic relations with China, we had to rescind any recognition of Taiwan." — Matthew Brogdon[00:31:11] "Any future president can just disregard or ignore [an executive agreement]... It’s a commitment of that particular president." — Matthew Brogdon

A Supreme Court justice serves for life, no term limits. No reelection. Almost no way to remove them. So… who decides who gets that kind of power?In this episode, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon explore the constitutional design, evolution, and growing controversy of judicial confirmations. From the first public hearing 1916 to today’s highly publicized nomination battles, they unpack how these confirmations have transformed from quiet votes to political showdowns.The conversation ranges from history to process to philosophy—covering why lifetime judicial appointments raise the stakes, how public hearings shape political narratives, and why the Supreme Court has become such a powerful player in our democracy.Whether you're a court watcher or a civic nerd, this episode offers insights into the tensions, strategies, and consequences of placing judges on the highest bench in the land. Let’s dive in!In This Episode(00:00:00)  Introduction to judicial confirmations  (00:00:30)  Constitutional requirement for Senate consent  (00:01:24)  Historical context of confirmation hearings  (00:02:27)  Judicial independence and impeachment  (00:04:25)  Checks and balances in the confirmation process  (00:06:01)  Limitations of Senate confirmation  (00:08:48)  Congressional control over judiciary  (00:10:14)  Lengthy confirmation processes  (00:12:24)  Judicial confirmation process explained  (00:13:31)  Evolution of confirmation norms  (00:16:05)  Qualifications for Supreme Court justices  (00:17:29)  Politics in the nomination process  (00:18:37)  Partisanship in judicial confirmations  (00:19:11)  Historical context of confirmation battles  (00:20:04)  Consequences of judicial confirmations  (00:21:48)  Judicial philosophy debates  (00:25:31)  Public nature of confirmation hearings  (00:26:42)  Streamlining the confirmation process  (00:28:28)  Youth of recent nominees  (00:28:56)  Making the Supreme Court less important Notable Quotes[00:02:07] "The stakes are much higher here than for executive confirmations because members of the judiciary serve for life, and the only way to get rid of them is an extremely costly process of impeachment." — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:07:42] "You really can't control them. They serve for life once they are appointed. These are unelected gods on Mount Olympus. They can kind of do a lot of things, and you can't punish them a whole lot outside of impeachment." — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:05:24] "The biggest engine of change in American constitutional law, if you want to change the law, you change the judges. That happens through judicial appointments in our system." — Matthew Brogdon[00:21:48] "What is it about a change in constitutional law? That’s a new thing. It’s a fight over judicial philosophy. Maybe that is new. I’m not sure if it is, but I’ve heard arguments that what is new isn’t partisanship; it’s the rift in judicial philosophy." — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:20:04] "What matters for whether a particular confirmation battle is contentious is its consequences. What’s at stake in that confirmation? If there’s not much at stake, nobody’s going to expend tons of political capital fighting over somebody who’s not going to change the way the law works." — Matthew Brogdon[00:26:47] "I would get rid of public hearings in a hot minute. Public confirmation hearings are just not helpful. The public aspect of it is the most time-consuming, the most contentious, and the least productive of it all." —

Why did the American Revolution begin with armed conflict in 1775, more than a year before the Declaration of Independence? What was the significance of Lexington and Concord, and how did these events set the stage for what would become a bitter struggle for independence? In this episode of This Constitution, host Matthew Brogdon is joined by renowned historian Professor Jeremy Black to dive deep into the history of these pivotal moments.Together, they explore how the conflict in Lexington and Concord was not just about a small skirmish but the spark that ignited the broader American Revolution. They discuss the political, social, and military context, the role of loyalists, and the challenges faced by both the British and colonists as they reluctantly moved toward war.With historical anecdotes, constitutional analysis, and insightful perspectives on the American struggle for independence, this episode provides a comprehensive understanding of one of the most critical moments in American history.In This Episode(00:00:00) Introduction to the significance of Lexington and Concord(00:01:24) The context of 1775: Why the Revolution began a year before 1776(00:03:00) The causes of the conflict: The British attempt to seize weapons(00:05:15) Loss of civilian control and the rise of military governance in Boston(00:07:45) The cultural and political divides in the American colonies(00:09:00) The role of loyalists and differing views on rebellion(00:11:10) The Boston Tea Party’s impact and how it shaped colonial resistance(00:13:00) The militarization of the British response post-Boston Tea Party(00:16:20) How the events of 1775 escalated into broader conflict(00:18:30) The significance of bravery at Lexington and Concord(00:21:00) The broader implications of the early American victories(00:23:00) The transition from political resistance to full-blown war(00:25:00) Conclusion: How Lexington and Concord set the stage for the American RevolutionNotable Quotes[00:01:24] "What went wrong was, as we all know, a British attempt to take over an illegal arms dump leads to resistance." – Jeremy Black[00:18:30] "It shows considerable fortitude, and I think fortitude is a key element because some people were clearly, we know from all sorts of an analysis of people that fight, that many of them are frightened, some of them are terrified." – Jeremy Black[00:21:00] "The regulars were also brave men, and we should never forget that." – Jeremy Black[00:19:00] "What I'm gaining from your description of this is that the American Revolution presents us with a kind of tension. We've had an American identity that developed through a kind of self-government that had happened in some colonies in New England for 150 years, since the 1630s." -Matthew BrogdonResources and LinksThis Constitution  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/this-constitution/id1771900485https://www.youtube.com/@centerforconstitutionalstu8915/videosJeremy Black https://jeremyblackhistorian.wordpress.com/Matthew Brogdonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-brogdon/https://www.uvu.edu/ccs/people/matthew_brogdon.html

Why does the President need the Senate’s approval to appoint people to the executive branch? Why is it so hard to get those people confirmed? And has the whole process become more about political theater than public service?In this episode of This Constitution, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon unpack the constitutional roots and modern realities of executive confirmations. They explore how this check on presidential power has evolved over time, starting from full floor debates to closed-door committees and now, into viral, made-for-TV public hearings.Savannah and Matthew explain why Senate confirmation was never a given, how firing power differs from hiring power, and what makes this process both essential and inefficient. They also take on key issues: Are there too many confirmable positions? Is the Senate spending too much time playing politics instead of governing? And is reform even possible?With historical anecdotes, constitutional insight, and present-day implications, this episode offers a comprehensive look at how and why executive confirmations matter more than ever.In This Episode(00:00:00) Introduction to executive confirmations(00:00:29) Why Senate participation is required(00:01:24) Historical context: Presidential vs. royal appointments(00:03:00) The power to fire vs. the power to hire(00:04:50) The idea of life-tenure appointments and Smith’s proposal(00:06:27) Rise of committees and public hearings(00:07:45) Progressive Era and distrust in party machines(00:08:46) Congress asserting itself post-Civil War (1868)(00:09:56) Volume and backlog: 1100+ roles, 500+ unfilled(00:10:29) What the modern confirmation process looks like(00:11:18) Three overburdened Senate committees(00:12:15) Should we reduce the number of confirmable roles?(00:14:39) Reform ideas: Time limits, Senate scheduling(00:15:58) Cloture votes, the filibuster, and slowdowns(00:17:00) Cabinet delays: Then vs. now (Bush to Biden)(00:19:00) Committee triaging: Prioritizing key departments(00:20:46) Controversial roles and unfilled posts(00:21:46) Partisanship and personal political ambition(00:22:46) Historical examples of rejected or withdrawn nominees(00:23:54) Are public hearings useful or just performative?(00:27:00) Final thoughts on checks, balances, and reformNotable quotes[00:02:08]"This quality control matters here in this process. We're making sure that people who hold these positions of immense public trust are verified, decent, capable, competent people." —Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:03:32]"The Constitution only has one thing to say about removing people from office, and that is the impeachment power… but it’s really a nuclear option." —Matthew Brogdon

State vs. Federal Power: How Identity Shapes American DemocracyDo you feel more Texan than American? If you had to choose, would you say you’re a Texan first and an American second? What about an Alaskan, a New Yorker, or a Californian? For much of U.S. history, people identified more with their state than the nation itself—and in many places, that state pride still runs deep.But does state identity actually shape the way we govern? Can it influence trust in government, political engagement, and even pushback against federal laws? In this episode of This Constitution, host Savannah Eccles Johnston sits down with Dr. Emily Pears, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College, to explore how federalism and state identities continue to influence American governance. The discussion kicks off with a historical look at how early Americans identified more with their states than the nation, a dynamic the founders leveraged to balance power between state and federal governments.  Dr. Pears explains that while state identities have weakened, they still shape political behavior—affecting trust in state governments and fueling resistance to federal authority in states like Texas, Alaska, and Utah. She highlights real-world examples, such as the legalization of marijuana in 24 states despite federal prohibition and Utah’s Sovereignty Act, which challenges federal intervention. Rather than outright rejecting federal laws, states are testing the limits of their authority, maintaining a delicate constitutional balance.  Looking ahead, Dr. Pears foresees the need for civic education to help Americans understand federalism and engage more actively in state governance.  Tune in for this fascinating conversation on how state identities continue to shape American democracy.In This Episode(00:00:03) Introduction to the episode(00:00:15) The Constitution as a blueprint (00:00:27) Introduction to Dr. Emily (00:01:15) State identities at the founding (00:02:27) Federalism and state power (00:03:57) Relevance of state identities today (00:05:22) Personal state identity (00:05:55) State identity in Texas (00:06:27) State identity in Utah (00:08:06) Role of state identities in checks and balances (00:09:33) Impact of weak state identities (00:11:21) Partisanship and state identity (00:14:22) Examples of state pushback (00:15:42) State authority and federal intervention (00:16:29) Understanding nullification (00:17:12) Marijuana laws and state responses (00:18:33) Testing federal authority (00:20:01) Future of state power (00:21:39) Importance of federalism (00:22:08) Civic education and state awareness (00:23:56) State identity as a unifying factor (00:25:32) Engaging with state identityNotable Quotes[00:01:22] "At the time of the American founding, there were these really strong state identities and almost no national identity. The citizens thought of themselves as Virginians, not as Americans." — Dr. Emily Pears[00:20:01] "Does the federal government have enough strong national identifiers who want to say no, it's important that we adhere to what the federal government says, even when it's a policy that we think is silly or, or sort of don't want to adhere to? " — Dr. Emily PearsWhat we found is that state identity can be a sort of cross-cutting identity. So in a political world where it seems like all that matters is your partisanship, we found that Democrats and Republicans are sort of equally likely to identify with their states. — Dr. Emily Pears

What if the very system designed to keep our leaders in check… is starting to fail?In this episode of This Constitution, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon kick off Season 2 with a deep dive into the delicate balance of power in the U.S. government. They break down the difference between checks and balances and the separation of powers—two critical mechanisms that prevent tyranny.Through fascinating historical moments like FDR’s court-packing plan and Nixon’s resignation, they reveal how these principles have been tested over time. But what about today? With rising partisanship and a weakened Congress, are we at risk of losing the safeguards that keep our democracy intact?Join the conversation and discover why your voice matters in upholding these fundamental protections. Listen now and stay engaged in the fight for a balanced government!In This Episode(00:00:27) Introduction to Season Two(00:01:12) Importance of Checks and Balances(00:01:26) Distinction Between Concepts(00:02:08) Separation of Powers Explained(00:02:12) Checks and Balances Explained(00:03:27) Historical Context of Governance(00:04:06) Ambition and Self-Interest(00:07:19) Montesquieu's Influence(00:09:07) Constitutional Checks and Balances(00:10:24) Presidential Powers Against Congress(00:12:02) Impeachment Power Discussion(00:12:23) Judicial Review Explained(00:13:18) The Rule of Law and Judicial Process(00:14:11) Checks on Supreme Court Power(00:15:13) FDR's Court Packing Plan(00:16:12) Response from the Senate Judiciary Committee(00:17:14) FDR's Overestimation of Support(00:18:26) Checks and Balances in Action(00:22:29) The Nixon Administration Scandal(00:24:07) Supreme Court's Role in Nixon's Case(00:25:36) Goldwater's Intervention(00:26:25) Challenges to Checks and Balances Today(00:27:38) Exploring Congress's Weakness(00:27:50) Presidential Influence on Congress(00:28:08) Role of Voters in Checks and Balances(00:28:45) Public Attachment to Constitutional Principles(00:28:56) Civic Education and Public Perception(00:29:54) Improving Constitutional EducationNotable Quotes[00:04:06] "Checks and balances work because John Thune, who's the Senate Majority Leader, wants to be as personally powerful as possible, and he knows that his power is only as great as the power of his institution." — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:05:12] "You can have people who are all pursuing good things at the same time, and the pursuit of those good things could come in conflict." — Matthew Brogdon[00:14:11] "The best moments in American political history are when two institutions, or even just one, turn and look at the overreaching institution and say, 'Keep them in their place.'" — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:28:56] "People do need a public attachment to things for them to be lasting and durable, and I'm afraid that the way we teach the American government might be a little bit guilty here." — Matthew BrogdonResources and LinksThis Constitution  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/this-constitution/id1771900485https://www.youtube.com/@centerforconstitutionalstu8915/videos

Host Matthew Brogdon talks with Keith Whittington, Yale Law School, about Keith’s book, his book, Repugnant laws: Judicial Review of Acts of Congress from the Founding to the Present, outlining the history of the Supreme Court and other federal courts declaring national laws unconstitutional, which has a long and venerable tradition in American politics.  Matthew and Keith have a good conversation about what it means for courts to exercise judicial review and the way that our standard story about judicial review gets the history wrong.

How can the words of a 16th-century playwright possibly hold the key to understanding American governance today? The answer may lie in the very heart of classical education—a time-tested foundation for thoughtful leadership and civic responsibility. Shakespeare’s plays, brimming with powerful depictions of power, virtue, and moral conflict, weren’t just created to entertain; they were crafted to challenge the mind and educate the soul.In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon sits down with Dr. Carol McNamara, the director of the Great Hearts Institute for Classical Education, to unravel the profound connections between Shakespeare’s works and the values that shaped our nation. Together, they explore how classical education, particularly through literature like Shakespeare’s, illuminates the role of governance, virtue, and civic engagement in a thriving democracy. Dr. McNamara reveals how Shakespeare’s exploration of political regimes, from absolute monarchy to the Roman Republic, sheds light on the complexities of leadership, while also emphasizing the importance of an informed citizenry.Could it be that by revisiting the classics, we find the very principles that can guide us toward better governance? Tune in to discover how the timeless wisdom of Shakespeare and classical education can shape the leaders of tomorrow, and why it’s more relevant than ever in understanding our civic duties today.In This Episode(00:40) Introduction to Dr. Carol McNamara(00:59) Overview of the Great Hearts Institute(02:40) Expansion of classical charter schools(04:04) Importance of a holistic education(06:18) Formation of character in education(07:35) Integration of knowledge disciplines(08:55) Adaptability in education(10:15) Shakespeare's political project(12:43) Exploring alternative regimes in Shakespeare(15:18) Commercial republic and difference(16:44) The civilizational struggle(17:46) Shakespeare's perspective on regimes(18:20) Shakespeare's exploration of tyranny(18:50) Mixed regimes in Shakespeare's works(21:04) Historical context of Coriolanus(22:10) Coriolanus and political tragedy(24:02) Lincoln's appreciation for Shakespeare(26:34) The role of ordinary citizens in Much Ado About Nothing(27:49) Shakespeare's unique talent(29:50) Ordinary life and comic potential(31:47) Closing remarksNotable Quotes[03:52] "I think the demand for classical education is only going to grow as parents demand better education, better discussion, better study of books for their children." — Dr. Carol McNamara[05:19] "Classical education is about the formation of the human person, involving the education of the mind through the study of ideas, literature, and moral philosophy, but also the formation of human character." — Dr. Carol McNamara[18:20] "Everybody wants to claim Shakespeare as their own, but for me, what matters are the plays and the arguments in the plays." — Dr. Carol McNamara[20:56] "He wants us to realize that politics always comes back, that we always have to pay attention to the demands of politics." — Dr. Carol McNamara[28:53] "Shakespeare wants to say that ordinary life sorts itself out in a way that doesn't have to be tragic; we can just choose to live well and be happy." — Dr. Carol McNamaraOur GuestDr. Carol McNamara is the Director of the Great Hearts Institute for Classical Education, where she leads initiatives to renew classical education. Previously, she held key roles at Arizona State University, including Senior Director at the Center for Constit

Mercy Otis Warren was no ordinary figure in America’s founding story. How many women of her time had the opportunity to receive a classical education, let alone become influential political thinkers and writers? As one of the few, Warren used her intellect and talent to champion liberty during the American Revolution. But why is her name so often left out of the history books?In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon sits down with Kirstin Birkhaug, assistant professor of political science at Hope College, to uncover the life and work of this revolutionary thinker. What made her writings so impactful that even John Adams admitted to feeling intimidated by her intellect? How did her radical views on liberty shape her critiques of the U.S. Constitution, and what can they teach us in today’s political climate?During the conversation, Matthew and Kristin delve into  Warren’s enduring legacy—her critiques of unchecked power, her defense of individual rights, and her advocacy for civic virtue. It also addresses her political affiliations and relationships with prominent figures like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, clarifying her alignment with Jefferson’s ideals and the complexities of her evolving relationship with Adams, which transitioned from initial camaraderie to tension.In This Episode(00:00:37) Introduction to Mercy Otis Warren(00:01:32) Early life and education(00:03:33) Marriage and political influence(00:05:49) Mercy's literary career begins(00:06:47) Correspondence with prominent figures(00:07:15) James Warren's political role(00:07:58) Mercy's plays and political commentary(00:09:24) Conflict with Thomas Hutchinson(00:10:56) Use of pen names(00:12:52) The History of the American Revolution(00:15:15) The role of memory in Warren's history(00:16:23) Warren's concerns about Washington(00:17:33) Warren's Critique of the Constitution(00:19:51) Warren's observations on the new Constitution(00:21:16) Massachusetts ratification convention(00:23:15) Warren's advocacy for press freedom(00:24:37) Warren's civic engagement perspective(00:26:58) Warren's Lockean influences(00:29:56) Introduction to Freedom(00:30:15) Mercy Otis Warren's political context(00:31:07) Warren's alignment with Jefferson(00:32:07) Warren and Adams' fractured relationship(00:33:23) Reconciliation of Adams and WarrenNotable Quotes[00:03:33] "I feel a sense of inferiority whenever I speak to you; I feel that your attainments dwarf those of most men." — Kirstin Birkhaug[00:04:44] "Mercy kind of takes up the mantle of continuing his kind of progressive thoughts and ideas into the revolution and beyond." — Kirstin Birkhaug[00:12:06] "Warren is caught between this intellect that pulls her towards writing political propaganda plays and the inherent tension she feels about her role as a wife and mother." — Kirstin Birkhaug[00:15:15] "She wants to capture this memory of the American Revolution, the keen despair people felt at the loss of liberty, and the steam this movement picked up." — Kirstin Birkhaug[00:17:33] "Mercy Otis Warren hopes to reinvigorate the memory of the American Revolution and its principles, which she says are well encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence." — Kirstin Birkhaug[00:25:52] "Mercy Otis Warren thinks that the Constitution is a departure from the spirit of the Revolution, not a continuation of it." — Matthew BrogdonOur GuestDr. Kirstin Birkhaug is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Hope College. She teaches a variety of political science courses, including Introduction to American Politics and upper-level political theory. Her research focuses on early A

What does the "pursuit of happiness" really mean? It’s a question we often skim over, but the Founding Fathers had a very specific idea in mind—one deeply rooted in classical virtue and self-mastery. In this episode, Matthew Brogdon sits down with Jeff Rosen, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, to unpack this phrase from the Declaration of Independence and its implications for personal and political life.Rosen shares insights from his latest book, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America, exploring how figures like Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams connected happiness with moral improvement and self-discipline. From Aristotle to Cicero and beyond, we discuss how ancient philosophy shaped the Founders' vision of a flourishing life and a well-ordered republic.What lessons can we learn from the Founders’ emphasis on virtue? And how do we reconcile their moral aspirations with their glaring contradictions, such as the perpetuation of slavery? Join us for a thought-provoking discussion on how the pursuit of virtue can inform our understanding of happiness, freedom, and modern democracy.In This Episode:(00:03) Introduction to the podcast(00:15) Purpose of the episode(00:43) Overview of Jeff Rosen’s book, The Pursuit of Happiness(01:02) How the Founders viewed happiness and virtue(02:25) Key classical virtues: temperance, prudence, courage, and justice(03:45) The role of self-mastery in personal and political governance(05:20) Jeff Rosen’s COVID-era experiment: Reading Jefferson’s inspirations(08:10) The habits of lifelong learning and deep reading(10:35) Virtue is both a personal and civic duty(12:00) Examples of virtue and hypocrisy among the Founders(15:40) The moral contradictions of Jefferson and other Virginian enslavers(18:30) How figures like Frederick Douglass embodied virtuous self-improvement(20:25) Reconciling freedom and virtue in a democratic society(22:15) Jefferson, religious liberty, and freedom of conscience(24:50) Lessons from ancient Stoic philosophy for modern life(27:05) Virtue as an answer to modern political challengesNotable Quotes[00:01:02] "For the Founders, the pursuit of happiness meant not feeling good, but being good." — Jeff Rosen[00:05:20] "I spent a year reading Jefferson’s favorite books. It changed my life by making me a deeper thinker and better citizen." — Jeff Rosen[00:15:40] "Jefferson recognized the evil of slavery but lived like a Caligulan emperor, surrounded by enslaved labor." — Matthew Brogdon[00:27:05] "The Founders believed personal self-government was essential to political self-government." — Jeff RosenResources and LinksMatthew Brogdonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-brogdon/https://www.uvu.edu/ccs/people/matthew_brogdon.html   Jeff RosenKeynote address at UVU CCS Fall Conference: https://bit.ly/3ARulwghttps://constitutioncenter.org/about/board-of-trustees/jeffrey-rosenhttps://x.com/rosenjeffrey?lang=enhttps://www.law.gwu.edu/jeffrey-rosen

What if the biggest threats to our democracy aren’t coming from outside our borders, but from within? In 1838, a young Abraham Lincoln warned exactly about that in his Lyceum Address. Standing before a group of young men, he didn’t just talk about foreign invaders or military conflict. Instead, he sounded the alarm about the dangers of mob rule, unchecked ambition, and a nation losing respect for the rule of law.Sounds eerily familiar, right? Lincoln’s words still hold weight today, as we face the same questions about how we protect our democracy in the face of division, violence, and political instability. So, what can we learn from Lincoln’s vision of a government where the law reigns supreme?In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon delve into Lincoln’s prophetic address, unpacking his fears of demagoguery and mob rule, the moral dilemmas of civil disobedience, and the delicate balance required to protect democratic institutions. Lincoln believed that reverence for the law—even when flawed—was essential for preserving liberty and order. But how do we reconcile this with the pursuit of justice in the face of unjust laws?Join us for an engaging conversation that bridges Lincoln’s legacy with the complexities of contemporary governance. Don’t miss this opportunity to explore what his words mean for the challenges we face today—tune in now!In This Episode(00:03) Introduction to the Constitution(00:15) Purpose of the podcast(00:43) Overview of Lincoln's Lyceum Address (00:59) Historical context of the address(02:03) Themes of the Lyceum Address(02:25) Danger from within(03:29) Examples of mob violence(05:09) Importance of law(06:40) Civil disobedience debate(07:14) Comparison to Martin Luther King Jr.(10:20) Impact of lawlessness on good citizens(12:36) Fear of dictatorship(13:27) Ambition and opportunity(14:51) The founding generation's ambition(15:40) Lincoln's self-reflection(17:12) Demagoguery and rhetoric(17:24) Political religion of law(18:08) Perpetuating constitutional order(19:50) Madison vs. Jefferson on law(20:20) Reverence for law and change(21:30) Lincoln's rhetorical strategy(24:25) Demagoguery vs. reverence(25:30) Leadership and the Constitution(26:38) Lincoln's rhetorical skillNotable Quotes[00:02:25] "If destruction is our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide." — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:03:29] "The country is really in danger of resorting to mob violence to handle an awful lot of its political problems." — Matthew Brogdon[00:11:24] "What happens when good men turn against the law?" — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:14:51] "These men of extraordinary ambition aren't going to be content to just keep what some other man has built; they're either going to need to destroy it or build something new and greater, and that's the danger." — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:17:24] "The only answer is the good people of the country united together and united under the law, devoted to the law almost religiously, because it is their political religion that alone can stand against these kinds of men." — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:18:08] "You may individually disagree with some of these laws and you might seek to change them, but that still shouldn't undermine your reverence for the law and the Constitution as a whole because the alternative is mob rule." — Matthew Brogdon

What happened to the presidency around the turn of the 20th century? How did it go from being a strong institution under leaders like Washington and Lincoln to one that progressives saw as weak and ineffective? Could it be that the rapid changes of the Progressive Era revealed cracks in the system? What was it that so frustrated these thinkers, prompting them to call for a powerful transformation of the office?In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon chats with Jordan Cash, an assistant professor at James Madison College, about the fascinating evolution of the presidency during the Progressive Era. They unpack Roosevelt’s stewardship theory, Wilson’s “Darwinian” approach to government, and the shift from seeing the presidency as a static institution to recognizing the dynamic potential of individual leaders. From the creation of the Executive Office of the President to the ongoing struggle of balancing power and constitutional principles, this conversation connects the dots between then and now.Curious about how the presidency became what it is today—and where it’s headed? Hit play and join the conversation!In This Episode(00:01:16) Guest Introduction(00:01:51) Progressive Era Concerns(00:03:14) Woodrow Wilson's Views(00:06:15) Stewardship Theory Explained(00:08:31) Roosevelt's View on Limits(00:10:31) Roosevelt's Decision to Leave Office(00:11:49) Roosevelt vs.Taft(00:13:49) Roosevelt's Larger-than-Life Persona(00:14:39) The Progressive View of the Presidency(00:15:24) Shift in Presidential Power(00:15:51) Wilson's Ambition for Presidential Power(00:16:55) Cabinet Government Proposal(00:17:29) Wilson's Early Thoughts on Governance(00:19:21) Changing Dynamics of Political Parties(00:19:59) Historical Context of Presidential Influence(00:23:07) Evolution of Party Primaries(00:24:59) Constitutional Impediments to Power(00:26:22) Brownlow Committee and Presidential Capacity(00:27:35) Creation of the Executive Office(00:28:45) Expansion of Presidential Power during Crises(00:31:07) Reorganizing the Executive Branch(00:31:49) Administrative Capacity vs. Functionality(00:32:56) Continuity in Presidential Roles(00:34:31) Constitutional Foundations of the Presidency(00:35:48) The Impact of Government SizeNotable Quotes[00:19:21] "It feels like the 20th century, with its new sort of ground in executive leadership, gave us more interesting, more colorful characters." — Matthew Brogdon[00:29:39] "The administration now becomes so big and in some ways loses that connection of responsibility to the president because there are just so many moving pieces that it's hard to keep track." — Jordan Cash[00:31:49] "Do we now have so much administrative capacity that we're in a position where the president still can't achieve his proper functions?" — Jordan Cash[00:35:48] "So we have a bigger presidency because we've got a bigger government essentially." — Matthew BrogdonOur GuestJordan Cash is an assistant professor of political theory and constitutional democracy at James Madison College, Michigan State University. A passionate presidency scholar, he’s written insightful works like The Isolated Presidency and Adding the Lone Star: John Tyler, Sam Houston, and the Annexation of Texas. With expertise in the presidency and political institutions, Jordan also offers a deep dive into congressional history, making him a go-to source for understanding the inner workings of American governance.

Who Needs Congress? POTUS as Chief Executive Who holds the real power in Washington's sprawling federal bureaucracy? In this episode, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon explore the President's role as Chief Executive. How does a single individual manage thousands of appointments, oversee countless agencies, and navigate the fine line between legislative and executive power?From historical controversies like Andrew Jackson's firing of the Treasury Secretary to modern debates over the administrative state's autonomy, this episode dives into the constitutional principles and political realities that shape executive power.Curious about who truly controls the levers of power in Washington’s sprawling bureaucracy? Tune in to explore the President’s role as Chief Executive and challenge your understanding of executive authority in America.In This Episode(00:27) Introduction to the President as Chief Executive(01:10) Understanding presidential appointments and Senate confirmations(02:10) Historical precedents: Andrew Jackson and Andrew Johnson(07:05) The growth of the federal bureaucracy and administrative state(13:28) Rulemaking and Congress’s oversight powers(16:54) The balance between political accountability and agency independence(21:25) Modern challenges with independent agencies like the Federal Reserve(28:14) The broader implications of executive orders and rulemaking(30:45) The evolving role of Congress and public accountabilityNotable Quotes"[00:04:34] Any executive power wielded by others is on behalf of the President." — Matthew Brogdon"[00:11:40] The President’s power to fire members of the executive branch is settled—controversial politically, but constitutionally clear." — Savannah Eccles Johnston"[00:21:58] When you say an agency is 'independent,' what you're saying is it's independent of political accountability." — Matthew Brogdon"[00:28:43] Much of the growth of the presidency’s power is rooted in the Chief Executive’s role, not as Commander in Chief, but as a rule maker." — Savannah Eccles JohnstonResources and LinksThis Constitution  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/this-constitution/id1771900485Savannah Eccles Johnstonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/savannah-eccles-johnston-515a72198/https://www.instagram.com/savypolitics/Matthew Brogdonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-brogdon/https://www.uvu.edu/ccs/people/matthew_brogdon.html

When bombs drop and troops mobilize, who pulls the strings—Congress or the President? Can we afford to leave the fate of nations in the hands of one person, or does the voice of the people demand more say? The Founding Fathers designed checks and balances for a reason, but when it comes to war powers, does the balance still hold?In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon delve into the war powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution, focusing on the balance of authority between Congress and the President. They discuss Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power to declare war, and Article II, Section 2, which designates the President as Commander in Chief. The conversation covers historical precedents, the evolution of military authorizations, and modern implications, including the use of Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). They emphasize the importance of understanding and navigating the constitutional framework governing war powers.Curious about who truly holds the reins of military power? Tune in to learn more and challenge your understanding of war powers in America.In This Episode(00:27) Introduction to war powers(01:06) Congress's powers(01:18) President's powers(02:10) Competition between branches(02:22) Authorization for military force(03:06) Historical context of war declarations(03:53) Ambiguity in military actions(04:26) Historical examples of military authorizations(06:54) Technological warfare(08:07) Political implications of war powers(08:30) Defensive warfare(08:43) Distinguishing offensive and defensive actions(09:24) Lincoln's actions during the Civil War(10:38) State of war and presidential powers(11:42) Treaty obligations and war(13:22) Preemptive strikes vs. defensive actions(14:11) The President's war powers(14:39) Congress's role in war declarations(15:15) Historical context of war powers(15:36) Executing congressional declarations(16:03) Presidential discretion in war(17:23) Congress's powers against the President(18:24) Congress's institutional strength(19:13) Impeachment as a weapon(20:11) Power of the purse(21:25) Defense appropriations cycle(23:38) Presidential actions without war(25:23) War Powers Resolution Overview(26:21) Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution(26:46) The War Powers Resolution(27:17) Presidential authority(28:14) Congress's role in military regulation(29:25) Tactical command limitations(30:31) Overlapping powers discussion(31:25) Public dissatisfaction with military engagement(32:04) Alternative solutions for Congressional action(33:29) General public knowledge and engagement(34:53) Need for decisive leadership(35:28) Educating voters on war powers

Have you ever wondered what happens when an election unfolds in unexpected ways? This episode dives into the surprisingly decisive 2024 presidential election, exploring its unique dynamics and the implications for American democracy. Despite expectations of a close race, the results were clear almost immediately, leaving room to reflect on the shifting coalitions, demographic trends, and the role of the Electoral College in modern elections. What does this tell us about the future of American politics?Join hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon as they analyze what this election means for political parties, the electorate, and constitutional processes like the peaceful transfer of power.Tune in for an engaging conversation that connects the election outcomes to broader themes in constitutional governance and American civic life.In This Episode00:42: Overview of the 2024 Presidential Election02:02: Historical Context of Previous Presidential Elections03:02: Changing Dynamics of Party Control and Dominance04:04: Shift in Party Demographics and Minority Vote05:02: Breakdown of Voter Demographics by Ethnicity and Sex06:02: Discussing the Latino, Black, and Asian American Vote07:23: Shift in Republican and Democratic Party Bases09:24: Electoral College and Senate Outcomes11:02: Peaceful Transfer of Power and Concession Speech13:10: Importance of Adhering to Constitutional Principles14:01: Process of Voting by Electors in the Electoral College15:55: Managing Faithless Electors17:23: Role of the Archivist in Electoral Process18:13: Introduction to the executive agency18:32: Role of the Vice President on January 6th19:02: Historical context of Vice Presidents declaring their defeat19:13: Kamala Harris's responsibilities and constitutional role20:00: Process of opening electoral votes in Congress21:02: Potential outcomes and controversies in the 2024 election22:00: Trump's legislative prospects and potential challenges23:07: Impact of divided and unified government on passing legislation25:02: Significant bipartisan legislation examples25:42: Election results and political stability26:01: Future of American politics and upcoming elections26:22: Conclusion and call to continue learning about the ConstitutionNotable Quotes[00:01:14] “We have an incoming president who won the Electoral College, a majority of the popular vote, and all swing states—a clean sweep in 2024.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston[00:06:49] “Race is losing salience, while gender and class are becoming more central to party politics.” — Matthew Brogdon[00:15:06] “The decentralization of the Electoral College makes election fraud at a national level incredibly difficult.” — Matthew Brogdon[00:18:55] “The power of transitions reminds us of the strength of our constitutional system, even in divisive times.” — Savannah Eccles JohnstonMatthew Brogdonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-brogdon-8a21bb89https://x.com/profbrogdonSavannah Eccles Johnstonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/savannah-eccles-johnston-515a72198/https://www.instagram.com/savypolitics/

Ever wonder why the candidate with the most votes doesn’t always win the presidency? Or question if the Electoral College still makes sense in today’s democracy? The Electoral College has been at the center of political debates for centuries, leaving many of us scratching our heads about its fairness and relevance. But how did this system come about, and why does it still determine our elections?In this episode of This Constitution, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon take a deep dive into the origins and evolution of the Electoral College, just in time for the 2024 presidential race. They explore the historical arguments that shaped its creation, the majority-takes-all system, and the mismatches between the popular vote and election outcomes that have left voters frustrated. From potential reforms like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to district-based voting, they break down the possibilities for change.Curious to learn more and see how this system might impact the future of our democracy? Tune in now!In This Episode(00:03) Introduction to the podcast  (00:41) Electoral College origins  (02:08) Alternatives to the Electoral College  (03:00) Impact of slavery on voting  (04:06) State-by-state voting process  (06:10) Historical variations in elector selection  (07:13) Electoral College's intended purpose  (09:30) Political parties and the Electoral College  (10:24) Current Electoral College systems  (11:28) Majority takes all system  (12:26) Mismatch between the popular vote and the Electoral College  (13:57) The psychology of the wasted vote  (14:53) Historical elections and popular vote discrepancies  (15:24) Majority vs. plurality in elections  (16:51) Geographic support and election outcomes  (18:38) Impact of the Electoral College on political parties  (19:08) Consequences of Electoral College outcomes  (21:18) Rural vs. urban voting dynamics  (23:14) Revisiting the district system  (25:24) Gerrymandering and electoral outcomes  (26:59) Cynicism towards gerrymandering solutions  (28:11) National Popular Vote Interstate Compact  (28:56) Texas Constitution and electors  (29:27) Elector commitment and penalties  (29:47) Theoretical vs. practical application 

Where’s the Party? Presidential Selection Gone WrongAre presidential elections as democratic as we believe? How did we go from the Framers' carefully crafted vision to the whirlwind of primaries and national conventions that define our elections today? Over the years, the process of selecting a president has transformed—political parties have risen, conventions have become essential, and now primaries dominate the scene. With growing concerns over corruption, demagogues, and the weakening role of superdelegates, it’s time to ask: Is this truly the best way to choose our nation's leader?In this episode of This Constitution, host Savannah Eccles Johnston is joined by Byrd Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, James Ceaser, to dive deep into the evolution of the U.S. presidential selection process. Together, they explore the Framers' original intentions, fears of foreign influence, and the rise of political parties. They also discuss Martin Van Buren’s pivotal role in democratizing the process, the fall of the "King Caucus," and the impact of the Progressive era’s primary system. With a closer look at the modern challenges of populism and party dynamics, this conversation uncovers whether today’s system still serves the democratic ideals it was meant to uphold.Ready to rethink how we elect our leaders? Tune in to this episode and join the conversation!In This Episode(00:00:03) Introduction to the episode(00:01:18) Original intent of the framers(00:03:05) Impact of political parties(00:03:25) King Caucus explained(00:06:00) Breakdown of King Caucus(00:07:08) Rise of national party conventions(00:09:51) Non-partisan self-selection period(00:10:22) Advent of the two-party system(00:12:16) Van Buren's influence(00:14:27) Conclusion on political parties(00:14:53) Martin Van Buren's influence(00:15:48) Evolution of presidential election(00:16:11) Van Buren's political vision(00:17:23) Preventing American aristocracy(00:18:49) The national party convention system(00:21:40) Corruption in the party system(00:22:37) Progressives and political reform(00:25:53) Mixed system of primaries and conventions(00:27:39) Decline of the old system(00:28:13) Dangers of modern primaries(00:29:03) The convention formation(00:30:17) Concerns of the founders(00:30:51) Challenges to reform(00:31:15) Superdelegates and party dynamics(00:33:11) Decline of superdelegates(00:35:16) Trump's unconventional nomination(00:36:24) The future of primaries(00:36:55) Kamala Harris as a nominee(00:39:17) Conclusion on the primary systemAbout James CeaserJames W. Ceaser is the Harry F. Byrd Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, where he also leads the Program on Constitutionalism and Democracy. An accomplished author, he has written several influential works on American politics and political theory, including Presidential Selection, Reconstructing America, and Nature and History in American Political Development.In addition to his academic contributions, Ceaser frequently writes for popular outlets, such as The Weekly Standard and National Review. He has also served as a presidential appointee to the National Archives Commission.Throughout his career, Ceaser has held visiting professorships at the University of Florence, the University of Basel, Oxford University, the University of Bordeaux, the University of Rennes, Harvard, and Princeton. In 2015, he was honored with the Bradley Prize.Beyond his role on the Board of Directors, he serves as a member of the Academic Advisory Council for the Jack Miller Center.

Lincoln Saved the Union. Did He Violate the Constitution? Did Abraham Lincoln really have to break the very rules he swore to uphold to save the nation? It’s a tough question, isn’t it? As the Civil War raged on, Lincoln faced a monumental dilemma: how far should a leader go to protect the country when the Constitution seemed to get in the way? He made some bold and controversial choices—suspending habeas corpus, expanding executive powers, and even issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. But were these actions truly necessary for winning the war, or did he step over the line?In this episode of This Constitution, hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon dive into the challenging decisions Lincoln had to make during this turbulent time. They explore his suspension of habeas corpus and his decision to raise troops without congressional approval, all while trying to keep the nation together. Lincoln believed that extraordinary times called for extraordinary measures, and he thought the Constitution allowed for that. But how do we reconcile that with the importance of constitutional limits?Join Savannah and Matthew as they discuss the tension between executive power and constitutional boundaries, revealing the complexities of Lincoln’s thinking during a national crisis. This isn’t just about history; it’s about understanding what leadership means when the stakes are high and the rules feel like they might hold us back.In This Episode:(00:27) Introduction to the episode  (00:57) Lincoln's justification for actions  (01:16) Suspension of habeas corpus  (02:23) Lincoln's political background  (03:49) Lincoln's election context  (04:35) Lincoln's stance on slavery  (05:42) Emancipation Proclamation justification  (06:05) Constitutional authority for actions  (07:41) Lincoln's executive power  (08:14) Congressional session and justifications  (09:47) Lincoln's argument for emergency powers  (10:01) Constitutional powers and rebellion  (11:01) Military necessity and emancipation  (11:46) Habeas Corpus historical context  (13:11) Judicial challenge to habeas corpus  (15:07) Lincoln's defiance of the court  (15:19) Lincoln's newspaper strategy  (15:52) Arrest of Mr. V  (16:11) Democrats' declaration  (17:30) Lincoln's justification  (18:29) Harmful agitation  (19:10) Geographic scope of rebellion  (20:19) Distinction from martial law  (22:19) Lincoln's constitutional defense  (23:00) Declaration of war debate  (24:34) Supreme Court's take  (25:18) Extraordinary powers debate  (26:40) Constitutional integrity 

George Washington Builds the Presidency. Are you ready to uncover how one man's choices shaped the very essence of the American presidency? How did George Washington, a military leader turned statesman, navigate the turbulent waters of power and liberty? What challenges did he face as he established the precedents that govern our leaders today?In this episode of This Constitution, host Matthew Brogdon sits down with Paul Carrese to delve into George Washington's presidency, exploring his pivotal role in establishing the executive branch within the newly created Constitution. Carrese, a civic thought and leadership fellow, discusses Washington's challenges in legitimizing a strong executive role, influenced by classical sources and his commitment to public service. Key topics include Washington's handling of the national bank controversy, the Jay Treaty, and the Whiskey Rebellion, illustrating his balanced approach to executive power. The episode also highlights Washington's farewell address, emphasizing unity, the dangers of political parties, and his enduring legacy.In This Episode:(00:03) Introduction to the Constitution(00:15) Introduction to Paul Carrese(01:33) Washington's role in the Constitutional Convention(02:58) Washington's legitimacy(06:01) Washington's first inaugural address(07:31) Washington's farewell address(08:45) Washington's self-education(09:31) Influence of classical thinkers(12:14) Washington's concept of office(14:40) Episodes of Washington's leadership(15:54) The bank's rationale(17:21) Washington's cabinet strategy(18:21) Madison's shift on the bank(20:03) Hamilton's economic influence(22:18) Washington's diplomatic role(23:12) Constitutional interpretation of treaties(24:15) Washington's treaty process(25:29) The Jay Treaty controversy(28:04) Whiskey Rebellion context(30:43) Constitutional enforcement(31:46) Peace through strength(32:38) Washington's farewell address(33:14) Washington's relationship with party(34:31) Significance of the farewell address(36:46) Counsels in the farewell address(38:51) Washington's legacy(39:24) George III's remark on Washington