We the People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June is Pride Month. The first Pride March took place in June 1970, to commemorate the Stonewall Uprising the year prior. Today on We the People, we look back on LGBTQ rights and advocacy throughout American history—from key stories and figures to key court cases interpreting the scope of LGBTQ rights under the Constitution. James Kirchick, author of Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington, and Dale Carpenter, Judge William Hawley Atwell Chair of Constitutional Law at SMU and author of Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v Texas, join Jeffrey Rosen for the conversation. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

As the congressional hearings for the events of January 6, 2021, continue, we’ll hear from The Honorable J. Michael Luttig, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, as he recounts a story of his historical tweet that contributed to Vice President Mike Pence’s decision to certify the results of the 2020 election, along with his reflections on how to prevent another January 6. He’s then joined by three experts—Ned Foley of The Ohio State University, Sarah Isgur of The Dispatch, and Clark Neily of the Cato Institute—who are each leading a team on a bipartisan project for the National Constitution Center, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy. They discuss other potential reforms including whether changes should be made to the Electoral Count Act and preview their forthcoming reports for the project, which will be published later this summer. Together, our panelists consider ways to strengthen American constitutional and democratic institutions against current and future threats. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This conversation was originally part of a live, private event hosted by the National Constitution Center in Coral Gables, Florida, recorded in May 2022 with permission from the speakers. The Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy project is made possible with the support of Mike and Jackie Bezos. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

While the idea of freedom of speech may be closely associated with the American constitutional tradition under the First Amendment today, its origins go back thousands of years, and its ideals have been expressed in civilizations around the world. Joining president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss that storied history—from Martin Luther’s posting his 95 Theses, to state laws regarding social media—and examine defenses of free speech are Jacob Mchangama, author of Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media, and David Cole, National Legal Director of the ACLU. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

This week, the National Constitution Center and the National Association of Attorneys General hosted a bipartisan conversation with Attorneys General Doug Peterson of Nebraska and Phil Weiser of Colorado exploring the role of state attorneys general, state law, and state police powers under the Constitution in addressing the potential dangers of various social media platforms to public health, privacy, and competition. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderated. This program is presented in partnership with the Center for Excellence in Governance at the National Association of Attorneys General. To watch National Constitution Center Town Hall programs live, check out our schedule of upcoming programs. Register through Zoom to ask your constitutional questions in the Q&A or watch live on YouTube. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

There’s a lot happening in the world of election law. From the Supreme Court’s opinion last week in FEC v. Ted Cruz, to a redistricting case in Alabama, to a North Carolina case dealing with the independent state legislature doctrine-- we’re doing a deep dive with John Fortier, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Rick Hasen, professor of law at UC Irvine, to discuss these cases and issues and what they mean for American democracy going forward. Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Today on We the People, we’re sharing a conversation from a private event hosted by the National Constitution Center this week in Coral Gables, Florida, recorded with permission from the speakers. In it, President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen moderates a conversation with five experts about two of the biggest issues before the Supreme Court this term: abortion and guns. Those five experts are: Melissa Murray of NYU Law, Akhil Amar of Yale Law School, Clark Neily of the Cato Institute, Kimberly Atkins Stohr of The Boston Globe, and David French of The Dispatch. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On May 2, Politico published a leaked draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in the pending case Dobbs v. Women’s Health Organization. The draft opinion in Dobbs overrules the precedents Roe v. Wade andPlanned Parenthood v. Casey, which hold that women have the constitutional right to seek pre-viability abortions. In this episode, professors Mary Ziegler of UC Davis Law School and O. Carter Snead of Notre Dame Law School join once again to unpack the constitutional reasoning in Justice Alito’s draft, and the implications for the future of abortion rights in America and the future of Court as an institution in the aftermath of the leaked opinion. Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Last year, we had two episodes about this case, before and after oral arguments, so be sure to listen to those if you haven’t – available here: Part 1 and Part 2. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On today’s very special episode, we share the exciting events that happened at the National Constitution Center earlier this week. To celebrate the unveiling of the First Amendment tablet—once featured on the facade of the Newseum in Washington, D.C., now at its new home in the Grand Hall Overlook of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia—free speech defenders Randall Kennedy of Harvard Law School, former ACLU President Nadine Strossen of New York Law School, and Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education join for a discussion of why the First Amendment matters today. A dedication ceremony with remarks from the Honorable J. Michael Luttig, former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Jan Neuharth, chair and CEO of the Freedom Forum; and Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, follows. This program was presented in celebration of the newly installed First Amendment tablet at the National Constitution Center donated by the Freedom Forum, which works to foster First Amendment freedoms for all. The design and installation of the tablet was made possible by the Honorable J. Michael Luttig and Elizabeth A. Luttig. Watch the program video here: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/town-hall-video/why-the-first-amendment-matters-today Read Jeff's remarks here: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/remarks-from-the-first-amendment-tablet-ceremony Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On April 18, a federal judge in Florida struck down the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s mask requirement on airplanes, trains, buses, and other public transportation. In a 59-page opinion, Judge Mizelle stated that the CDC had exceeded its legal authority under relevant federal law, including the 1944 Public Health Services Act, and failed to follow administrative procedure rules. The decision further vacated the mask mandate on a nationwide basis. The U.S. Department of Justice plans to appeal the decision. Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School and Adam White of the American Enterprise Institute join us for a discussion about the legal arguments on both sides of the decision, and a broader debate about nationwide injunctions—when a single district court judge blocks a law or government regulation on a national scale. Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. The case is about Joseph Kennedy, a Christian high school football coach in Washington state who regularly prayed before games. Eventually a majority of the players joined in as well, and one player’s parent complained that he felt pressured to pray as well. Kennedy lost his job after refusing to comply with school district’s orders to stop. Nicole Garnett of Notre Dame Law School and Rachel Laser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the case; the questions raised around the limits of free speech, free exercise of religion, and the separation of church and state in schools; and how the Court might rule based on its prior jurisprudence—from the Lemon v. Kurtzmann test to the Abington v. Schempp case—and some justices’ questioning of it. Listen to "Football, Faith, and the First Amendment" from January 31, 2019. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

At the end of March, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law House Bill 1557, also called the “Parental Rights in Education Bill.” Critics of the bill have referred to it as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Controversy has surrounded the bill since its inception. President Biden referred to it as “hateful,” but supporters say the bill is limited in scope and has been misinterpreted. Constitutional law experts Joshua Matz of Kaplan Hecker & Fink and Eugene Volokh of UCLA School of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the debate over the bill and others like it. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

As Russia continues to wage war on Ukraine, more horrifying news of its impact on civilians has been exposed, including graphic images of purported war crimes and other atrocities being committed against Ukrainian citizens. Some international leaders have called for tougher sanctions against Russia, and others have expelled Russian diplomats from their countries. But what else can be done? Does international law play a role in ending the conflict and bringing Russia to justice? Can Russian President Vladimir Putin be tried for war crimes, or any other international crimes, such as the crime of aggression? And if so, how? International law experts Philippe Sands of University College London and Ryan Goodman of NYU Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the possibilities and limitations of international law in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as well as the relevance of the origins of international criminal law, dating back to the Nuremberg trials in 1945 and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson’s role in its development. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Last week the Supreme Court handed down two nearly unanimous decisions in cases involving the First Amendment. One was an 8-1 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts in Ramirez v. Collier, in which the Court sided with a death row inmate who claimed he had the right to have the religious leader of his choice touch him and pray audibly for him in the execution chamber. The other opinion was 9-0 in Houston Community College v. Wilson, where the Court held that a legislative censure issued by a community college board did not violate the free speech rights of the respondent, another trustee on the board, in an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch. First Amendment experts Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School and Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the opinions’ impact on how we interpret and understand religious freedom and freedom of speech in America. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is currently a judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals. Questions for Judge Jackson ranged from her judicial philosophy and methodology of constitutional interpretation; to her experience as a public defender and years as a trial court judge; to questions about various constitutional topics, from the First Amendment to the Fourth Amendment and other issues that may come before the Court for review. Lisa Tucker, associate professor of law at Drexel University, and Melissa Murray, Frederick I. and Grace Stokes Professor of Law at NYU Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap what we learned about Judge Jackson through four days of questioning by the committee. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block new congressional maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania from going into effect. Both states’ maps had been redrawn by state courts, overriding maps that had been enacted by the states’ Republican legislatures. This means that the 2022 congressional elections in both states will proceed using the court-drawn maps. Despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene, four of the justices indicated they’re ready to address the doctrine at the heart of the cases: the independent state legislature theory. To unpack all that’s at stake—and explain what that theory is and what effect, if implemented, it could have on the power of state courts to review actions by state legislatures in regulating elections—Jeffrey Rosen moderates a conversation with two constitutional law experts: Vikram Amar, dean and Iwan Foundation Professor of Law at Illinois College of Law and co-author of Constitutional Law: Cases and Materials; and Evan Bernick, assistant professor at the Northern Illinois University College of Law and co-author of The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and the two nations have been at war since. This week, two experts in constitutional law and international affairs join us to unpack the causes of this war, what potential implications for the core principles of liberal democracy and constitutionalism might be, and whether international law has any power to stop the fighting. Kim Lane Scheppele, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs in the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, and Jeffrey Kahn, professor of law and Gerald J. Ford Research Fellow at Southern Methodist University, join Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On February 28, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case concerning the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The outcome of the case has the potential to deal a significant blow to the federal government’s ability to enact climate regulations. Joining us to examine the arguments on either side is Jonathan Adler, inaugural Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and founding director of the Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law; and Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

In honor of President’s Day, this episode of We the People covers memorable writings and speeches from former presidents that help make up some of the foundational texts and ideas of our nation. In particular, we’ll take a close look at the words of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison as they reveal the former presidents’ thoughts the challenges of creating a nation; on the role public opinion plays in governance; on happiness and its pursuit and how that factors into the role government should play in our everyday lives; and more. Nancy Isenberg, Professor of history at Louisiana State University and co-author of Madison and Jefferson and The Problem of Democracy: The Presidents Adams Confront the Cult of Personality; and Colleen Sheehan, professor of politics at Arizona State and author of The Mind of James Madison: The Legacy of Classical Republicanism and James Madison and the Spirit of Republican Self-Government, join host Jeffrey Rosen for an illuminating discussion. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Last week, the Supreme Court issued an order in a case—Merrill v. Milligan—about voting district maps in Alabama. After the 2020 census, Alabama drew new maps for seven districts, which would determine the seats in the House of Representatives. Of those seven, one district has a majority Black population. A lower court ordered Alabama to redraw the maps so that two districts have majority Black populations, finding that the current plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, temporarily put that ruling on hold, with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the three liberal justices. So—what does it all mean for voting rights in Alabama, and for the Voting Rights Act itself? In this episode we dig into the issues surrounding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how its interpretation could affect voting across the country. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are Rick Hasen, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine, and co-director of the Fair Elections and Free Speech Center; and Matthew Clark, executive director of the Alabama Center for Law & Liberty. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

The National Constitution Center is launching a multi-year initiative exploring the history and meaning of the First Amendment, anchored by the magnificent 50-ton First Amendment tablet newly installed at the Center overlooking Independence Mall. The giant tablet was previously engraved, fabricated and erected in 2007 at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. After the Newseum closed in 2019, the Freedom Forum donated the tablet to the Center. In conjunction with the initiative, Jeffrey Rosen is joined by First Amendment experts Robert Post and Keith Whittington to discuss the origins of the First Amendment, its importance in American society, and several of the most important Supreme Court cases centering around free speech. Robert Post is a Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law School and author of Citizens Divided: A Constitutional Theory of Campaign Finance Reform. Keith Whittington is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University and the author of Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Last week, Justice Stephen G. Breyer announced his decision to retire after 28 years on the U.S. Supreme Court. To reflect on his legacy, both personal and professional, today’s episode is a two-part conversation with guests who have unique insights into Justice Breyer’s life and work. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen for the first part of the conversation are two former law clerks to Justice Breyer. Neal Katyal, who clerked for Justice Breyer from 1996 – 1997, is a partner at Hogan Lovells and the Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law Center, and Theodore Ruger, who clerked for Justice Breyer from 1997 – 1998, is the Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and Bernard G. Segal Professor of Law. For the second part of the conversation, Nell Breyer, executive director of the Marshall Scholars Association and Foundation and Justice Breyer’s daughter, joins us to share some family memories and life lessons learned from her dad. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Earlier this month, President Biden voiced support for getting rid of the filibuster, looking to ease the path of voting rights legislation in Congress. But Senators Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema opposed the change. The legislation has been stalled, and debate over the filibuster runs high once again. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the history, constitutionality, and calls for reform of the filibuster are two of the nation’s leading experts on congressional power and practices. Josh Chafetz is a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, and Jay Cost is the Gerald R. Ford nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His newest book is James Madison: America's First Politician. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

The nation celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day this week, honoring what would have been his 93rd birthday. In this special episode of We the People, we examine King’s thinking about the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as well as his views on agape and universal love, and more, through a close reading and analysis of some of his most significant speeches and writings. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are two of the nation’s leading experts on civil rights and American history. William Allen is emeritus dean and professor of political philosophy at Michigan State University and Hasan Kwame Jeffries is associate professor of history at The Ohio State University, where he teaches courses on the civil rights and Black Power movements. Speeches and writings discussed include: “An Experiment in Love,” A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches, by Martin Luther King Jr. (1958) King’s essay discussing the concept of agape and how it undergirds nonviolent resistance. “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence,” by Martin Luther King Jr. (1958) King’s essay explaining the intellectual and philosophical influences that led him to embrace agape and nonviolent resistance. “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” by Martin Luther King Jr. (April 16, 1963) King's seminal open letter — written from a jail in Birmingham, Alabama — on civil disobedience, justice, and the ethics of violating unjust laws. “I Have A Dream,” by Martin Luther King Jr. (August 28, 1963) King's iconic speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial about civil rights, freedom, and equality “Our God is Marching On,” by Martin Luther King Jr. (March 25, 1965) King’s speech at the conclusion of the marches from Selma to Montgomery “Beyond Vietnam,” by Martin Luther King Jr. (1967) King’s speech at New York’s Riverside Church condemning the Vietnam War “Where Do We Go From Here?” by Martin Luther King Jr. (1967) King’s speech on the future of the civil rights movement, given at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Atlanta, Georgia. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 dictates the congressional procedure for certifying electoral college results in a presidential election. The Act was passed in response to the presidential election of 1876—where Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but lost the presidency to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes because of contested results in three states—in an effort to avoid future contested elections But a large bipartisan group of election law scholars and politicians across the political spectrum have argued that the law creates more confusion and needs to be reformed. Today on We the People, we’re doing a deep dive into the Electoral Count Act and proposals for fixing it—which have gained traction after the events of January 6, 2021, when members of Congress challenged the electoral slates of several states and some, along with President Trump, asked Vice President Pence not to certify these votes, which would have switched the presidential election results from Joe Biden to Trump. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are two election law experts who co-authored an op-ed in The Washington Post titled “How Congress can fix the Electoral Count Act. Ned Foley holds the Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law at The Ohio State University, and he also directs its election law program. Brad Smith is the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School. And from 2000-2005, he served on the Federal Election Commission. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On January 7 the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a set of cases challenging the Biden administration’s Covid vaccine mandates. Under one mandate, employers with more than 100 employees must require those employees to be vaccinated, or be tested for Covid on a weekly basis. Under the other mandate, any health care facility that participates in Medicare or Medicaid must ensure that all their workers are fully vaccinated. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are two attorneys who filed amicus briefs in these cases. John Masslon, senior litigation counsel at Washington Legal Foundation, filed an amicus brief arguing against the legality of the mandates, and Deepak Gupta, founding principal of Gupta Wessler and instructor at Harvard’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, filed an amicus brief in support of the legality of the mandates on behalf of the American Public Health Association. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

How have poets and poetry—from John Milton to Mercy Otis Warren and Phillis Wheatley—influenced the Constitution and America’s core democratic principles? Join Vincent Carretta, editor of the Penguin Classics editions of the Complete Writings of Phillis Wheatley and professor emeritus of English at the University of Maryland, Eileen M. Hunt, full professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, and Eric Slauter, associate professor and director of the Karla Scherer Center for the Study of American Culture at the University of Chicago, for a discussion exploring the ways poetry has intersected with the Constitution and constitutional ideas throughout American history. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. Check it out on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.. We’ll be back next week to kick off another year of lively and civil constitutional debates. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In this episode, we look back on the events of 2021 from a constitutional perspective—from a violent mob storming the Capitol in January, to the inauguration of President Biden, and the convergence of a new Supreme Court with the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett; from key Supreme Court cases about religious liberty, voting rights, abortion, and guns, and finally, continuing questions about the scope of individual rights and government power amidst the continuing coronavirus pandemic. As 2021 comes to a close, we look back on how this year will be remembered in constitutional history. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen for the conversation are Adam Liptak, Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, and Jennifer Mascott, assistant professor of law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Last spring, President Biden issued an executive order to form the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, a bipartisan commission charged with examining proposals for Supreme Court reform. The commission, made up of more than 30 of the nation’s leading legal scholars and experts on the judiciary, submitted a 294-page report to the president last week. Some of the proposals examined in the report include court expansion, term limits, and jurisdiction stripping, as well as the Court’s larger role in the constitutional system. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by two members of the commission: Tara Leigh Grove, professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, and Keith Whittington, professor of politics at Princeton University. They lay out the cases for and against each proposal, and discuss the complications involved in implementing any of them. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Carson v. Makin, which centers around the free exercise clause, and public funding for religious education. The issue is whether a state—in this case, Maine, violates the First Amendment by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction. In Maine, not all school districts have their own public secondary schools. For students in those districts, the state will pay for them to attend private high schools— unless the private school has a religious affiliation. The petitioners in this case are parents who are seeking that state funding for their son to attend a religious private school. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and co-author of The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State, and Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law at Stanford, and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. They discuss the history of religious schooling and public funding in America under the Constitution, including from the founding onward; what historical precedent means for how to understand and interpret the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment; and how the Court might rule in the case. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit constitutioncenter.org/wethepeople, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: a case challenging Mississippi’s law that bans abortion after 15 weeks. The issue in the case is whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional—and the outcome could challenge the future of Supreme Court precedent on abortion from Roe v. Wade to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In our last episode, we were joined by two experts to preview the issues in Dobbs. (Be sure to listen to The Dobbs v. Jackson Case – Part 1 episode if you haven’t already!) Today, they return to help us unpack the oral arguments. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Mary Ziegler, the Stearns Weaver Miller Professor at Florida State University College of Law and author of Abortion and the Law in America: A Legal History, Roe v. Wade to the Present, and O. Carter Snead, professor of law at Notre Dame Law School and director of the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit constitutioncenter.org/wethepeople and thank you for your crucial support. Additional resources and transcript are available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On this week’s episode, we preview Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case challenging Mississippi’s law that bans abortion after 15 weeks, which comes before the Supreme Court on December 1. The issue in the case is whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional—and the outcome could challenge the future of Supreme Court precedent on abortion from Roe v. Wade to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In another recent case, Justice Kavanaugh laid out three criteria for overturning a precedent believed to be wrongly decided. In this episode, we use these criteria to examine the arguments on either side, and then next week we’ll be back with a part two, recapping the oral arguments. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Mary Ziegler, the Stearns Weaver Miller Professor at Florida State University College of Law and author of Abortion and the Law in America: A Legal History, Roe v. Wade to the Present, and O. Carter Snead, professor of law at Notre Dame Law School and director of the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit constitutioncenter.org/wethepeople and thank you for your crucial support. Additional resources and transcript are available in our Media Library at https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

November 19, 2021 marks the 158th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. This week’s episode highlights the landmark speech, its historical and constitutional significance, and its continued relevance today. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by historians Kate Masur of Northwestern University and Sean Wilentz of Princeton University. Through a close, line-by-line read of the speech they analyze its rhetoric, highlight its references to other founding documents including the Declaration of Independence, and illuminate its dire historical context memorializing the Civil War’s bloodiest battle at a crucial turning point. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit constitutioncenter.org/wethepeople and thank you for your crucial support. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On this week’s episode, We the People examines United States v. Vaello-Madero, a case involving U.S. citizen Jose Luis Vaello-Madero who claims the exclusion of Puerto Ricans from the Supplemental Security Income program violates the Constitution. Vaello-Madero began receiving Supplemental Security Income while living in New York but then moved back to Puerto Rico. When the government found that out, it cut off Vaello-Madero's benefits and sued him because SSI is available in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands, but not in Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Neil Weare, president and founder of Equally American who was raised in the U.S. territory of Guam and previously worked for Guam’s non-voting Delegate Madeleine Bordallo, and Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus, the George Welwood Murray Professor of Legal History at Columbia Law School who was raised in Puerto Rico and specializes in studying the legal issues surrounding Puerto Rico. Weare and Ponsa-Kraus explain the case, recap its oral argument at the Supreme Court, and walk us through the history of how Puerto Rico and its residents have been treated under the Constitution and by the U.S. government. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two challenges to S.B. 8. S.B. 8 bans almost all abortions in the state of Texas by allowing anyone, including people who do not live in the state, to bring a lawsuit in state court against anyone who performs an abortion after six weeks, or helps to make one possible. Leaving enforcement to the populace raised a unique procedural question in this case: who should be sued over the Texas law? In this episode, we unpack that question and the complex issues in these cases, and recap the argument including the questions asked by the Supreme Court justices. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Miriam Becker-Cohen, Appellate Counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center who co-authored briefs in support of the abortion provider Whole Women’s Health and the Biden administration, and Stephen Sachs, the Antonin Scalia Professor of Law at Harvard Law School who has covered these cases for the legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On November 3, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in New York State Rifle in Pistol Association Inc. V. Bruen. The case was brought by two men who were denied New York concealed carry permits, along with New York’s National Rifle Association affiliate, against the superintendent of the New York State Police, Kevin Bruen. The lawsuit challenges a provision of New York’s law regarding concealed carry permits—which allow owners to carry guns in public in a concealed manner—requiring anyone who does not automatically qualify for a permit (including some state judges, correctional facilities employees, and others) to show that they have “proper cause” for the permit in order to receive one. On this week’s episode, host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by two legal scholars who filed briefs on opposing sides of the case—Judge J. Michael Luttig who filed in support of Bruen, and David Kopel who filed in support of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. They detail the arguments they made in their briefs as well as what’s at stake in this case, and debate how to interpret the text, history, and meaning of the Second Amendment in light of whether the Court should uphold the New York law. Additional resources and transcripts available at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On April 9, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14023 forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. The Commission is comprised of a bipartisan group of experts on the Court—from former federal judges and practitioners, to legal scholars and historians—who have been tasked with analyzing arguments and the merits and legality of proposals in the current public debate for and against Supreme Court reform. Last week, after months of research and expert testimony, the Commission released discussion materials in the form of five separate reports. It then held a public hearing to discuss the various topics and reform ideas presented, including whether to enact Supreme Court term limits, increase the number of justices on the Court, or reexamine the Court’s practices and procedures. Its final report is expected on November 14. Two of the scholars who testified before the Commission—Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School—join host Jeffrey Rosen on this week’s episode to discuss the Commission, which reforms they are evaluating have bipartisan support and might be achievable—and whether they should and can be enacted. The work of the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project—which both Greene and McConnell participated in as well—was also cited in both the Commission materials and in expert testimony. Visit https://constitutioncenter.org/debate/special-projects/constitution-drafting-project for more info. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen recently testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, telling senators that Facebook and Instagram stoke division, harm children, and avoid transparency and any consequences for their damaging effects. Her testimony amplified calls for regulation of the platforms. On today’s episode we consider a variety of proposed reforms, whether they would violate any other laws and whether they would be constitutional. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by internet law experts Jeff Kosseff of the United States Naval Academy and Nate Persily of Stanford Law School. They also consider why it is so difficult to regulate the platforms as well as the unintended consequences that may arise if they are regulated, and unpack prior cases on free speech that influenced the overall approach to Internet regulation from its very beginning, including the passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.

Last week, Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito gave a speech responding to criticism of the Supreme Court’s emergency docket levied by, among others, his fellow Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. On this week’s episode, we explain what types of cases comprise the Court’s the emergency docket—sometimes referred to as the “shadow docket,” a term coined by scholar Will Baude—and whether the Court’s approach to emergency decision-making has changed in recent years, and why. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by law professors Jennifer Mascott of George Mason Law School and Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas Law School, both of whom testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee at its hearing about the shadow docket this week. They illuminate current debates surrounding the shadow docket and detail some recent decisions that have drawn increased scrutiny to the Court’s emergency rulings, including in COVID-related cases, the Texas abortion case, and in challenges to some of President Trump’s immigration policies. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Monday, October 4, will be the first day of oral arguments in the new 2021-22 Supreme Court term. On this week’s episode, Supreme Court journalists Kimberly Atkins Stohr of Boston Globe Opinion and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal join host Jeffrey Rosen to preview the forthcoming term’s blockbuster cases on issues including abortion, religion, guns, free speech, state secrets, and more. Cases discussed include: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Houston Community College System v. Wilson Carson v. Makin City of Austin, Texas v. Regan Nat’l Advertising of Texas United States v. Vaello-Madero Hemphill v. New York United States v. Tsarnaev United States v. Zubaydah Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Doe Ramirez v. Collier Shinn v. Ramirez Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Three judges from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals joined host Jeffrey Rosen for a live panel held on September 17, Constitution Day, the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. They shared an inside look into some of their rulings that then became blockbuster Supreme Court cases. Judge Cheryl Ann Krause discussed her ruling in the case involving a cheerleader who was punished for a Snapchat, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. Judge Stephanos Bibas spoke on his decision in one of the major Trump campaign challenges to the 2020 election results, Donald Trump for President, Inc v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And Judge Marjorie Rendell shared insight into her decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the case spurred by the city barring Catholic Social Services (CSS) from placing children in foster homes because CSS refused to allow same-sex couples to be foster parents. The judges also reflected on their work more broadly, their efforts to find compromise among colleagues with differing opinions, and their important roles in American government. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

September 17 is Constitution Day—the anniversary of the framers signing the Constitution in 1787. This week’s episode dives into what happened after the Constitution was signed—when it had to be approved by “we the people,” a process known as ratification—and the arguments made on behalf of the Constitution. A major collection of those arguments came in the form of a series of essays, today often referred to as The Federalist Papers, which were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay using the pen name Publius and published initially in newspapers in New York. Guests Judge Gregory Maggs, author of the article “A Concise Guide to The Federalist Papers as a Source of the Original Meaning of the United States Constitution,” and Colleen Sheehan, professor and co-editor of The Cambridge Companion to The Federalist, shed light on the questions: What do The Federalist Papers say? What did their writers set out to achieve achieve by writing them? How do they explain the ideas behind the Constitution’s structure and design—and where did those ideas come from? And why is it important to read The Federalist Papers today? Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, the Supreme Court declined to temporarily halt, and thus allowed to go into effect, a new Texas law that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy—effectively banning most abortions in the state. The law is unusual in that, instead of enacting criminal penalties as a method of enforcement, it enables others to sue anyone who violates the law for money damages. On this week’s episode, host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by constitutional law scholars Kate Shaw and Sarah Isgur to explain what exactly the Texas law says, the motivations and legal theory behind it, and why it was structured the way it was specifically in order to be hard to challenge—given that it directly violates constitutional precedents like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which protect the constitutional right to abortion pre-viability (around 22-24 weeks). Shaw and Isgur also consider whether the type of enforcement mechanism that makes this Texas law unique might be replicated in other states for abortion restrictions or gun control. They also unpack the Supreme Court’s brief ruling declining to intervene at this time, its reasoning, and how it compares to other recent emergency rulings like the COVID-19 cases and the eviction moratorium. Kate Shaw is a professor at Cardozo Law and a co-host of the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny. Sarah Isgur is staff writer at The Dispatch and co-host of the legal podcast Advisory Opinions. This episode was recorded just before the Justice Department announced that it will sue the state of Texas over this law—although our guests provide some pre-emptive speculation on what such a lawsuit may look like.

Legal battles over masks in schools are being fought across the country—in states including Arkansas, California, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas—and the U.S. Department of Education recently announced a civil rights investigation into mask mandate bans in several states. This week’s episode explores lawsuits brought against governors who took action to try to ban local mask mandates in schools, as well as challenges to state school mask mandates brought by people who say their individual rights were violated. We also address broader questions raised by this debate regarding the balance of power in America, and whether the Supreme Court might intervene. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Charles C. W. Cooke, senior writer for National Review, and professor Jennifer Selin of the University of Missouri. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the passage of the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18. This week’s episode tells the fascinating story of the amendment—sparked by two wars and the idea of “old enough to fit, old enough to vote,” principally designed by two senators, and advocated for by countless young people, students, and civil rights activists. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Jason “Jay” Berman, a longtime advisor to one of the principal architects of the 26th Amendment, U.S. Senator Birch Bayh, and Yael Bromberg, author of the article “Youth Voting Rights and the Unfulfilled Promise of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.” Special thanks to the 26th Amendment Collection, Modern Political Papers, Indiana University Libraries as well as the Youth Franchise Coalition and Project Vote 18 for the Birch Bayh audio at the top of the episode. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week’s episode profiles Mercy Otis Warren—a trailblazing woman who was one of the leading thinkers of America’s Revolutionary and Founding period. A poet, playwright, and pamphleteer—Warren’s ideas influenced John, Abigail, and Samuel Adams as well as Alexander Hamilton and others, and even helped shape the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by two biographers of Warren, Nancy Rubin Stuart, author of The Muse of the Revolution: The Secret Pen of Mercy Otis Warren and the Founding of a Nation, and Rosemarie Zagarri, author of A Woman's Dilemma: Mercy Otis Warren and the American Revolution. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On August 3, the Biden Administration issued an order from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention creating a second “eviction moratorium” that extended the pause on eviction proceedings in state courts during the pandemic—sparking debate over whether such an action was legal and constitutional. Joining Jeffrey Rosen to debate those questions this week are Ilya Shapiro, vice president of the Cato Institute who’s written on this issue for Cato at Liberty, and Peter M. Shane, professor at the Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law and author of a Washington Monthly piece about the moratorium. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As students return to school, hundreds of colleges and universities are requiring those returning to campus to get coronavirus vaccines. Recently, a federal appeals court declined to grant an injunction against Indiana University’s vaccine mandate after it was challenged in a lawsuit by students who say it violates their constitutional rights. On this week’s episode, we discuss the Indiana case as well as the constitutionality of vaccination mandates issued or being considered by different institutions including schools; discuss whether states or the federal government may also have the power to issue vaccine mandates; and explain how Supreme Court cases, including those from over a century ago, might impact this question. Wendy K. Mariner, professor at the Boston University Schools of Public Health, Law, and Medicine, and Josh Blackman, constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

President Biden recently issued the Executive Order on Competition which aims to break up corporate power across the economy—proposing antitrust initiatives at more than a dozen federal agencies including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This week’s episode explores the executive order, the history, ideals, and legal principles behind it, and its potential impact. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by William Kovacic, former chair of the FTC and professor at GW Law, and Barry Lynn, Executive Director of the Open Markets Institute. Additional resources and transcript available in the Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision New York Times Company v. Sullivan shaped libel and defamation law and established constitutional principles that still govern the scope of press protections in America today. The “actual malice” standard established in the decision requires a public official suing for defamation to prove that the newspaper published a false statement “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” This made it harder for news publications to be sued for libel; yet it also made it more difficult for those defamed to seek redress. Recently, Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Thomas in separate opinions have each called for Sullivan to be revisited. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderated a debate over the importance of the Sullivan case and whether or not it should be reconsidered—featuring experts RonNell Andersen Jones, professor of law at the University of Utah and an Affiliated Fellow at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project, and David A. Logan, professor of law and former dean at Roger Williams University and author of an article cited by Justice Gorsuch in his opinion questioning Sullivan. In this episode you’ll also hear audio from the Supreme Court oral argument of New York Times v. Sullivan, courtesy of Oyez. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Benjamin Franklin is well known as a Founding Father and an innovative inventor, scientist, and diplomat. But did you know he had a major and often unsung role at the Constitutional Convention? Historians H.W. Brands, author of The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin, and Ed Larson, author of Franklin & Washington: The Founding Partnership, join host Jeffrey Rosen on this week’s episode. They illuminate Franklin’s involvement in drafting and debating the Constitution during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia—as host of the Constitutional Convention and one of the Convention’s most-respected delegates—as well as his vision for America’s future. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee—upholding two Arizona voting rules by deciding that they did not violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution and were not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose. On this week’s episode, scholars debate whether that ruling was correct and how it might impact the future of voting rights and how elections are conducted in America. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Rick Hasen, professor of law at the University of California Irvine, and Ilya Shapiro, a vice president at the Cato Institute. For more insight on this case from our guests, check out Rick Hasen’s recent pieces for Slate (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/07/supreme-court-sam-alito-brnovich-angry.html) and The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/opinion/supreme-court-rulings-arizona-california.html) and Ilya Shapiro’s recent pieces for The Washington Examiner (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/the-voter-suppression-lie) and SCOTUSblog (https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/02/supreme-court-needs-to-set-clear-standards-for-vote-denial-claims). Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As Americans look forward to celebrating Independence Day this holiday weekend, this week’s episode dives into the Declaration of Independence. We trace where its words and its ideals came from and how it went on to influence state constitutions, the U.S. Constitution, and other key American texts—including President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, author of The Words That Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation 1760-1840, and Steven G. Calabresi of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

The Supreme Court recently released decisions from some of the most highly-anticipated cases of this term. Jess Bravin, who covers the Supreme Court for The Wall Street Journal, and Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal and contributor to the National Constitution Center’s blog Constitution Daily, join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap those decisions and highlight the role, approach and legal philosophy of each individual justice in this blockbuster term. Marcia, Jess, and Jeff discuss cases including: Fulton v. City of Philadelphia in which the Court held that the refusal of Philadelphia to contract with Catholic Social Services (CSS) for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Mahanoy Area School District in which the Court sided with a student whose initials are B.L., ruling that the school district’s decision to suspend B.L. from the cheerleading team for posting to social media vulgar language and gestures critical of the school violates the First Amendment. California v. Texas in which the Court held that the plaintiffs in the case lack standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act’s minimum essential coverage provision—essentially protecting the ACA from its latest challenge. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments available at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On June 19, 1865, Union soldiers, led by Major General Gordon Granger, arrived in Galveston, Texas, with news that the Civil War had ended and that the enslaved were now free. President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation had been issued over two years earlier, and the South had surrendered in April 1865, ending the Civil War. So why did it take so long for Texans to hear the news of their freedom? Why do we celebrate Juneteenth as Emancipation Day? And how did emancipation finally become a reality under the Constitution and throughout the nation? We answer those questions and more on this week’s episode featuring Martha Jones, author of 'Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All,' and Lucas Morel, author of 'Lincoln and the American Founding.' Jones and Morel trace the story of the fight for freedom and equality in America from the Declaration of Independence through the founding of the country and the Constitution; the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation; the ratification of the 13th Amendment; and beyond. They also highlight some of the fascinating figures and movements that shaped Black American politics and history. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

As the Supreme Court approaches the home stretch of the 2020-2021 term, it’s released some opinions with unanimous decisions and others with split votes composed of unusual alignments of justices. Supreme Court experts Kate Shaw, cohost of the podcast Strict Scrutiny and professor at Cardozo Law, and Jonathan Adler, contributing editor of National Review and professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap those decisions and detail why they’re important, as well as what to look out for in the rest of the outstanding cases still left in this term, and new cases in the next. Some terms that will be helpful to know this week: Textualism: a method of interpreting laws and/or the Constitution whereby the plain text is used to determine the meaning, and/or a set of techniques used by judges and justices to determine the application of a statute through close consideration of its text. Stare decisis: Latin for “to stand by things decided.” The doctrine of adhering to precedent i.e. cases previously decided. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a live online program to discuss the Constitution, civility, the Court, and more. In a wide-ranging conversation, the justice discusses how he goes about making decisions, shares some stories and life lessons from his time on the bench, and shares some of his favorite books and authors. He also explains why civic education is so important today, why people need to reach across the political divides more than ever, and why he's optimistic about the future of America. Finally, he answers questions from the audience and describes how he’s been spending his time during the pandemic (including Zooming with his law clerks and meditating). This conversation was one of our constitutional classes broadcast live to learners of all ages. All of the classes from the past school year were recorded and can be watched for free at https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks (with narrow exceptions for medical emergencies or “severe fetal abnormality,” but not for instances of rape or incest). The case could lead the Supreme Court to once again question its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade (and later cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey) which held that there was a constitutional right to seek an abortion under the 14th Amendment and that the government could not place an undue burden on the right prior to the “viability” of the fetus, or the ability of an unborn child to survive outside the womb. This week’s episode focuses on two big questions: Does the Constitution indeed protect the right to choose abortion—and if so, when? And in the new abortion challenge, Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization, will the court uphold Roe v. Wade or narrow the decision in some way, revising the viability standard? Our guests unpack these questions and more, explaining the arguments on all sides as well as relevant legal terms—including “substantive due process,” “natural law,” and “stare decisis.” Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Leah Litman, assistant professor at Michigan Law and co-host of the podcast Strict Scrutiny, and Teresa Stanton Collett, professor and director of the Prolife Center at University of St. Thomas School of Law. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library

In the wake of the 2020 election, a host of new laws that deal with voting have been proposed across the country by both states and the federal government. Election law experts Rick Hasen, professor at UCI Law and author of Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy, and Derek Muller, election law professor at Iowa Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss whether or not the proposed bills are constitutional; explain how the election system is structured under our Constitution and state, federal, and local laws; and more. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

This week’s episode previews New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett, which could become a major Second Amendment and gun rights case. This lawsuit was brought by two New York state residents who were denied licenses to carry firearms outside of the home, AKA “concealed carry” permits, because they had failed to show "proper cause" to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense and did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished them from the general public. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, and Clark Neily, who was co-counsel in the major gun rights case District of Columbia v. Heller, to explore the case, debate whether New York’s controversial concealed carry law is constitutional, examine the surprising history of similar laws, and more. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

The Facebook Oversight Board—a recently-developed court of sorts that independently reviews Facebook’s decisions and policies—issued a major ruling this week, upholding the company’s initial decision to ban President Trump indefinitely, but calling on the company to come to a final decision on its suspension of Trump and similar cases with greater detail. The board also requested that Facebook clarify its policies on political leaders, do some additional fact-finding, and report back with more on its decision and rationale in six months—when the board will reconsider the ban. Host Jeffrey Rosen considered the impact of the decision for the future of digital speech with two experts who have done path-breaking work on the Facebook Oversight Board: Kate Klonick, assistant professor of law at St. John’s Law School who spent a year embedded with the Oversight Board as it was being developed, and Nate Persily, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and co-director of the Stanford Program on Democracy and the Internet. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

After a high school student with initials B.L. posted a snap on the social media app Snapchat complaining about sports and school, she was suspended from the cheerleading team. She sued the school for violating her First Amendment rights and appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court; the court heard arguments in the case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., this week, which could become the court’s first major ruling on student speech in decades. On this week’s episode, we recap the oral argument in the case, as our guests explain the arguments on both sides. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Will Creeley, Legal Director at Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) who authored an amicus brief on behalf of B.L., and Francisco Negrón, Chief Legal Officer at the National School Boards Association who joined a brief on behalf of the school district. They discuss how the court might apply the leading precedent, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)—in which the court famously wrote that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate at the schoolhouse gate,” but that schools could punish student speech if it substantially disrupts the educational process—to this case, and whether and to what extent schools can regulate student speech online. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear argument in a key consolidated case about the First Amendment and donor disclosure laws. Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rodriquez asks whether a policy of the California attorney general’s office that requires charities to disclose the names and addresses of their major donors violates the First Amendment. Cindy Lott, Associate Professor of Professional Practice at Columbia University and Academic Program Director for Nonprofit Management Program at the School of Professional Studies, and Brian Hauss, a staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, discuss this case and its potential implications for nonprofit organizations, campaign finance, free speech, and more.

Recently, the Supreme Court seemingly put an end to the legal battle over whether President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking people on Twitter by instructing the lower court to declare the case moot. Justice Thomas authored a separate concurring opinion that expanded on the language of the Court’s decision to discuss the power of social media platforms over free speech. This week, we discuss that opinion and the potential broader impacts of this case—now known as Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute due to the change in administrations—on the future of the First Amendment. Katie Fallow, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute who led litigation of this case since its inception, and Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA Law, joined host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

This week we dive into the fascinating history of global constitutionalism and declarations of independence. Linda Colley of Princeton University, author of the new book The Gun, The Ship, and the Pen: Warfare, Constitutions, and the Making of the Modern World, and David Armitage of Harvard University author of The Declaration of Independence: A Global History, join host Jeffrey Rosen. They explain how constitutions from around the world are intertwined with warfare, globalism and travel, writing, media and communication technologies, and more; and highlight stories of constitution-making by figures from Catherine the Great to George Washington and beyond. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

In the midst of March Madness, the Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in NCAA v. Alston. The case is an antitrust challenge to the NCAA’s rules on compensation for athletes, brought by college basketball and football players including Shawne Alston, a former West Virginia University running back who argues that college athletes are being exploited. The NCAA argues that maintaining the amateur status of college athletes actually fosters consumer choice between amateur and professional sports. Thomas Nachbar, professor of law at the University of Virginia School of Law who authored a brief in support of the NCAA, and Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at the Open Markets Institute who co-authored a brief on behalf of Shawne Alston, join host Jeffrey Rosen to explore both sides of the case. They also explore the case's potential implication for the future of antitrust across industries, detail past Supreme Court decisions involving the NCAA, and more. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

On March 23, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. Broadly, the case pits the rights of unions to communicate with workers who work and largely live on site versus the rights of business owners to keep people off of their private property. More specifically, the case asks whether California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which allows union organizers to be granted temporary access to speak to agricultural employees on worksites—which are largely private property—amounts to a taking of property without just compensation that violated the Fifth Amendment. Hugh Baran and Robert McNamara joined Jeffrey Rosen to explain both sides of the case. McNamara, a senior staff attorney at Institute for Justice, filed an amicus brief in support of Cedar Point Nursery while Hugh Baran, staff attorney and Skadden Fellow at National Employment Law project, filed an amicus brief in support of the chair of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, Victoria Hassid. A term that will be helpful to know for this week: “Taking”: The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution says: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” A taking is when the government seizes private property for public use. Typically, a “just compensation” is determined by an appraisal of the property’s fair market value. Courts have broadly interpreted the Fifth Amendment to allow the government to seize property if doing so will increase the general public welfare. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In honor of Women’s History Month, this week we highlight women constitutional visionaries from landmark eras in our nation’s history—sharing the legendary contributions of women to the founding; the fight for abolition, the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment; the civil rights and equal rights movements; and more. Martha Jones, author of Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All, and Lisa Tetrault, author of The Myth of Seneca Falls: Memory and the Women's Suffrage Movement, 1848-1898, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Additional resources and transcript available at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Questions or comments? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As the world reflects on the anniversaries of COVID-19 lockdowns this week, this episode recaps the variety of constitutional issues sparked by the pandemic. Joshua Matz—a lawyer and partner at Kaplan Hecker and Fink LLP who successfully defended a Kentucky coronavirus-related public health order before the U.S. Supreme Court—and Adam White, a professor at George Mason Law and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has studied COVID-19-related constitutional issues—join host Jeffrey Rosen. They explore how the pandemic has fueled debates over governmental power to handle public health crises while balancing individual rights and liberties; the First Amendment rights of religious institutions in the face of shutdowns and other orders; state versus federal power; how courts ruled on voting rights issues during the 2020 election in the midst of the pandemic; how COVID-19 has affected inmates, immigrants, detainees and the criminal justice system, and more. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Lange v. California. The case asks whether a police officer violated the Fourth Amendment when he entered the garage of a person suspected of a misdemeanor crime without a warrant while in “hot pursuit” of him. Professor Jeffrey Fisher of Stanford University, who argued the case on behalf of Arthur Lange, and professor Donald Dripps of the University of San Diego Law School, a Fourth Amendment and criminal procedure expert, join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the case and its potential implications for policing, privacy, the Fourth Amendment, and more. Some terms that will be helpful to know for this week (definitions adapted from Legal Information Institute): -Warrantless entry: when a police officer enters a private residence without a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate that would allow the police officer to search a specified place for evidence even without the occupant’s consent -Hot pursuit: exception to the general rule that police officers need a warrant before they can enter a home to make an arrest. Current case law states that if a felony has just occurred and an officer has chased a suspect to a private house, the officer can forcefully enter the house in order to prevent the suspect from escaping or hiding or destroying evidence. -Exigent circumstances: exceptions to the general requirement of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment searches and seizures Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. The case centers on two of Arizona’s election rules: 1. Arizona does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct and 2. its ballot-collection law permits only certain persons (family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers, and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot. The DNC challenged the rules, arguing that both discriminate against racial minorities in Arizona. On appeal, the Supreme Court will consider whether both policies violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965—which prohibits nationally any election laws or policies that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color”—and whether the second violates the 15th Amendment—which states that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Chris Kieser of Pacific Legal Foundation, who wrote a brief in support of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, and Sean Morales-Doyle of the Brennan Center, who wrote a brief in support of the DNC, explore the case and its potential implications in conversation with Jeffrey Rosen. Resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In commemoration of Black History Month, this week we’re sharing the courageous stories and legendary lives of African American constitutional visionaries throughout history—including well-known figures like Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Ida B. Wells, W.E.B. DuBois, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X, as well as some lesser-known but groundbreaking figures like Monroe Trotter and Pauli Murray. We highlight their fights to bring about constitutional change, from abolition and suffrage to the civil rights and voting rights movements and beyond. Judge Theodore McKee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and professor Theodore M. Shaw of UNC Law, former director-counsel of the NAACP, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Did President Trump’s January 6 speech prior to the attack on the Capitol constitute the crime of incitement? Is it necessary to demonstrate that it did in order for the Senate to find him guilty of incitement as a high crime and misdemeanor under the Impeachment Clause and convict him? What are the relevant legal and constitutional standards? Catherine Ross, George Washington University Law School professor and author of the forthcoming book A Right to Lie? Presidents, Other Liars, and the First Amendment, and Josh Blackman, professor of law at South Texas College of Law in Houston whose work has been cited by President Trump’s defense team during this second impeachment trial, join host Jeffrey Rosen to debate those questions. Some terms that will be helpful to know this week: “The Brandenburg test”: In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court established that speech could be punished in a criminal trial only when the speech is: “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” AND “likely to incite or produce such action” Impeachment: per Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

What are executive orders, and how has the Biden administration used them thus far? Presidential power experts Cristina Rodriguez, professor at Yale Law School and author of The President and Immigration Law, and Michael McConnell, professor at Stanford Law School and author of The President Who Would Not Be King, join host Jeffrey Rosen to answer those questions and more. They recap what they think are the most notable executive actions President Biden has taken in his first weeks in office, what their implications might be, and how they are being challenged, before reflecting on presidential power more broadly. To see the full list of executive actions discussed in this episode, visit the National Archives Federal Register page “2021 Joe Biden Executive Orders” Resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org

A mob stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, leading to a ricochet of effects including the impeachment of President Trump. On this episode, experts Larry Kramer, president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Colleen Sheehan, Director of Graduate Studies at the Arizona State School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, explore the history of mobs past and present, online and in-person. They discuss how “good” versus “bad” mobs played a role at the Founding, and how concerns about mobs influenced the political and constitutional thought of Founders including James Madison. They also trace how different types of mobs evolved over time and were seen as illegitimate especially around the Civil War, as well as what has fueled mobs—particularly online mobs—today, including disinformation and social media. They conclude with some thoughts on potential reforms, including the need for more civic education and protections for free speech. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Judge J. Michael Luttig, formerly of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Professor Keith Whittington of Princeton join host Jeffrey Rosen to consider how to interpret the constitutional text and historical precedent surrounding the question of whether the senate can hold President Trump’s impeachment trial now that he’s left office. Judge Luttig explains why he thinks that the president cannot be tried and convicted by the senate after he has already left office, and why only the Supreme Court can answer the question of whether Congress can hold an impeachment trial for a former president. Professor Whittington details his view that a former president can be tried and convicted, and that it’s a purely political question up to the senate to ultimately decide. Resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library Questions or comments? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump for a second time this week, with a vote of 232 in favor, 197 against, and 4 not voting. Prior to the vote, host Jeffrey Rosen sat down with two experts on the Constitution and presidential power—Cristina Rodriguez of Yale Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School. They shared their thoughts on the article of impeachment passed by the House; the charge against President Trump of incitement of insurrection in the wake of the mob invasion of the U.S. Capitol; the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors under the Impeachment Clause; if Section 3 of the 14th Amendment should be invoked to disqualify President Trump from holding office again; how the current media and information landscape may have contributed to polarization and events culminating in the riot; what reforms might help; and more. Professor McConnell is the author of the new book The President Who Would Not be King, and professor Rodriguez is the co-author, with Adam Cox, of The President and Immigration Law. Additional resources and transcripts available at constitutioncenter.org/constitution/media-library Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In the early morning on January 7, 2021, Congress certified President-elect Biden’s Electoral College victory after a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol. This episode reflects on the historic and constitutional significance of the events of “a date which will live in constitutional history.” Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Judge J. Michael Luttig, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of Berkeley Law. They discuss the president’s debunked claims about the 2020 election results that sparked the riot; whether President Trump’s words at a rally held in Washington, D.C., on January 6 count as incitement under the law; what the blocking of President Trump’s social media accounts by Facebook and Twitter afterward means for freedom of speech; and what the unprecedented nature of the events means for the future of the country. Additional resources and transcripts available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

A panel of experts dives into what early American founding figures—including Thomas Jefferson, John and Abigail Adams, George Washington, Mercy Otis Warren, and Phyllis Wheatley—learned from the Greeks and Romans, from their early education through adulthood, and how that knowledge came to influence founding documents such as the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the scope and shape of the American republic. They also explore the founders’ philosophical understanding of passion versus reason, the meaning of “happiness,” and how ancient philosophy continued to influence American democracy throughout turbulent times including the Civil War. Historians and authors Caroline Winterer and Carl Richard and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas Ricks joined National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen. This program originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. Check it out on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to catch up on the live constitutional conversations we hosted in 2020. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library Questions or comments? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

2020 was a tumultuous and eventful year—starting with the impeachment trial, and then the COVID-19 pandemic, crucial conversations about racial inequality, the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, as well as the 2020 presidential election and ensuing court battles over it. How did the Constitution, and American institutions, prevail throughout? John Yoo, a professor at Berkeley Law who previously served in the Bush administration’s Justice Department, and Melissa Murray, a professor at NYU and co-host of the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny, reflect on that question and look back at the major events of 2020 through a constitutional lens. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Additional resources and transcript available at https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” This episode explores presidential pardons past and present—from Thomas Jefferson’s pardons of people convicted under the Sedition Act, through President Carter pardoning Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush pardoning those involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, to President Trump’s exercise of the pardon power today. Experts Brian Kalt of Michigan State Law School and Saikrishna Prakash of the University of Virginia Law School answer questions including: Can the president pardon himself? What does the history say? What are the limits of the pardon power? Does someone admit guilt when they accept a pardon? How might the Supreme Court rule on pardons? And more, in conversation with host Jeffrey Rosen. Additional resources and a transcript are available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), the Supreme Court recently granted a preliminary injunction against (i.e. temporarily blocked) New York’s COVID-19 restrictions on attendance at houses of worship (pending further litigation), siding with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two orthodox Jewish synagogues, who argued that the restrictions violated the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. Constitutional law experts Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School and David French of The Dispatch join host Jeffrey Rosen to unpack the decision, the restrictions at issue, and broader questions including: Has the Supreme Court become more open to claims of religious discrimination? And, in the context of the ongoing pandemic, does and should the Supreme Court still apply its usual judicial tests to determine if something is constitutional? They also explain the role of prior cases crucial to understanding the modern debate in the area of religious freedom law—from Employment Division v. Smith to Masterpiece Cakeshop and beyond. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Can non-citizens be excluded from the census count, which serves as a basis of apportionment and allocates seats in the House of Representatives? Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and John Eastman of Chapman University debate this question, which is at the heart of Trump v. New York, the 2020 census case that the Supreme Court heard on November 30. Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project brought together three teams of leading constitutional scholars—team libertarian, team progressive, and team conservative—to draft and present their ideal constitutions. The leaders of each team—Caroline Frederickson of team progressive, Ilya Shapiro of team libertarian, and Ilan Wurman of team conservative—joined host Jeffrey Rosen to share the process behind their approach to drafting their constitutions and agreeing on what to include and not to include; the overall structure of their constitutions as well as the specific constitutional ideas they added to and subtracted from the U.S. Constitution; and the similarities and differences between the three constitutions. Team libertarian also included Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute and Christina Mulligan of Brooklyn Law School. Team progressive also included Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School and Melissa Murray of New York University School of Law. Team conservative also included Robert P. George of Princeton University, Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School, and Colleen A. Sheehan of Arizona State University. The project was generously supported by Jeff Yass. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

A panel of experts from across the ideological spectrum joined National Constitution Center President Jeffrey Rosen on November 11 to consider what the 2020 election and its aftermath demonstrates about the political parties, polarization, and the state of American democracy today. They also explored how debates over what “truth” means have grown over the last four years, how that manifested in the election and its results, and where we’re headed next including the future of American values like free speech. The panel features Anne Applebaum and Yascha Mounk of the SNF Agora Institute and The Atlantic, David French of The Dispatch, and Charles Kesler of Claremont McKenna College. This episode originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at the National Constituiton Center, which shares live constitutional conversations hosted by the Center. Listen and subscribe or follow on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Register to watch future programs live as Zoom webinars where you can ask your constitutional questions in the Q&A box. This program was presented in partnership with the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in California v. Texas—a recent lawsuit bringing another challenge to the Affordable Care Act. In 2012, in NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court upheld the ACA as constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power; but Congress in 2017 eliminated the individual mandate which served as a basis for the tax rationale—and a group of states and individual plaintiffs sued to challenge the law’s validity once again. This episode recaps the arguments and how the justices—including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose faced many questions about the ACA during her confirmation hearings— reacted to the arguments on both sides. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by two experts on the Affordable Care Act and the Constitution: Abbe Gluck of Yale Law School, author of The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America, and Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, author of Religious Liberties for Corporations? Hobby Lobby, the Affordable Care Act, and the Constitution. Some terms that will be helpful to know for this week: Standing: the ability of a person or party to bring a lawsuit in court. For instance, if the person who brings the lawsuit has suffered some “injury” or will be likely to suffer an injury if a particular wrong is not remedied, they may have standing to bring the case. Severability: a legal principle that allows an unconstitutional or unenforceable provision or part of law to be “severed” out from the rest of the law, leaving the remaining parts of the law intact and in force. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On November 4, as the nation watched and waited for election results, the Supreme Court continued business as usual, hearing oral arguments in one of the term’s key cases—Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. This lawsuit was brought by Catholic Social Services (CSS), a foster-care organization that works with the city of Philadelphia to certify prospective foster parents. When the city found out that CSS, due it its religious beliefs, would not certify unmarried or same-sex married couples to be foster parents, the city cut off foster-parent referrals to CSS, and CSS filed suit. To explain the case, recap the arguments on both sides, and explore the major implications a decision may have for how to balance anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom under the First Amendment—host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Leah Litman, Michigan Law Professor and host of the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny, and Jonathan Adler, Professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law and contributing editor to National Review Online. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Justice Department recently filed a lawsuit against Google, accusing the company of illegally maintaining monopolies over search and search advertising. This week’s episode details the ins and outs of the lawsuit, the allegations the government makes against Google, and what all this might mean for similar companies like Apple and the future of Big Tech. To figure out how we got here, we also look to the history of antitrust, including what happened when a similar lawsuit was brought against Microsoft. Leading experts on technology, antitrust, and the Constitution Tim Wu of Columbia Law School and Adam White of George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As the 2020 election quickly approaches, the Supreme Court issued two key rulings on state election laws this week—ruling 5-3 in Merill v. People First of Alabama to prevent counties from offering curbside voting in Alabama, and, in Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, upholding Pennsylvania’s extension of its mail-in ballot deadline by a 4-4 vote. This episode recaps those rulings, explores other key election-related cases before courts around the country, and explains the constitutional dimensions of legal battles over voting including why and how a court decides when state laws rise to the level of disenfranchisement or not. Emily Bazelon of the New York Times Magazine and co-host of Slate’s podcast “Political Gabfest”, and Bradley Smith, professor at Capital University Law School who previously served on the Federal Election Commission, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week’s episode recaps the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, discussing what the hearings revealed about Judge Barrett’s career, her judicial philosophy, and her approach to stare decisis and constitutional interpretation including her views on originalism, and how, if confirmed, Justice Barrett might rule on legal questions including: the recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act, reproductive rights, presidential power, any disputes arising from the 2020 election, the Second Amendment, religious liberty, race and criminal justice, and more. Kate Shaw, Professor at Cardozo Law School and co-host of the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny, and Michael Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion at Villanova Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Terms that will be helpful to know for this week: Stare decisis: Latin for “to stand by things decided”; the doctrine of precedent—adhering to prior judicial rulings. Originalism: a judicial philosophy of constitutional interpretation holding that the words in the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they were written. “Super precedents”: Landmark Supreme Court decisions whose correctness, according to many, is no longer a viable issue for courts to decide and so are unlikely to be overturned. Severability: a principle by which a court might strike down one portion of a law but the remaining provisions, or the remaining applications of those provisions, will continue to remain in effect. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In light of President Trump and numerous other high-ranking government officials recently contracting COVID-19, this week’s episode explores the 25th Amendment, which outlines what happens if the president becomes unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. We explore questions related to current concerns including: should President Trump have invoked the 25th Amendment when he was in the hospital? And questions that have arisen throughout American history such as: What happens if a vacancy in the office of president or vice president arises? What mechanisms does the 25th Amendment lay out for coping with that situation, and what scenarios does it fail to provide solutions for? What if the president is unable to fill his role but won’t step aside? And more. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by constitutional scholars David Pozen and Brian Kalt, who wrote an essay explaining the 25th Amendment for the National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution which you can read here https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-xxv/interps/159 Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The new U.S. Supreme Court term is set to begin Monday, October 5, the first day of remote oral arguments. To preview what’s ahead, Adam Liptak, Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times, and Marcia Coyle, Supreme Court correspondent for the Center’s blog Constitution Daily and Chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal, joined host Jeffrey Rosen. They explored how the election and the forthcoming confirmation battle over Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination might affect the Court, how the Court might shift with the addition of a new ninth justice, and the key cases to be heard this term including: California v. Texas (the most recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act) Fulton v. Philadelphia (a case asking whether religious organizations must allow same-sex couples to become foster parents, and whether the Court should revisit its decision in Employment Division v. Smith) Torres v. Madrid (a police violence case asking when physical force constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment) Tanzin v. Tanvir (a lawsuit related to the “no-fly list” and whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allows lawsuits for money damages against federal agents) Carney v. Adams (a case about the First Amendment and state judges’ partisan affiliations) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Following the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republicans have promised to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice swiftly, before the imminent presidential election. If the Republican-led Senate confirms a new nominee either before or closely after the November election, some Democrats have said they will respond by attempting to “pack”—or add justices—to the Supreme Court. This week’s episode looks to history, particularly to the 19th century and the Civil War era, to see what lessons from historic battles over the composition of the Court might teach us today. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by two renowned constitutional historians —Tim Huebner of Rhodes College and Mark Graber of the University of Maryland Carey Law School. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On Constitution Day, September 17, the National Constitution Center awards the 2020 Liberty Medal to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her efforts to advance liberty and equality for all. As part of the Liberty Medal celebration—and the Center’s yearlong Women and the Constitution initiative celebrating 100 years of women’s suffrage—this podcast explores the Justice’s living constitutional legacy both before and after joining the Supreme Court bench, including her trailblazing work as a lawyer advocating for gender equality, then as an Associate Justice writing landmark majority opinions in addition to her well-known dissents, and today as cultural and constitutional icon who continues to inspire generations of Americans. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Kelsi Corkran, head of the Supreme Court practice at Orrick, and University of California Berkeley Law Professor Amanda Tyler, who both clerked for Justice Ginsburg. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Constitution Day— the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution on September 17th, 1787—is next week! As we look forward to Constitution Day, this week’s episode shares founding stories of America’s founding documents from three key periods: the Declaration of Independence and the Revolution, the Founding era, and post-Civil War Reconstruction, sometimes referred to as the “second founding.” Renowned teachers of the Constitution, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and professor Kurt Lash, tell the stories of: Thomas Paine’s Common Sense: the power of words and a single person to change the course of American history Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence, and how Jefferson’s words may have impacted abolition James Madison’s rejection of the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 and how it may have influenced abolitionists' fight for the freedom of formerly enslaved people like Joshua Glover The creation of the Electoral College The story of the adoption of the 14th amendment from different perspectives The debate over whether the Constitution is pro or anti-slavery What unites us in how we understand the story of our Constitution Tune into the NCC’s Constitution Day programming next Thursday! See the schedule here: https://constitutioncenter.org/learn/civic-calendar/constitution-day-civic-holiday

In August, the Democratic and Republican parties held their conventions mostly virtually for the first time in history due to the coronavirus crisis. This week on We the People we look back to past conventions throughout history. Host Jeffrey Rosen and scholars John Gerring and Michael Holt explore the constitutional positions the parties have taken from the Founding to the Civil War era and beyond, diving into nineteen century party platforms to consider the evolution of the parties’ constitutional positions. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In celebration of the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment on August 18th and its certification on the 26th—this episode dives into the story of the 19th Amendment from its roots among abolition and the Civil War and Reconstruction through its ratification, the fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, and beyond. 19th Amendment experts and historians Reva Siegel and Laura Free explain when and why the word “male” was first introduced into the Constitution, how the right to vote radically changed women’s position within the family, and how we can and should expand the our constitutional story to include the many diverse groups who advocated for suffrage. Learn more about the National Constitution Center’s new exhibit The 19th Amendment: How Women Won the Vote and check out its online interactive content here https://constitutioncenter.org/experience/exhibitions/feature-exhibitions/women-and-the-constitution-feature-exhibit Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

President Trump recently signed several executive actions and, in doing so, some have argued the president overstepped his constitutional authority and infringed on congressional power. This week’s episode considers those claims in regards to the president's recent actions on coronavirus crisis relief, the post office, and more. It also examines how presidential power has grown over time, how we think about the three branches and the “political” Constitution versus the legal one, and more. Constitutional and administrative law experts Adam White and David Super join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, historians Martha Jones and Lisa Tetrault joined National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation exploring the history and legacy of the 19th Amendment. The discussion highlighted the untold stories of women from all backgrounds who fought for women's suffrage and equality for all—as well as the work still left to do after the Amendment's ratification was won. Martha Jones is author of the new book Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All. Lisa Tetrault is author of The Myth of Seneca Falls: Memory and the Women's Suffrage Movement, 1848-1898. This conversation originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. Listen and subscribe here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-americas-town-hall/id1037423300 This program was presented as part of the 19th Amendment: Past, Present, and Future symposium presented in partnership with All in Together, the George & Barbara Bush Foundation, the LBJ Presidential Library, the National Archives, The 19th, and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. It’s part of the National Constitution Center's Women and the Constitution initiative—a yearlong celebration of the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As the coronavirus crisis presents major challenges for voting this November, today’s episode looks backs at past elections during major crises in American history. How were they handled, what were their outcomes, and what are the lessons learned for election 2020? Kim Wehle, CBS News commentator and professor at the University of Baltimore Law School, and historian Jonathan White of Christopher Newport University explore key elections such as the Election of 1864 carried out in the throes of the Civil War, midterms conducted in the midst of the 1918 flu pandemic, and landmark presidential elections during World Wars I and II. They also consider how absentee voting and vote-by-mail has evolved over time, how voter fraud has been perceived throughout American history, and whether it presents a challenge for the upcoming election. President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Portland has seen more than 60 consecutive days of protests since the killing of George Floyd. The protests escalated when federal forces were deployed in Portland to protect its federal courthouse, angering protestors and local officials who said they did not ask for the federal deployment. On Wednesday, Oregon Governor Kate Brown announced that federal officials will soon begin withdrawing from the city, although they remained as of Thursday morning. On today’s episode, we’ll discuss the rapidly evolving situation in Portland—exploring the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights of protestors; the president’s power to deploy federal forces in the states to protect federal property, and the limits on that power; and more. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by John Inazu, an expert on the First Amendment right of assembly, and Bobby Chesney, an expert on the president’s power to deploy federal forces. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In the term that just wrapped up, the Supreme Court decided several key cases weighing the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion in relation to workers’ rights and antidiscrimination concerns, the separation of church and state, and more. This week’s episode examines those cases including: Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue holding that Montana can’t deny tuition assistance to parents who send their children to religious-affiliated private schools Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru holding that the plaintiffs, teachers at religious schools, couldn’t sue for employment discrimination because, under the “ministerial exception,” their schools can make decisions about teaching without government interference Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania: holding that religious employers don’t have to provide health insurance for contraceptive coverage if doing so violates their beliefs Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by constitutional law scholars Leah Litman and Michael McConnell. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost for a bipartisan discussion about the role of state attorneys general in addressing policing reform, protests, and other constitutional challenges facing their states today. This conversation was a hosted as an online America’s Town Hall program. Hear more programs on our companion podcast Live at the National Constitution Center https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-americas-town-hall/id1037423300 or register for an upcoming program—to watch live via Zoom and ask speakers questions in the Q&A—at https://constitutioncenter.org/townhall. You can also watch videos of archived programs on the National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution Media Library https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. This program is presented in partnership with the Center for Excellence in Governance at the National Association of Attorneys General.

The 2019-2020 Supreme Court term recently ended with a series of blockbuster opinions involving presidential subpoenas, religious liberty, abortion, the Electoral College and more. Supreme Court experts Kate Shaw of Cardozo Law School and Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap those opinions and more. They also weigh in on Chief Justice Roberts’ efforts to put the institutional legitimacy of the Court front and center in this historic term. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In 1852, the Ladies Anti-Slavery Society of Rochester, New York, invited Frederick Douglass to give a July Fourth speech. Douglass opted to speak on July 5 instead, and, addressing an audience of about 600, he delivered one of his most iconic speeches that would become known by the name “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” This episode explores Douglass’ oration on racial injustice and the broken promises of equality and liberty laid out in the Declaration of Independence. David Blight, Pulitzer Prize-winning Douglass biographer, and Lucas Morel, an expert on Douglass and African American history and politics, join host Jeffrey Rosen. They discuss the context and content of the speech, which Blight calls “the rhetorical masterpiece of abolition.” They also explore Douglass’ views of the Declaration of Independence—including that the principles expressed in the Declaration are eternal, but America does not live up to them in practice—as well as the Constitution. Finally, they reflect on what Douglass can teach us about the challenges America faces today, including the ongoing fight for racial justice and efforts to remove monuments around the country. The full text of the speech is available here https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/ Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) will remain in place, ruling that the Trump administration’s attempts to rescind DACA were “arbitrary and capricious.” This episode details the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, and the partial dissents by Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh, and how the case arose including the history of DACA under the Obama and Trump administrations. Constitutional law scholars Leah Litman, who co-hosts the podcast Strict Scrutiny, and Jonathan Adler, who blogs for the Volokh Conspiracy, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and two related cases, holding that an employer who discriminates against or fires an individual for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This episode explores this landmark decision with Joshua Matz, a constitutional lawyer who wrote a key amicus brief in support of the employees in these cases, and Dr. Matthew Franck of Princeton University. They dive into the “weeds” of Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion, the dissenting opinions by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, and the reasoning behind them—then take a step back and examine the “forest” view of how this ruling may affect LGBTQ people as well as religious groups and others more broadly. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last Friday, the National Constitution Center hosted a two-part national Town Hall program on policing, protests, and the Constitution. The wide-ranging discussions covered qualified immunity for police officers, the history of racial inequality, protests and the First Amendment, and more. Part two of the discussion features Monica Bell of Yale Law School, David French of The Dispatch, Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Theodore Shaw of the University of North Carolina School of Law. Part one is a keynote conversation featuring Judge Theodore McKee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and you can listen to that here https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-ncc-policing-protests-constitution-part-1/id83213431?i=1000477612011 Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Listen and subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center here https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-americas-town-hall/id1037423300 Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last Friday, the National Constitution Center hosted a two-part national Town Hall program on policing, protests, and the Constitution. This episode—which originally aired on our companion podcast Live at the National Constitution Center—features National Constitution Center President Jeffrey Rosen’s keynote conversation with Judge Theodore McKee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Their wide-ranging discussion covered qualified immunity for police officers, the history of racial inequality, protests and the First Amendment, and more. In part two, leading scholars touch on those topics further, and you can listen to that episode here https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-ncc-policing-protests-constitution-part-2/id83213431?i=1000477612012 Listen and subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center here https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-americas-town-hall/id1037423300 Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, Twitter added a fact-check message to President Trump's tweets about voter fraud and vote by mail, and a notice that one of his tweets about recent protests violated Twitter’s policy against glorifying violence. In response to the fact-check, the President signed an executive order aimed at limiting the legal protections given to online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This episode explores Section 230—what does it say and how has it influenced speech online?—and the potential consequences of the executive order. It also takes a broader look at content regulation on Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms, and how that squares with First Amendment values. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by digital speech experts Professor Kate Klonick and David French. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Coronavirus has presented difficulties in holding presidential primaries this spring and will continue to pose challenges for the general election. Some states have responded by implementing vote by mail (although those decisions have brought logistical challenges like those that Pennsylvania currently faces) while some that have not are facing lawsuits. The U.S. Supreme Court also recently issued a ruling about voting in Wisconsin in April, RNC. v. DNC, which involved questions about counting absentee ballots amidst the risks that in-person voting might present. This episode explores those cases as well as the latest news surrounding how Americans will vote in the midst of the pandemic, and, broadly, what the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent require. Election law experts Ned Foley and Michael Morley join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments by teleconference, and the National Constitution Center recapped those arguments live on C-SPAN with advocates on either side of each case. On this week’s episode we’re sharing the recap for the cases Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca and Chiafalo v. Washington, about "faithless electors" and the electoral college. Those cases ask whether states can penalize or remove a presidential elector because they refused to vote for the candidate who won their state's popular vote. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by David Kopel, the research director of the Independence Institute who wrote a brief in support of the “faithless electors,” and Paul Smith, vice president of litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center who wrote a brief in support of the states. Hear more argument recaps on We the People and our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. This week’s episode of Live at the National Constitution Center features the argument recap of the cases asking whether President Trump must release financial records to House committees and prosecutors, and you can listen to that here. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week, the Supreme Court continued to hear oral arguments by teleconference, and the National Constitution Center recapped those arguments live on C-SPAN with advocates on either side of each case. Today we’re sharing the recap for Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru—which raises the question of whether two former teachers who taught at Catholic schools fall under the "ministerial exception,” and thus are unable to sue their employers for alleged employment discrimination. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Sunu P. Chandy, Legal Director of the National Women’s Law Center, and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh to explain the case and recap the argument. The National Constitution Center recapped all of the Supreme Court's remote arguments live on C-SPAN. You can watch the rest of those recaps on our YouTube channel at YouTube.com/constitutioncenter or hear more in the coming weeks on this podcast and our companion podcast Live at the National Constitution Center. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments by teleconference, allowing the public to listen in, in real time, for the first time in history. On Monday, the Court heard United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com—a case about whether Booking.com can trademark its name. Immediately following the argument, host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by three experts who filed briefs on different sides of the case—Corynne McSherry of Electronic Frontier Foundation, professor Rebecca Tushnet of Harvard Law School, and Margaret Duncan of Loyola University Chicago School of Law—to recap the argument, explain the case, and reflect on a historic moment for the Court. The National Constitution Center collaborated with C-SPAN to broadcast this conversation live. The National Constitution Center recapped all of the arguments heard this past week live on C-SPAN. You can watch the rest of those recaps on our YouTube channel at YouTube.com/constitutioncenter. The Supreme Court will hear additional arguments next Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, starting at 10 a.m. EDT, and then Jeff will be back on C-SPAN to recap them with some of the leading experts involved in the cases. So please tune in! Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The coronavirus pandemic has seriously impacted the criminal justice system—as prisons experience severe outbreaks, states release nonviolent offenders, trials experience delays, and some jurisdictions halt arrests for misdemeanors to keep jail populations down. On this episode, criminal justice experts Emily Bazelon and Paul Cassell weigh in on those and other changes affecting criminal justice systems around the country, and potential long-term impacts. They also explain defendants’ rights under the Constitution as well as victims’ rights, and detail some recent lawsuits filed, both on behalf of prisoners arguing that being detained in the midst of a pandemic violates the Eighth Amendment’s protection from cruel and unusual punishment claims, and by victims requesting notification of perpetrators’ release. Bazelon is the author of Charged: The Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration and Cassell is a former federal judge who now specializes in victims’ rights and is a law professor at the University of Utah. They join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As the United States seems to begin to flatten its curve of new coronavirus cases, President Trump has claimed he has the authority to reopen the economy and the nation. Evaluating that claim in relation to both presidential power under Article II and state power under the 10th Amendment—professors John Yoo and Alison LaCroix join host Jeffrey Rosen. They give their takes on the president’s claims and conduct in the midst of coronavirus and evaluate what he can and can’t do in light of the system of separation of powers and federalism; comment on whether the president can or should withdraw from the World Health Organization, suspend immigration, and support citizen protests against governors; and place these contemporary debates in historical context. A term that will be helpful to know for this week—federalism. Federalism is the constitutional division of power between U.S. state governments and the federal government. Professors Yoo and LaCroix detail the history of federalism and how it’s evolved from the founding to today.

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear its May oral arguments over the phone, allowing the public to listen in live for the first time. On this episode, host Jeffrey Rosen first interviews Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal, to discuss that change and other adjustments the Court has made due to the coronavirus pandemic. Coyle is also the new Supreme Court correspondent for the National Constitution Center’s blog Constitution Daily. Next, Jeff is joined by appellate lawyer Jaime Santos and Case Western Law professor Jonathan Adler to dive into the substance of the cases recently decided, and those being argued in May. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Responses to the coronavirus pandemic may be posing a danger to democracies around the world—as fault lines in constitutional systems are exposed and some authoritarian leaders attempt to grab broad powers. Two experts on constitutional and international law — Professor Kim Lane Scheppele of Princeton University and Professor Deborah Pearlstein of Cardozo Law School — join host Jeffrey Rosen to explore the governmental challenges raised by COVID-19 in the United States and around the world. Scheppele – one of the foremost experts on Hungary – sheds light on the country’s dangerous recent slide into authoritarianism, made worse by a “draconian” emergency law passed under the guise of combatting coronavirus. And Pearlstein shares insights from her recent work on how the outbreak can impede elections and how Congress should begin preparing for election 2020. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Some of Americans’ civil liberties—like the freedom to assemble in public, the right to travel, the ability to purchase a gun at a gun store or visit a reproductive health clinic, the freedom to exercise religion by going to church, and more— are typically exercised in person. As states enforce the stay-at-home orders necessary to prevent the spread of coronavirus, how will those rights be impacted? And what will happen to them after the crisis is over? This episode explores those questions as First Amendment experts Lata Nott and David French join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Congress and the courts depend on meeting in-person, so how can they adjust to the coronavirus outbreak and the public health measures necessary to stop its spread – like social distancing – while continuing to meet their constitutional functions? Host Jeffrey Rosen explores that question with Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, who’s worked since the aftermath of 9/11 on emergency-preparedness recommendations for all three branches of government, and lawyer and podcast host Ken White, who sheds light on how the pandemic is affecting his clients and the courts more broadly. They share insight into what’s keeping Congress from meeting virtually, how courts will deal with suspended arguments, what might happen to incarcerated people in the midst of the pandemic, continuing concerns about presidential succession, and more—in a wide-ranging conversation on how the U.S. government functions during a national emergency, and what reforms may be necessary to ensure it can continue to function in future crises. A term that will be helpful to know for this episode — Quorum: a majority, in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The Constitution requires a majority of senators, 51, for a quorum, and, when there are no vacancies in its membership, a quorum in the House is 218. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution stipulates that “a majority of each [House] shall constitute a quorum to do business.” Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Jeffrey Rosen is joined by public health law experts Polly Price of Emory University School of Law and Ed Richards of Louisiana State University Law Center to discuss key questions about the coronavirus and the Constitution. Starting with the history of quarantines prior to and during the Founding era, they explain how the government combatted diseases when, as Ed puts it, “The colonies were basically fever-ridden swamps.” Drawing examples from public health responses to outbreaks of yellow fever and the 1918 influenza pandemic through the AIDS epidemic and SARS, they also answer questions including: What restrictions can government authorities enact under the Constitution during a pandemic—from quarantines to isolation measures, to shutting down private businesses? How do the powers of state and federal governments interact during emergency scenarios? Would it be constitutional for the government to impose the kind of lockdown that has occurred in China or Italy, and, if so, would the Supreme Court intervene? And what might happen next? Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

A challenge to the Louisiana abortion law that requires doctors performing abortions to have hospital admitting privileges was heard by the Supreme Court last week. Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights, who argued on behalf of the abortion providers in June Medical Services v. Russo, and Catherine Glenn Foster of Americans United for Life, who authored an amicus brief on behalf of Members of Congress on the opposing side of the case, joined host Jeffrey Rosen on this week’s episode. They presented the arguments on both sides of the case — diving into the facts, considering whether admitting privilege requirements are prudent and whether the “undue burden” standard established by the 2016 Supreme Court case Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt is workable, and explaining how they think this case might impact the lives of women. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Richard Cordray, the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from 2012-2017, and Ilya Shapiro, the co-author of an amicus brief in support of Seila Law, joined host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case. This case, which the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in on Tuesday, is a challenge to the constitutionality of the leadership structure of the CFPB, and its outcome could affect the future of the agency as a whole. The CFPB is a regulatory agency responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. Currently, the president can only fire the CFPB director “for cause,” i.e. only for wrongdoing, not for a policy disagreement. This lawsuit asks whether that restriction violates presidential power and the separation of powers, and, if it does, can it be struck down without invalidating the entire Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB? This episode explores those questions and more. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The controversy over the sentencing of President Trump’s former associate Roger Stone has raised larger questions about the role of the Department of Justice, presidential power, and the rule of law including: Should the president be able to influence sentencing in individual cases? What level of control should he have over DOJ? And, more broadly, how should the president exercise power? Host Jeffrey Rosen dives into those questions with Professor John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, and Professor Kim Wehle, former assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. Need a refresher on the Stone sentencing controversy? Here’s a timeline of events from ABC News. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Picking up on some of the themes of last week’s episode, historians Lindsay Chervinsky and Craig Bruce Smith discuss how George Washington conceived of civic virtue, honor, and public service both as a general and as president. They explain why, during the Revolution, “without Washington there was no army” and, how, later, President Washington was considered by many to be “the embodiment of the nation.” Smith and Chervinsky offer a holistic portrayal of Washington — the good and the bad — and contemplate his constitutional legacy as the creator of a powerful executive branch and the first president to peacefully transfer power. Washington’s birthday is this Saturday, February 22. Correction: In this episode, Jeff mistakenly said that Alexis Coe’s book You Never Forget Your First: A Biography of George Washington includes a claim that Washington “likely engaged in premarital sex - nonconsensual sex - with an enslaved woman.” Instead, Coe actually quotes a letter written about Washington that describes his possible premarital sex with a “Cirprian Dame,” and explains what that term might have meant. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In these polarized times and in the wake of impeachment – how can we be a better “We the People”? Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Margaret Taylor of Lawfare and Adam White of AEI to discuss the values that our founders thought were necessary to uphold American government, and whether or not the American people and our representatives are living up to them. The episode centers around the idea of civic virtue: a political philosophy term which describes personal qualities associated with the effective functioning of the civil and political order, or the preservation of its values and principles (per Encyclopedia Britannica.) Margaret Taylor and Adam White are authors of pieces for The Battle for the Constitution – a partnership between The National Constitution Center and The Atlantic which features essays exploring the constitutional issues at the center of American life. Check out the page here: https://www.theatlantic.com/projects/battle-constitution/ Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This live conversation at George Washington Law School recaps the arguments presented on both sides of the impeachment trial. GW Law professor Andrew Knaggs – who served in the Trump administration’s Department of Defense – presents arguments against convicting the president, and his colleague Professor Peter Smith – a former Justice Department lawyer – presents pro-conviction arguments. They discuss the facts and circumstances surrounding President Trump’s impeachment, how “mixed motive” situations should be dealt with, what constitutes obstruction of Congress, whether or not impeachable offenses must be crimes, and more. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Virginia legislature ratified the Equal Rights Amendment earlier this month, and Virginia, Illinois, and Nevada filed a lawsuit this morning urging a federal judge to declare that the ERA is now part of the Constitution. This episode explores the fast-developing constitutional question of whether an amendment that declares that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex” will be adopted, despite its unusual ratification process. Dr. Julie Suk, author of a forthcoming book on the ERA, and Professor Sai Prakash, author of an article on its ratification process, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue – a case that may have major implications for the free exercise of religion and the future of school choice and public education. The lawsuit asks whether Montana violated the federal constitution when it terminated a program that gave tax breaks to people who donated to a scholarship fund, which was used by students attending both religious and secular private schools. Our guests explain the technicalities of the case, and how it squares with some of the Court’s key decisions on the separation of church and state. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Michael Bindas – a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice (IJ), the group representing the parents who filed suit after the program was terminated – and Alice O’Brien – General Counsel at the National Education Association (NEA), who’s written about the case for SCOTUSblog. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Today, Chief Justice John Roberts was sworn in at the United States Senate to preside over the third presidential impeachment trial in American history. On this week’s episode, Ken Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Clinton before his impeachment, and Joan Biskupic, CNN Supreme Court analyst and biographer of Chief Justice Roberts, join host Jeffrey Rosen to preview the trial. They discuss how disagreements over trial procedure, including whether or not to call witnesses, might be resolved. They also offer insight into how the Chief will likely handle his role, and how past Chief Justicse have presided. [This episode was recorded on Monday, January 13th, before the announcement that Ken Starr would be joining President Trump's legal team.] Questions or comments? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. [Jeff offers a special chance to win his book Conversations with RBG if you write in before 11:59 a.m. on 1/20/19 completing the stanza of one of his favorite operas. Book contest open to US + Canada legal residents 18 +. No purchase necessary; void where prohibited! Limit one per listener.]

In this episode, two war powers experts explain and grapple with the legal and constitutional ramifications of the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian military leader General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad last week. Did the president have the authority under the Constitution – as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces – and under domestic and international law to unilaterally carry out the airstrike? Can it be justified as an act of self-defense, a response to an “imminent threat”, or anything less than an act of war? Or, does the law require Congress, not the president, to authorize such strikes? John Bellinger, former State Department Legal Adviser under Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and Oona Hathaway, an international law professor at Yale Law and Adviser to the State Department, answer those questions and more in conversation with host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The case that may determine if former White House Counsel Don McGahn must testify before Congress – about whether President Trump obstructed justice during the Mueller investigation – is being argued on appeal tomorrow, January 3rd. And, three other cases concerning requests for President Trump’s financial records – issued by Congress and, separately, by a New York State grand jury – will be heard by the Supreme Court in early 2020. All of these cases involve subpoenas – written orders compelling an individual or organization to produce evidence or to testify – and raise important questions about the power of Congress and the states to investigate the president and his aides. Guests Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law and Andy Grewal of Iowa Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to explain all four cases: These three cases will be heard by the Supreme Court in March 2020: Trump v. Mazars: The House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena requesting that President Trump’s accounting firm Mazars USA turn over financial records of President Trump and several of his business entities. The committee states that it's investigating whether and how to legislate on presidential financial disclosure requirements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the committee’s subpoena is valid. Trump v. Deutsche Bank: The House Committee on Financial Services and the House Intelligence Committee issued subpoenas requesting that President Trump’s creditors, Deutsche Bank and Capital One, release documents related to President Trump’s, his family’s, and his business’s finances. The committees state that they’re investigating whether and how to legislate on the practices of financial institutions and potential presidential conflicts of interest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the subpoenas. In this case and Mazars, the Trump administration is arguing (among other things) that the subpoenas exceed the committees’ powers and do not serve a “legitimate legislative interest.” Trump v. Vance: Cyrus Vance, district attorney of the County of New York, issued a state of New York grand jury subpoena requesting nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns for an inquiry into whether the President or his businesses violated New York law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the subpoenas. This case differs from the other two because the subpoena was issued by a state, not federal, authority. The McGahn case 4.Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Donald F. McGahn II: The House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena calling for former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify before the committee on whether President Trump obstructed justice in Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. U.S. District Judge Ketanji Jackson ruled that McGahn must testify, and the Trump administration’s appeal of that decision will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia tomorrow. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

2019 saw the impeachment of a president for just the third time in American history, the release of the Mueller report, and court battles over DACA, reproductive rights, and the Affordable Care Act. David French, TIME columnist and senior editor at The Dispatch, and Kate Shaw, Cardozo Law professor and ABC Legal Analyst, join host Jeffrey Rosen to review this year in constitutional debate. They give their takes on the possible long-term constitutional implications of the ongoing impeachment, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation in retrospect, and how the “Kavanaugh Court” is likely to rule in a key upcoming abortion case, the battle over rescinding DACA, and the question of whether President Trump must release his financial records. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joins National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss his new book, Conversations with RBG: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life, Love, Liberty and Law—an informal portrait of the Justice through an extraordinary series of conversations, starting in the 1990s and continuing to today. They expand upon several of the conversations featured in the book, such as Justice Ginsburg’s favorite dissents, key gender cases she worked on throughout her career, and how to lead a productive, compassionate life of service. They also reflect on the performance that preceded the discussion. The discussion was preceded by a special performance of “The Long View: A Portrait of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Nine Songs” by Patrice Michaels, composer/soprano/creator and daughter-in law of Justice Ginsburg. The National Constitution Center gratefully acknowledges the Bernstein Family Foundation for its generous support of our education programs in Washington D.C. This program is made possible in part through support from the John Templeton Foundation. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As the House Judiciary Committee unveils articles of impeachment against President Trump, we’re sharing a fascinating two-part conversation on impeachment hosted here at the National Constitution Center on December 2nd. The first panel features leading constitutional scholars including NCC Scholar-in-Residence Professor Michael Gerhardt who testified as an impeachment expert before the House Judiciary Committee. The next panel (starting at 37 minutes) features current and former members of congress, including Vice Chair of the House Judiciary Committee Representative Mary Gay Scanlon. They share their candid takes on the current impeachment inquiry, how it’s been handled, and what the Framers might think. This program was originally shared on our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, in two parts. You can listen at these links: part one featuring the impeachment scholars and part two featuring the current and former members of Congress. Panel one features: Michael Gerhardt – National Constitution Center Scholar in Residence, CNN impeachment expert, and professor at UNC Law School Keith Whittington – professor of politics at Princeton University Kimberly Wehle – professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and CBS News legal analyst John Malcolm – Vice President of the Institution for Constitutional Government at Heritage Moderator: Jeffrey Rosen – National Constitution Center President Panel two features: Rep. Dwight Evans (PA-03) Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-05) Fmr. Rep. Charles Dent (PA-15) Fmr. Rep. Ryan Costello (PA-06) Moderator: Jeffrey Rosen – National Constitution Center President Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard the case New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. the City of New York which centers around a New York City gun regulation prohibiting residents from taking their guns to second homes and shooting ranges outside the city. After New York’s NRA affiliate and some gun-owning residents challenged the regulation, New York changed it – raising the question of whether this case is now “moot.” Explaining the “mootness” issue and diving into the legal and practical implications of the case – Second Amendment experts Darrell Miller of the Duke Center for Firearms Law and Clark Neily of Cato join host Jeffrey Rosen. They discuss the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment, what the right to “bear arms” really means, and how the Court should decide its first major Second Amendment case in almost a decade. Here’s some vocabulary that may be helpful to know this week: Mootness: A case becomes moot if the controversy that was present at the start of litigation no longer exists. Judicial review doctrines: A judicial review test is what courts use to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. There are three main levels in constitutional law: Strict scrutiny: For a law to survive a court’s review under strict scrutiny, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Intermediate Scrutiny: A level down from strict scrutiny. The law must be substantially related to an important government interest. Rational basis: The most deferential kind of review. The law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Special thanks to the Duke Center for Firearms Law. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The National Constitution Center’s initiative, ‘A Madisonian Constitution for All,’ is launching an essay series where leading scholars explore what James Madison, the “father of the Constitution”, might think about the presidency, Congress, courts, and the media today. This week, two of the authors celebrate the launch of the series by diving into all things presidential – how the office was conceived of at the Founding, evolved throughout history, was impacted by the rise of political parties and partisanship, and increasingly expanded its power. They also give their takes on the current impeachment investigation. Scholars Sai Prakash and Sean Wilentz, authors of the ‘Madisonian Constitution for All’ essays on the presidency, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Twitter recently announced that it will stop paid political advertising, with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey asserting that interest in political messaging should be earned, not bought. Meanwhile, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook would not stop hosting political ads, saying that the platform should not be responsible for policing speech online. Will Twitter’s efforts to regulate political ads work? Might Facebook’s more “hands-off” approach lead to unintended consequences for our democracy? Which approach to regulating speech might foster free expression the most? And how do policies of private institutions shape our free speech landscape, given that the First Amendment doesn’t bind Twitter or Facebook? This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Abrams v. United States, so we also consider: Are the landmark First Amendment cases, many of which were decided decades before social media existed, still relevant in a world of ever-changing digital platforms, bots, and disinformation campaigns? Digital speech experts Ellen Goodman of Rutgers University Law School and Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law join host Jeffrey Rosen. Some terms you should know for this week: Microtargetting: a marketing strategy that uses people’s data — about what they like, their demographics, and more — to segment them into small groups for content targeting on online platforms. Interoperability: the ability of computer systems or software to exchange and make use of information. In this context, that means that if platforms like Facebook were required to share data with other developers, those developers could create new platforms and there would be more competition in the market. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Two years ago, the Trump administration decided to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) — a policy enacted under President Obama that deferred the deportation of undocumented people brought to the United States as children. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard challenges to that decision and was faced with the questions: can the Court even review the decision to end DACA, since it was an action taken by the Department of Homeland Security, an executive branch agency? If it can, was the decision to rescind DACA legal? And is DACA itself legal and constitutional? Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston join host Jeffrey Rosen to dive into the questions. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week, we’re celebrating the launch of host Jeffrey Rosen’s newest book, Conversations with RBG: Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life, Love, Liberty, and Law—an informal portrait of the justice through an extraordinary series of conversations, starting in the 1990s and continuing to today. Jeff has collected Justice Ginsburg’s wisdom from their many conversations on the future of the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade, which Supreme Court decisions she would like to see overturned, the #MeToo movement, and how to lead a productive, compassionate life – illuminating the determination, self-mastery, and wit of the “Notorious RBG.” Dahlia Lithwick, veteran Supreme Court reporter and host of the Slate podcast Amicus, moderates. Check out Conversations with RBG on Amazon and listen to the audiobook on Audible. The audiobook also has its very own Alexa skill – Ask RBG. You can ask your Amazon echo things like, “Alexa, ask RBG about the #MeToo movement” and you’ll hear clips from the real-life interviews with Justice Ginsburg featured in the audiobook. This episode is a crossover with our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall – live constitutional conversations held here at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and across America – which is available wherever you get your podcasts.

Brexit, the UK’s campaign to leave the European Union, has sparked ongoing political and constitutional controversy. However, the UK doesn’t have a written constitution — it is governed by a set of laws, norms, conventions, judicial decisions, and treaties — and Brexit has led some to think that needs to change. This episode dives into that debate over the UK’s unwritten constitution as well as other key Brexit-related issues including Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s attempts to “prorogue” Parliament and the ensuing UK Supreme Court decision, parliamentary sovereignty, and the role of referenda. Two leading experts on those topics –Meg Russell, Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London, and Kim Lane Scheppele, Professor of International Affairs at Princeton University phone in from London for a conversation with host Jeffrey Rosen. A term that is helpful to know for this week: Prorogation - brings the current session of Parliament to an end. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation, or debate government policy. In general, bills which have not yet been passed are lost and will have to start again from scratch in the next session. The Crown decides when Parliament can be prorogued, but, typically, the Prime Minister advises the Crown to prorogue and that request is accepted. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

How should impeachment be carried out, according to the Constitution? This episode explores the constitutional process of impeachment, from investigation and passage of articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives, to the Senate trial, and the aftermath. Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, who served on the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment, and Gene Healy, author of Indispensable Remedy: The Broad Scope of the Constitution’s Impeachment Power detail the constitutional framework under which impeachment has been carried out in the past, how those precedents compare to what’s happening today, and what might happen next. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination “because of… sex.” Last week, a trio of cases that raise the question of whether Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of sexual orientation and/or gender identity were argued before the Supreme Court. Two of these cases – Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia and Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. – are lawsuits brought by employees who claim they were fired for being gay, and are suing their employers. The third case – R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC – centers around Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman who says she was fired from her job at a funeral home because of her gender identity. On this episode, Karen Loewy, Senior Counsel for LGBTQ legal advocacy organization Lambda Legal, and Professor David Upham of the University of Dallas – who both wrote briefs in these cases – explain the arguments on both sides, analyze the Justices’ reactions at oral argument, and predict the potential social and legal consequences of these cases. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, the National Constitution Center travelled to Washington, DC to host Clerks at 100 – a celebration of the 100th anniversary of the federal statute instituting Supreme Court clerkships that brought together hundreds of former clerks. Supreme Court clerks assist the justices with researching and drafting opinions and other work critical to the function of the Court. The day before the reunion, the NCC hosted a symposium in partnership with the George Washington Law Review at GW Law School featuring former clerks to discuss that special experience. This episode features NCC President Jeffrey Rosen’s conversation with Judges Diane Wood and Jeff Sutton, who shared how their clerkship experience affected them personally and professionally and shaped their methods of interpreting the Constitution. Judge Wood clerked for Justice Harry Blackmun and serves as Chief Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and Judge Sutton, who sits on the 6th Circuit, clerked for retired Justice Lewis Powell and Justice Antonin Scalia. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week, We the People partnered with SCOTUSblog's podcast SCOTUStalk for a live preview of the Supreme Court's 2019 term – recording our show in front of a live National Constitution Center audience for the first time! Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe and John Elwood to preview the blockbuster cases of the upcoming term, on topics including LGBTQ rights under Title VII, immigration policies like DACA, the Second Amendment, school choice and the free exercise of religion, and more. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week, the National Constitution Center in partnership with The Atlantic launched a new web project: “The Battle for the Constitution”— a year-long exploration of the major issues and controversies surrounding the Constitution today from all sides of the debate. At the Atlantic Ideas Festival yesterday, the NCC and the Atlantic celebrated the project launch with a series of panels featuring scholars, journalists and legislators. They discussed the breaking news of the House’s impeachment inquiry into President Trump, as well as what separation of powers means in U.S. government today. Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO of the NCC, kicked off the discussion in conversation with Martha Jones, professor of history at John Hopkins University, John Malcolm, Vice President for Constitution Government at the Heritage Foundation, and Quinta Jurecic, managing editor at Lawfare. Later, Representatives Lance Gooden (R-TX) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) spoke about their views on the impeachment question and the proper exercise of congressional power.

Justice Neil Gorsuch visited the National Constitution Center to celebrate Constitution Day and discuss his new book A Republic, If You Can Keep It. Justice Gorsuch, the Honorary Chair of the National Constitution Center’s Board of Trustees, sat down with President Jeffrey Rosen to discuss his passion for civics and civility, the importance of separation of powers, what originalism means to him, and why he is optimistic about the future of America. This episode is a crossover with our companion podcast Live at America’s Town Hall — live constitutional conversations held here at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and around the country — which is available wherever you get your podcasts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

James Madison and George Mason, both Virginian Founding Fathers, diverged on some of the biggest debates of the Constitutional Convention—including the proper distribution of power between national and local government, the future of the slave trade, and whether or not the Constitution should have a Bill of Rights. Exploring these debates and their impact on the Constitution – scholars Colleen Sheehan and Jeff Broadwater join host Jeffrey Rosen. They dive into the core of the constitutional visions and ideas of Madison and Mason. Next Tuesday, September 17th, is Constitution Day – the anniversary of the signing of our constitution back in 1787. To learn more about the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Day programming, including the launch of our upgraded Interactive Constitution, visit constitutioncenter.org/learn. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

What are “nationwide injunctions”? When and why are they issued by federal courts? Have they been invoked more frequently in recent years, and, if so, how is that affecting how laws or executive orders are implemented nationwide? And is the term “nationwide injunctions” itself actually a misnomer? Two experts on these broad kinds of injunctions, Amanda Frost of American University’s Washington College of Law and Howard Wasserman of Florida International University, answer those questions. They also detail how nationwide injunctions have been used to block policies of both President Obama and President Trump – including immigration policies like DAPA and DACA under President Obama, and the so-called “travel ban” and third country asylum rule under President Trump – as well as civil rights policies like President Obama’s protections for transgender students using bathrooms that match their identities and President Trump’s ban on people with gender dysphoria serving in the military. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The upcoming Supreme Court case New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. the City of New York could be the first major Second Amendment case in almost a decade. It centers around a New York City regulation prohibiting residents from taking their guns to second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when the guns are unloaded and separated from ammunition. New York’s NRA affiliate and some gun-owning residents challenged the regulation, but, in the midst of litigation, New York City changed it – raising the question of whether the case was now “moot”. And, Senate Democrats filed a controversial brief addressed to the Supreme Court warning that they might pursue structural reform of the Court if they don’t like the outcome in this case. Detailing the twists and turns of the case and its potential impact on the Second Amendment – Adam Winkler of UCLA Law School and Ilya Shapiro of the CATO Institute join host Jeffrey Rosen. Here’s some vocabulary that may be helpful to know this week: Mootness: A case becomes moot if the conflict, or the law at issue, that was present at the start of litigation no longer exists. Judicial review doctrines: A judicial review test is what courts use to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. There are three main levels in constitutional law: Strict scrutiny: For a law to survive a court’s review under strict scrutiny, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest Intermediate Scrutiny: A level down from strict scrutiny. The law must be substantially related to an important government interest. Rational basis review: The most deferential kind of review to the legislature. A law only has to be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates — the historic series of seven debates which pitted Abraham Lincoln against Stephen Douglas as they vied for an Illinois Senate seat — began on August 21, 1858. In honor of that anniversary, this episode explores the clash of constitutional visions that characterized the debates between Lincoln and Douglas. Each man argued that he was the heir to the Founders’ legacy as enshrined by the Constitution, as they battled over slavery, popular sovereignty, the nature of rights, and the future of the union. Historians Sidney Blumenthal and Lucas Morel trace the constitutional visions and political rivalries of Lincoln and Douglas from the Kansas Nebraska Act to the Dred Scott decision, through the Civil War and the passage of the Constitution’s Reconstruction amendments. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist George F. Will returned to the National Constitution Center earlier this summer to discuss his new book, 'The Conservative Sensibility', a reflection on American conservatism. He sat down with National Constitution Center President Jeffrey Rosen for a wide-ranging conversation, sharing his thoughts on everything from natural rights and the Declaration of Independence through the Woodrow Wilson presidency and up to the Roberts Court. This episode originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In early August 1787, the Constitutional Convention’s Committee of Detail had just presented its preliminary draft of the Constitution to the rest of the delegates, and the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were beginning to parse some of the biggest foundational debates over what American government should look like. On this episode, we explore the questions: How did the unique constitutional visions of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists influence the drafting and ratification of the Constitution? And how should we interpret the Constitution in light of those debates today? Two leading scholars of constitutional history–Jack Rakove of Stanford University and Michael Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law – join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

President Trump can no longer block people on Twitter, following a ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The court held that because President Trump controls access to his @realdonaldtrump Twitter account and uses it for official government purposes, it is a public forum and, under the First Amendment, he cannot block people solely based on their viewpoints. Katie Fallow – one of the lead attorneys who represented the blocked Twitter users in the case – and David French, senior writer at National Review and former First Amendment litigator, debate the merits of the decision as well as its potential impact on future cases. They also explore a similar lawsuit recently filed against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by people claiming that she unconstitutionally blocked them on Twitter. And, they explain how the Second Circuit’s decision may impact government attempts to regulate social media. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

July 19 was the anniversary of the Seneca Falls Convention, the nation’s first women’s rights convention held in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848. This episode explores what happened at the historic convention, and how its legacy shaped the Constitution through the fight for women’s suffrage and the 19th Amendment and, later, landmark gender equality and reproductive rights cases, including Roe v. Wade. Gender law and women's rights scholars Erika Bachiochi of the Ethics & Public Policy Center and Tracy A. Thomas of the University of Akron School of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Justice John Paul Stevens—one of the nation’s oldest, longest-serving, and most-revered justices—passed away at the age of 99 on Tuesday. On this episode, we remember the man, the justice, and some of his most influential majority opinions and dissents. Two of Justice Stevens' former law clerks, Daniel Farber of Berkeley Law and Kate Shaw of Cardozo Law, share some favorite memories from their clerkships and commemorate Justice Stevens’ life and legacy in conversation with host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

July 11 is the anniversary of the 1804 duel in which Alexander Hamilton was fatally shot by Vice President Aaron Burr. On today’s episode, we pick up where the musical 'Hamilton' left off, and explore what happened to Vice President Burr in the aftermath of the duel. Why wasn’t Burr prosecuted until after he left office in 1807? What happened during his treason trial? And what relevance does his treason trial have for executive privilege and indictments of executive officers today? Two leading experts on the life and legacy of Aaron Burr—Nancy Isenberg and Kevin Walsh—join host Jeffrey Rosen in studio to discuss. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As guest Ilya Shapiro put it, “If it’s June/July, we’re talkin’ SCOTUS.” We review the 2018-19 Supreme Court term and explore the nature and future of the new Roberts Court and the Chief’s newfound role as the swing justice. Topics include the partisan gerrymandering case, the differences that emerged between Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, and the future of the administrative state at the Court. Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute and Leah Litman of the University of Michigan Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

How do judges manage the personal challenges that their role often requires them to face, including unconscious bias, chronic stress, exposure to emotionally-charged circumstances, and public pressure and scrutiny? Current and former judges join in candid conversations about how they have managed these challenges and how they have approached their work. The first panel features moderator Michael Lewis, best-selling author of ‘Moneyball’ and ‘The Big Short’ and host of the podcast ‘Against the Rules’, in conversation with Justice Eva Guzman of the Supreme Court of Texas and Judge Charles Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The second panel is moderated by National Constitution Center President Jeff Rosen, who sits down with Executive Director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute and former U.S. District judge for the Northern District of California Jeremy Fogel, former Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court Carlos Moreno, and former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Deanell Reece Tacha. This program was presented in partnership with the Berkeley Judicial Institute, and this episode was originally published on our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In honor of the anniversary of the ratification of the Constitution, June 21, and the upcoming Independence Day holiday on July 4 – today’s episode celebrates the influence of the Declaration of Independence on the Constitution and constitutional movements throughout history. We explore how the Declaration influenced the drafting of the Constitution itself; the abolitionist movement and Abraham Lincoln’s conception of a new birth of freedom after the Civil War; the Seneca Falls Convention and the campaign for women’s suffrage; the Progressive movement and the New Deal;,Dr. King and the Civil Rights revolution; through to the modern conservative originalist movement as well as progressivism today. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Danielle Allen – James Bryan Conant University Professor at Harvard and author of the book 'Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality' – and Ken Kersch – professor of political science at Boston College and author of 'Conservatives and the Constitution: Imagining Constitutional Restoration in the Heyday of American Liberalism'. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Investigations into several leading big tech companies – including Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon – began on Tuesday as the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the role of such companies in the decline of the news industry. Prior to the hearings, host Jeffrey Rosen sat down with anti-trust law experts Mark Jamison of the American Enterprise Institute and Barry Lynn of the Open Markets Institute to ask: if these investigations lead to increased government regulation—what might the consequences be–for big tech, antitrust law, and for the Constitution? Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

What’s at stake, for the Constitution and the Supreme Court, in the 2020 election? If President Trump is re-elected and has the chance to appoint more Supreme Court justices, will the Court—and the country—fundamentally transform in a way not seen in generations? Professors and constitutional theorists Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School and Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center explore these questions and more in a wide-ranging discussion with host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In part two of our discussion on abortion and the Constitution – David French of National Review and reproductive rights historian Mary Ziegler of Florida State College of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen. French and Ziegler break down the recent Supreme Court decision in Box v. Planned Parenthood, and the related legal debates surrounding “fetal dignity” and fetal rights. Exploring Justice Thomas’ concurrence in Box – French explains why he thinks Thomas is once again “throwing down the gauntlet” on the constitutional underpinnings of abortion rights. Next, these experts explore the history and resurgence of the “fetal personhood” movement, which asserts that fetuses have certain constitutional rights, including the right to life. French and Ziegler trace the movement’s history and analyze the strategies of states like Alabama and Georgia that have passed new laws attempting to protect the personhood of the fetus. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The increasing number of new laws restricting abortion recently passed in numerous states around the country has some wondering: is Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion at risk? On this episode, we dive into landmark abortion precedent from Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade through Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, tracing the evolution of abortion jurisprudence under the Constitution. We also discuss the variety of new laws aimed at restricting access to abortion, and how current justices may rule on upcoming challenges to these laws—whether they will be upheld or struck down. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Kathryn Kolbert, a reproductive rights lawyer who argued on behalf of Planned Parenthood in the Casey case, and Clarke Forsythe, Senior Counsel at Americans United for Life. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In light of the ongoing subpoena fights between Congress and the president and the House Judiciary Committee’s vote to hold Attorney General Barr in contempt for refusing to release the full Mueller report—this episode addresses the questions: Are we in a constitutional crisis? Or are these normal disputes occurring within our constitutional system? Have we been here before? Adam Liptak of The New York Times and Keith Whittington of Princeton University join host Jeffrey Rosen to answer these questions. They explore legal precedent set by previous disputes between Congress and the president, and historical analogs from the Civil War through the Nixon and Clinton administrations. They also give their take on what might happen next, including how the Supreme Court might rule on the question, if asked to do so. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On May 7, host Jeffrey Rosen sat down with Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. to celebrate the opening of the National Constitution Center’s new permanent exhibit – ‘Civil War and Reconstruction: The Battle for Freedom and Equality.’ The exhibit is America’s first devoted to exploring how constitutional clashes over slavery set the stage for the Civil War, and how the nation transformed the Constitution after the war with the addition of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Professor Gates discussed the new exhibit in addition to his PBS series about Reconstruction and two new books—"Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow" and a young adult book "Dark Sky Rising: Reconstruction and the Dawn of Jim Crow." Gates told the story of the advancements of Reconstruction and the Reconstruction Amendments, how those advancements were thwarted by Jim Crow laws like poll taxes, vagrancy laws, and the rise of hate groups, how the Civil Rights Movement fought against that backlash, and how we are still dealing with many of these issues and challenges today. If you enjoyed this constitutional conversation, please listen and subscribe to our companion podcast, Live at America's Town Hall, on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Would adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census—which a lawsuit argues could dissuade people from responding to it—violate the Constitution’s enumeration clause, which requires that an “actual enumeration,” or a counting, of all Americans be performed every ten years? Does it matter how and why the question is added? Tom Wolf, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, and John Eastman, Professor at Chapman University School of Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen to debate these questions. They discuss the pending Supreme Court case Department of Commerce v. New York, in which numerous states are suing Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross over his decision to add a citizenship question to the census. Wolf and Eastman consider how Ross’s motive for asking about citizenship on the census might affect how the justices rule on the case, and offer a helpful historical deep dive into the census itself and its inclusion of questions regarding citizenship. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This episode sheds constitutional light on the Mueller report, focusing on the question of obstruction. We explore what Special Counsel Robert Mueller did and did not conclude about obstruction, explain the “corrupt intent” requirement for an obstruction charge, and grapple with the constitutional question as to whether the president can commit obstruction. Our guests also address the question: in the aftermath of the Mueller report, what should Congress do, and what are the lessons for future Attorneys General in similar situations? Mary McCord, senior litigator at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center, and Josh Blackman, associate professor of law at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The indictment of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for conspiracy to hack into a classified government computer has reignited the debate over the question: what is the line between First Amendment-protected journalism and cyber-crime? On this episode, two leading experts on the intersection of the First Amendment and national security–Josh Geltzer of Georgetown University Law Center and Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project—join host Jeffrey Rosen to consider whether Assange’s indictment poses a threat to press freedom. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

How did a Vietnam War veteran’s request for disability benefits turn into one of the key Supreme Court cases of this term, one with major implications for the future of the administrative state? In this episode, administrative law experts Jonathan Adler of Case Western Law School and Ron Levin of Washington University in St. Louis School of Law explain the issues in this case, Kisor v. Wilkie. They join host Jeffrey Rosen to unpack Kisor and the administrative law deference doctrine, known as “Auer deference,” at the center of the dispute. They also break down other administrative law doctrines like “Chevron” and “Skidmore” deference and the non-delegation doctrine, explaining why they’re so important and at times, controversial. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, the Department of Justice surprised many by reversing its position on the Affordable Care Act—stating that it agrees with U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor that the ACA is unconstitutional, and won’t defend the law. Judge O’Connor’s December 2018 decision in Texas v. United States held that because the tax penalty that enforced the individual mandate had been reduced to $0 in Congress’s 2017 tax reforms, the rest of the ACA could not stand. The House of Representatives, along with several states, has intervened in the case to defend the ACA. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen to break down this case and the legal and constitutional arguments on both sides are ACA experts Abbe Gluck of Yale University and Tom Miller of the American Enterprise Institute. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Supreme Court heard two partisan gerrymandering cases—one from North Carolina and another from Maryland—this week: Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause. Examining those cases and how the Court might rule, host Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Nick Stephanopoulos, one of the attorneys in the North Carolina case and a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation. These scholars debate whether or not the Supreme Court should be involved in examining partisan gerrymandering claims, and discuss what the Constitution says about gerrymandering. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted the findings from his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, many are wondering, what will happen next? John Yoo of Berkeley Law School and Steve Vladeck of University of Texas Law School detail the possible scenarios and examine how the president and Congress might respond—focusing on potential executive privilege claims by President Trump. They also consider how President Trump might claim executive privilege in other contexts—like the House obstruction inquiry, a possible impeachment probe, attempts to prevent release of notes from his Helsinki meeting with Vladimir Putin, or in pending civil lawsuits against him. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Note: This podcast was recorded on Wednesday, March 20th, before the news broke (on Friday) that the Mueller report was completed. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Is it constitutional to execute an inmate who doesn’t remember the crime he committed? Or a person who might suffer excruciating pain during execution? These questions were raised by cases that came before the Supreme Court this term; joining host Jeffrey Rosen to debate them are John Bessler of the University of Baltimore School of Law and Richard Broughton of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. These two scholars consider the death penalty’s past and present, find points of agreement between death penalty abolitionists and supporters, and predict what the new makeup of the Court will mean for the future of capital punishment. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On March 2, President Trump announced his plans to sign an executive order “requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research dollars.” Considering whether or not such an order would be constitutional, how it might be enforced, and how it could affect colleges and universities—two experts on campus free speech, Sigal Ben-Porath of the University of Pennsylvania and Adam Kissel, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education at the U.S. Department of Education, join host Jeffrey Rosen. They discuss the state of free speech on campuses across the country, and debate the best ways to tackle challenges to free speech, from speech zones to speech codes to protecting the rights of students and universities alike. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Two leading voices from organizations on different sides of today's biggest debates over reproductive rights and abortion laws—Catherine Glenn Foster of Americans United for Life and Dr. Kelli Garcia of National Women's Law Center—join host Jeffrey Rosen to explore the key cases making their way up to the Supreme Court. Garcia and Foster also share their views on landmark abortion precedent like Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and the more recent case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, and predict how precedent might affect the outcomes of challenges to pending abortion laws at the federal level and in states like Louisiana, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On this Presidents’ Day edition of We the People, political historian Julian Zelizer of Princeton and constitutional law professor Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen to debate the question: Is the presidency too powerful? Starting with the Founding Fathers’ vision for the presidency, they trace the evolution of presidential power through the Progressive Era presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson, the move to restrain presidential power in the 1970s during LBJ’s and Richard Nixon’s presidencies, and the uptick in exercises of unilateral presidential power by modern presidents like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. Finally, they share their thoughts on presidential emergency powers and President Trump’s recent declaration of a national emergency to fund construction of the border wall. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

For We the People listeners enjoying wine this Valentine’s Day – we’re exploring the still-pending Supreme Court case Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair. This lawsuit was brought by Total Wine & More, a retail liquor giant, and the Ketchums, a family who moved to Tennessee hoping to open a liquor store. Both parties were denied retail liquor licenses because they hadn’t resided in Tennessee long enough. This episode examines a variety of technical but fascinating legal and constitutional questions at issue in the case, including the history of the 21st Amendment, the scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities clause. Two advocates involved in the case, Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice and John Neiman of the law firm Maynard Cooper, join host Jeffrey Rosen for a wide-ranging discussion about it. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) technically expired on June 30, 1982, the ratification deadline set by Congress, but a renewed push to resurrect and ratify this constitutional amendment gained momentum in 2017, with ratification by Illinois and Nevada. Now, ERA proponents are looking to secure ratification in a 38th state, which would round out the necessary three-fourths majority of the states required to pass an amendment. Two leading voices on either side of the debate over the ERA – Linda Coberly, chair of the national ERA Coalition Legal Task Force, and Inez Stepman, senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum – join host Jeffrey Rosen to detail the potential constitutional, legal, political, and cultural effects of adding the ERA as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

A dispute over the firing of a high school football coach who refused to stop praying on the field after games reached the Supreme Court this term; last week, the justices said they would not hear the case until its facts were better established by lower courts. Justice Alito concurred but, joined by three other conservative justices, indicated that he might be sympathetic to Kennedy’s claim that his actions were protected by the First Amendment, should his case eventually return to the Court. Justice Alito also suggested that he and some of his colleagues may be willing to overturn Employment Division v. Smith in order to bolster free exercise and religious exemption claims under the First Amendment. Religion law experts Stephanie Barclay of BYU Law School and Richard Katskee of Americans United for Separation of Church and State discuss Coach Kennedy’s case, whether Smith should be overturned, and how such changes might affect people like public school teachers and coaches. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, this episode celebrates King’s life and work, his hopeful vision for America, and his fight to pass landmark civil rights laws and realize the promises of the Constitution. Civil rights and constitutional law experts Michael Klarman of Harvard Law and Theodore M. Shaw of UNC Law join guest host Lana Ulrich to explore King’s constitutional legacy. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Supreme Court has not decided a major Second Amendment case since McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, but the Court may break this silence soon if it decides to grant certiorari in Mance v. Whitaker – a challenge to a law prohibiting interstate handgun sales. In this episode, Cato's Clark Neily, a leading Second Amendment litigator, and Adam Winkler, UCLA Law professor and noted Second Amendment scholar, join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss Mance and other pending cases and debate whether courts have treated the Second Amendment as a “second class right.” Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org

President Trump and congressional Democrats remain at an impasse over a White House proposal to fund the construction of a southern border wall. The president has said that if Congress decides not to appropriate the funds, then he will “probably” declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress and build the wall. On this episode of We the People, we ask: what would happen if the president decided to declare a national emergency and divert military funds to build the wall? What statutes could he rely on? And would such an action be constitutional? Host Jeffrey Rosen and constitutional law experts Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law and Sai Prakash of University of Virginia Law explore the constitutional clauses, cases, and laws at issue in this hotly contested debate, including the Take Care, Appropriations, and Takings Clauses of the Constitution, the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case, and the National Emergencies Act of 1976 and related statutes. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Jeffrey Rosen hosts a live conversation at the National Constitution Center with leading journalists—Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic; Michelle Goldberg, op-ed columnist for The New York Times; and Jonah Goldberg, senior editor of the National Review—discussing what James Madison might think of mainstream media today and the effects of social media on modern democracy and politics. The conversation explores everything from Twitter mobs and the threats posed by growing tribalism to Facebook’s proposed “Supreme Court” and the challenges presented by online content regulation. This event was presented in partnership with The Atlantic magazine and generously sponsored by the John S. Templeton Foundation as part of the NCC’s Madisonian Constitution for All Initiative. This episode originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, where you can hear live constitutional conversations held here at the National Constitution Center and across America. Questions or comments? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Pulitzer-prize winning historian Doris Kearns Goodwin sits down with host Jeffrey Rosen at the National Constitution Center to discuss her new book, Leadership in Turbulent Times–a culmination of five decades of acclaimed study in presidential history. Goodwin compares the leadership styles of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, sharing fascinating anecdotes and lessons from these legendary presidents, and offering hopeful advice about how to apply these lessons to solve some of the toughest constitutional issues of today. This episode originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, where you can hear live constitutional conversations held here at the National Constitution Center and across America. Questions or comments? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This episode looks back at the biggest constitutional issues of 2018—from the recent ruling striking down Obamacare, to the Emoluments Clause lawsuits, the census case, the Mueller investigation, and more. Guests Emily Bazelon and Josh Blackman join host Jeffrey Rosen to give updates about where these constitutional questions stand and forecast where they’re headed next year. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

President Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison after pleading guilty to several crimes, including illegally making hush money payments to two women alleging affairs with then-candidate Trump. On this episode, campaign finance law experts Rick Hasen, a law professor at UC Irvine and co-editor of Election Law Journal, and Brad Smith, former chair of the FEC and founder of the Institute for Free Speech, debate the campaign finance laws at issue, explore precedents like the John Edwards case, and consider possible legal liability for President Trump. They also dive into other current election and campaign finance law issues, including the case involving Donald Trump Jr. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.

This episode examines the constitutionality of the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act – bipartisan legislation that, if passed, would impose regulations on firing a Special Counsel (such as Robert Mueller). Although the bill is stalled for now, legal thinkers continue to offer a range of views on its constitutionality. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen to explore this debate are Josh Geltzer of Georgetown, arguing that the bill is not constitutional, and Eric Posner of University of Chicago, arguing that it is. BONUS: Hear Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) – one of the co-sponsors of the act – discuss it with Jeffrey Rosen on a special bonus episode, recorded the same day that Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) voted to stall the bill on the Senate floor.

On this episode – originally published on our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall – Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) breaks down the recent developments related to The Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, which he co-sponsored. (We explored the constitutionality of the act on this week’s episode of We the People.) Sen. Coons also shares his plans to make the Constitution a bigger part of the work of the Senate, and asks, what ever happened to Senate debates? He sits down with National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen (his former Yale Law School classmate!).

This episode explores the Supreme Court case The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, which concerns a lawsuit over the possible demolition of a 40 foot tall cross that is part of a World War I memorial on public property in Maryland. Lawyers representing both sides — Ken Klukowski and Monica Miller — explain the history of the cross at issue, debate whether or not it unconstitutionally promotes Christianity, and forecast the case’s potential impact on how the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause is interpreted. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.

President Trump’s revocation of CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s press pass and the ongoing lawsuit CNN v. Trump have brought issues relating to press freedom and due process under the Constitution back into the news. On this episode, David French, senior writer at National Review and Katie Fallow, senior attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, break down the latest developments in the CNN case as well as broader First Amendment issues in the courts today – exploring public forum doctrine, the legal battle over the president blocking users on Twitter, Facebook’s proposal to create its own “Supreme Court” to decide how to regulate content, and the potential effects of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange’s prosecution for publishing classified information. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.

After Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigned at the request of President Trump, the president appointed Sessions’ former chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker, to serve as acting attorney general, and a flurry of questions about the legality, constitutionality, and political repercussions of these developments ensued. Constitutional law scholar Steve Vladeck and political scientist Greg Weiner join host Jeffrey Rosen to think through those questions, including: Is Whitaker’s appointment constitutional? What are Congress’ powers to investigate or even subpoena the President or other executive branch officials over Sessions’ departure? How could the President respond? What will happen to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation? Is a constitutional crisis developing, or is this simply the Constitution at work?

President Trump’s declaration that he could revoke birthright citizenship with an executive order has set off a firestorm of controversy among legal scholars. On this episode, Professors Akhil Amar and Edward Erler debate whether or not the 14th Amendment requires birthright citizenship for all, and dive into the disputed history and original meaning of the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause. Jeffrey Rosen moderates as Amar argues that birthright citizenship is constitutionally required, while Erler asserts that it is not, and that Congress has the power to change it—and should. Check out the Citizenship Clause of our Interactive Constitution: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv/the-citizenship-clause-by-akhil-amar-and-john-harrison/clause/56

As Americans prepare to head to the polls next week, We the People partnered with Ballotpedia for a rundown of the election law and voting rights issues most relevant to the 2018 midterms. Ballotpedia’s News Editor Sarah Rosier joins election law scholars Franita Tolson and Michael Morley to break down all sides of the legal arguments surrounding voter ID laws, gerrymandering, “signature matching,” the purging of voter rolls, and felon disenfranchisement. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.

With the 2018 midterm elections fast approaching, this episode delves into the history of congressional elections, from the Founding to today, answering the questions: What did the Founders expect that Congressional elections would look like? What did they look like throughout the 19th and 20th centuries? How did they lead to the political tribalism of the 21st century? And what can the most consequential congressional elections, the ones that realigned and redefined our nation, tell us about the upcoming election? Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by two leading experts on Congress, its history, and congressional elections – Matthew Green of Catholic University and Thomas Mann of UC Berkeley and Brookings.

In the aftermath of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, debates about the Supreme Court’s legitimacy remain in the public spotlight. Some believe that the Kavanaugh confirmation caused a legitimacy crisis that can only be solved by reform proposals such as court packing and term limits for justices, while others believe the Court has maintained its legitimacy and is still a neutral arbiter of the law. Is the Supreme Court really having a legitimacy crisis? Host Jeffrey Rosen discusses that question and the future of the Court with two constitutional scholars from opposing sides of the Kavanaugh debate – Professor Jennifer Mascott, who testified on Justice Kavanaugh’s behalf at his confirmation hearings, and Professor Melissa Murray, who testified against his nomination.

Cries of “defamation” came from the White House following the publication of in-depth reporting on President Donald Trump and his finances by The New York Times, but this is not the first time the president has expressed criticism of the press or U.S. libel laws. Adam Liptak of The New York Times and NYU Law Professor Richard Epstein join Jeffrey Rosen to explain what libel is and how laws against libel and slander fit within the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and the free press. Liptak and Epstein also debate media objectivity today and the effect of the heated coverage of the Kavanaugh confirmation battle on the legitimacy of our democratic institutions.

Senators Jeff Flake and Chris Coons join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss their important role in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, including their last-minute agreement to pause the nomination to allow for an FBI investigation of the allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. They also share their hopes and fears for the future of the Senate and the Supreme Court, and how political tribalism today threatens the legitimacy of these American institutions. This conversation, recorded live at The Atlantic Festival in Washington, D.C. earlier this week, was presented in partnership with The Atlantic and generously sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. This episode was engineered by Greg Scheckler and David Stotz, and produced by Jackie McDermott and Scott Bomboy. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Jackie McDermott.

We take a deep dive into the upcoming Supreme Court term, set to begin Monday, October 1, and explore forthcoming cases that involve everything from double jeopardy and excessive fines to cemeteries and endangered frogs. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, who both filed amicus briefs in many of the cases discussed, and filed jointly in one of this term’s key cases, Gamble v. United States.

This episode, recorded live in New York City at the Federal Bar Association’s 2018 annual convention, features a debate of the following question: “Should Chevron Be Overturned?” The 1984 Supreme Court decision Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council established a judicial doctrine of deference to certain administrative agency actions commonly known as “Chevron deference.” As wonky as it may sound, Chevron is implicated in important constitutional debates surrounding the modern administrative state and separation of powers. Columbia Law School professors Philip Hamburger and Gillian Metzger explain just what Chevron deference is, why it matters, and whether or not it should be overturned. Lana Ulrich guest hosts.

Nina Totenberg and Neal Katyal join host Jeffrey Rosen to unpack Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings and evaluate his testimony. Totenberg and Katyal recap what we learned about Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy and his views on everything from the role of precedent to presidential power, and forecast how Kavanaugh, if confirmed, might shape the Supreme Court in years to come.

In the midst of the contentious confirmation hearings of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, we explore the history of Supreme Court confirmation hearings and consider their constitutional implications. How did the Framers envision the Senate’s role in providing “advice and consent,” and how has it evolved over time? Guests: Lori Ringhand – professor at the University of Georgia School of Law and Adam J. White – research fellow at the Hoover Institution. This is the first episode in a two-part series covering the confirmation process. Join us next week for a post-hearing wrap-up.

Last week’s guilty plea from Michael Cohen and the conviction of Paul Manafort prompted widespread debate over whether the president was implicated in criminal acts and if he should be impeached. Alan Dershowitz and Joshua Matz join host Jeffrey Rosen for a spirited debate on when and how the Framers intended for the impeachment power to be used. A transcript of the podcast is linked here. This text may not be in its final form and accuracy may vary, and it may be updated or revised in the future.

In the midst of the Civil War, Robert Smalls overtook a Confederate boat filled with 17 other enslaved people and steered it to freedom. This extraordinary act was the first of many, as Smalls went on to a groundbreaking career of activism and became one of the first African American men elected to Congress. We examine his remarkable life on this final episode of our special Stories of the Civil War and Reconstruction series. Guests: Kate Masur, associate professor of history at Northwestern University, and Michael B. Moore, CEO and president of the forthcoming International African American Museum in Charleston, South Carolina. Moore is the great-great-grandson of Robert Smalls.

This week, we uncover the life of Harriet Scott, the wife and co-plaintiff of Dred Scott in the infamous case Dred Scott v. Sanford. Although much is known about the case itself – in which the Supreme Court held that African Americans were not citizens of the United States – little attention has been devoted to the people who brought the case before the Court and lived with the devastating consequences. Guests: Martha S. Jones – author and professor at Johns Hopkins University, and Lea VanderVelde – professor at Iowa College of Law and author of the definitive biography on Harriet Scott. Guest hosted by Lana Ulrich.

This episode delves into the extraordinary life of reparations advocate Callie House, who tirelessly traveled the country organizing newly freed African Americans in the quest to right the wrongs of slavery. Despite her status as a former slave, a woman, and a widower with five children, House defied societal conventions and led one of the largest grassroots movements in African American history. Guests: Mary Frances Berry – professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of the definitive biography on House, and Tiffany Patterson – professor at Vanderbilt University. Hosted by Lana Ulrich.

John Bingham was one of the most influential but least known visionaries of the post-Civil War Constitution. Dubbed “the James Madison of the 14th Amendment” by Justice Hugo Black, Bingham drafted a constitutional provision that changed the course of American history by ensuring that states were duty-bound to uphold their citizens’ constitutional rights. A moderate Republican and dedicated supporter of abolition before the Civil War, Bingham spearheaded the Reconstruction-era efforts to guarantee citizenship to all people born in the United States, regardless of race, and to extend the Constitution’s promise of equality to all American citizens. Gerard Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law and the author of the definitive biography of Bingham. Kurt Lash is the E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Richmond School of Law and the author of the book The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities of American Citizenship. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

On this debut episode of our special Stories of the Civil War and Reconstruction Series, we examine the life of one of America’s most influential abolitionists, orators, writers, and statesmen – Frederick Douglass. Growing up as an enslaved person in Maryland, Douglass set himself apart by learning to read and write at an early age. After escaping from slavery, Douglass moved to Massachusetts where he became involved with local anti-slavery groups and newspapers. Ardently advocating for abolition, Douglass toured the country with William Lloyd Garrison and spoke extensively about the relationship between the Constitution and slavery in America. David Blight is Class of 1954 Professor of American History at Yale University. An expert scholar on Frederick Douglass, Blight has written extensively on him. Blight’s newest book, Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom, will be released on October 2. Blight also serves as Director of the Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition at Yale and previously taught at Amherst College for 13 years. Noelle Trent is director of interpretation, collections and education at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee. Trent earned her doctorate in American history at Howard University, where she also served as a lecturer for 4 years. Her dissertation, “Frederick Douglass and the Making of American Exceptionalism,” is currently being expanded into a book. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

After his recent meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin and comments about Russian interference in the 2016 elections, President Donald Trump has sparked a new controversy relating to the constitutional definition of treason, and to what extent actions taken in support of a foreign nation might constitute treason. Jeffrey Rosen leads a discussion about the Treason Clause of the Constitution, what it means, and how it has been interpreted. Paul Crane is an assistant professor of law at the University of Richmond Law School. Previously, he served as a Bigelow Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. He has also worked as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia, as a Bristow Fellow for the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States, and clerked for Chief Justice Roberts on the U.S. Supreme Court. Deborah Pearlstein is a professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. Previously, she served in the White House from 1993 to 1995 as a Senior Editor and Speechwriter for President Clinton, and served as the founding director of the Law and Security Program at Human Rights First, where she worked on military commission trials at Gitmo. Pearlstein also clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Jeffrey Rosen leads a discussion about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Gorsuch’s first year on the Supreme Court, and what the future of the Court might look like. Brianne Gorod is the Constitutional Accountability Center’s chief counsel. She previously served as CAC’s Appellate Counsel. Elizabeth Slattery is a legal fellow and appellate advocacy program manager at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Leading Civil War and Reconstruction scholars discuss the history and meaning of the 14th Amendment in celebration of its 150th anniversary. Allen Guelzo is the Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era, and Director of Civil War Era Studies at Gettysburg College. Martha Jones is Society of Black Alumni Presidential Professor and Professor of History at Johns Hopkins University. Kurt Lash is E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law and Founder and director of the Richmond Program on the American Constitution at Richmond School of Law. Darrell A.H. Miller is Melvin G. Shimm Professor of Law at Duke Law School. The host is Jeffrey Rosen. Sherrilyn Ifill, the seventh President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and Trustee of the National Constitution Center, provides introductory remarks. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

John Elwood, Leah Litman, and Christopher Yoo, three of Anthony Kennedy’s former clerks, join We The People to discuss the Justice’s Supreme Court legacy. John Elwood is a partner at Vinson & Elkins law firm, teaches at the University of Virginia School of Law’s Supreme Court litigation clinic, and is a contributor to SCOTUSblog. He clerked for Justice Kennedy from 1996–1997. Leah Litman is assistant professor of law at the University of California, Irvine Law School. She is a guest host of the First Mondays Supreme Court podcast and blogs at the Take Care blog. She clerked for Justice Kennedy from 2011-2012. Christopher Yoo is John H. Chestnut Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science; director, Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition at Penn Law School. He clerked for Justice Kennedy from 1997-1998. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Jeffrey Rosen, host of “We the People,” moderates a panel discussion at the Aspen Institute’s Ideas Festival about the Supreme Court’s momentous recent term. From same-sex wedding cakes to voting rights to gerrymandering to public unions, the latest term was full of news-making decisions, even when the Justices decided not to decide. Note: This event was held several hours before Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Court. Next week on "We the People," former Kennedy clerks will be joining us to discuss Justice Kennedy's legacy and the ways in which he shaped the Court. Emily Bazelon is a Lecturer in Law and Senior Research Scholar in Law at Yale Law School. She is also a staff writer at the New York Times Magazine Judge Nancy Gertner is a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. In September of 2011, Judge Gertner retired from the federal bench. Mimi Marziani is President of the Texas Civil Rights Project and she teaches at the University of Texas School of Law. Ramesh Ponnuru is senior editor at National Review, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and contributor to CBS News. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Erin E. Murphy of New York University Law School and Andrea Roth of University of California Berkeley School of Law discuss the Golden State killer case and the future of genetic privacy with host Jeffrey Rosen. This past April, California police announced they had a suspect for the “Golden State Killer” – 72-year-old Joseph James DeAngelo. Using genetic data from old crime scene samples, police uploaded his information into a genealogy website, GEDmatch, enabling them to identify DeAngelo’s relatives, and eventually narrow the pool down to find DeAngelo. This case – along with others that have followed - has raised privacy concerns, leading many to wonder what the future for genetic privacy is under the Fourth Amendment. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

In this episode, We the People host Jeff Rosen answers constitutional questions that you, our listeners, have been asking. We’ve been collecting your questions over the past few months from social media, our weekly newsletter, Constitution Weekly, and email. Among the topics: the limits of presidential pardons, james Madison’s views about political factions, and new Court guidance about automobile searches. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Michael Dorf from the Cornell University Law School and Ilya Shapiro from the Cato Institute join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss some major cases already decided in the Supreme Court's current term and others expected from the Justices in the next few weeks. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Today we are joined by Ken Burns, renowned American filmmaker and documentarian, to discuss the history of the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the legacy of the 14th Amendment. Ken Burns is prolific: His widely known documentary series include The Civil War (1990), Baseball (1994), Jazz (2001), The War (2007), The National Parks: America's Best Idea (2009), Prohibition (2011), The Roosevelts (2014), and The Vietnam War (2017). He’s won 15 Emmy Awards, been nominated for two Academy Awards, and has been featured on PBS numerous times. His 11-hour magnum opus, The Civil War, has won over 40 major awards. This year being the 150th Anniversary of the 14th Amendment, there is no better figure to speak to on its enduring legacy than Ken. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

This week, during a symposium held at the National Constitution Center, We the People host Jeffrey Rosen sat down with George Will, Pulitzer-prize winning columnist for The Washington Post, to discuss federalism, the 17th Amendment, and the state of American politics today. This America’s Town Hall program was made possible through the generosity of John Agliolaro. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

On May 8, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal, calling the deal “horrible,” “one-sided” and “the worst deal ever.” The president said he planned to institute sanctions against Iran, and that the U.S. would also sanction any other nation that helps it pursue nuclear weapons, as well as U.S. and foreign companies and banks that continue to do business with Iran. The Iran Deal was one of President Obama’s major foreign policy achievements, which had re-opened diplomatic negotiations between the two countries; yet the deal also had its critics, both of its merits and its constitutionality. Joining us to discuss the complex history of Iran-U.S. relations, President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran Deal, and any constitutional issues implicated as a result are two leading national security and constitutional experts. Jamil Jaffer is the founder of National Security Institute and an Adjunct Professor of Law and Director of the National Security Law & Policy Program at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. Jake Sullivan is a Martin R. Flug Visiting Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School. He served in the Obama administration as a national security and served as the key architect of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

On May 3, the National Constitution Center hosted a traveling America’s Town Hall panel at Stanford Law School to discuss the effects of digital disinformation on democracy today. We the People host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Elliot Schrage, Facebook’s Vice President of Communications and Public Policy, Nick Pickles, Senior Public Policy Strategist at Twitter, Juniper Downs, Global Head of Public Policy and Government Relations at YouTube, as well as Nathaniel Persily of Stanford Law School and Larry Kramer President of the Hewlett Foundation. They discuss whether digital disinformation poses a threat, what its effect on speech, democracy, and government regulation might be, and the role of the Internet and social media in combatting disinformation. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

This year marks the 150th anniversary of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified on July 9, 1868. Last week, the National Constitution Center and the Thurgood Marshall Institute at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund co-hosted a daylong symposium commemorating this important anniversary. In this We the People episode, former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., discusses the importance of the 14th Amendment today during the symposium’s keynote conversation. He is joined by Sherilynn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of LDF, and We the People host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

On Wednesday, April 25, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in one of the biggest cases of the year: Trump v. Hawaii, the challenge to the latest iteration of President Donald Trump’s efforts to restrict travel to the United States by nationals from certain countries. The federal government contends that a ruling for the challengers would “hamstring” the president’s ability to conduct foreign relations and protect the national security; the challengers counter that allowing the so-called “travel ban” to stand will not only preclude over 150 million people, overwhelmingly Muslim, from coming to the United States, but it will also consolidate “breathtakingly vast” power in the executive branch. Josh Blackman is an Associate Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston. He blogs at JoshBlackman.com and has written dozens of blog posts, editorials, and articles on the Trump v. Hawaii case. Joshua Matz is of counsel at Gupta Wessler PLLC and Kaplan & Company LLP. He is the publisher of the Take Care blog. He filed an amicus brief (with Robbie Kaplan) on behalf of constitutional law scholars in Trump v. Hawaii, on behalf of the respondents. Jeffrey Rosen is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Constitution Center, the only institution in America chartered by Congress “to disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a nonpartisan basis.” Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Jeffrey Rosen discusses the recent Facebook hearingsand the broader impact of social media on free speech and democracy with Nate Persily of Stanford Law and Kate Klonick of Yale Law School. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Our president and CEO, Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute in Boston. They discuss the First Amendment, hate speech, the Citizens United decision, and other free speech cases. Stephen G. Breyer is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Jeffrey Rosen is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Constitution Center, the only institution in America chartered by Congress “to disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a nonpartisan basis.” Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

When President Donald Trump took office last year, there were over 100 federal court vacancies, roughly twice as many as when President Barack Obama faced the same situation in 2009. Since then, President Trump has been nominating judges and having nominees confirmed at “record speed,” leading many senators from both sides of the aisle—from Senator Ted Cruz to Senator Chris Coons—to assert that the most long-lasting and significant legacy to the Trump administration “will be the men and women appointed and confirmed to the federal bench.” This topic and others were part of the Federal Bar Association’s annual mid-year meeting in Washington, D.C. John Malcolm is Vice President of the Institute for Constitutional Government and Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, where he oversees the Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law. Elizabeth Wydra is President of the Constitutional Accountability Center. From 2008-2016, she served as the CAC’s Chief Counsel, representing the Center as well as constitutional scholars and historians, state and local government organizations, and groups such as the League of Women Voters and the AARP. Jeffrey Rosen is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Constitution Center, the only institution in America chartered by Congress “to disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a nonpartisan basis.” He is also a professor at The George Washington University Law School, and a contributing editor for The Atlantic. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

This week, the National Constitution Center celebrates the March 2018 opening of its new exhibit, Hamilton: The Constitutional Clashes That Shaped a Nation. This compelling new exhibit highlights the competing ideas of Alexander Hamilton and his legendary rivals, including Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and Burr, and the personalities and constitutional debates that shaped America. The exhibit also provides an intimate look into Hamilton’s enduring role in the constitutional and political arguments that continue to create sparks to this day. Joining us to discuss the debut of this fascinating new exhibit and the life and constitutional legacy of Alexander Hamilton are two of America’s leading scholars of Hamilton and the Founding. Jay Cost is a political historian and journalist and a contributing editor at The Weekly Standard and a contributor to the National Review. He is the author of the new book The Price of Greatness: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and the Creation of American Oligarchy. Nancy Isenberg is an American historian, and T. Harry Williams Professor of history at Louisiana State University. She is the author of Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr, and co-author (with Andrew Burstein) of a dual biography of Madison and Jefferson. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

In his new book for The American Presidents Series, the National Constitution Center’s President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen argues that William Howard Taft was our most judicial president and presidential Chief Justice, and explores Taft’s crucial role in shaping how America balances populism with the rule of law. In this exclusive book launch held at the Constitution Center on March 20, Mr. Rosen was interviewed by Judge Douglas Ginsburg of the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, who calls Taft “the most under-appreciated constitutional figure since George Mason.”

Over the past few months, President Trump has announced new tariffs on imported goods from solar panels and washing machines to steel and aluminum. He has also taken swift executive action to block international mergers that he has deemed harmful to U.S. interests from occurring, and has even said he would consider withdrawing from NAFTA and related trade agreements. President Trump’s protectionist policies are a reversal of mostly free-trade orientated policies of past administrations, and his actions raise important constitutional questions about the extent of executive power over trade policy, separation of powers and the non-delegation doctrine, as well as the future of U.S. and global trade. Timothy Meyer is a Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School. He is an expert in public international law, with an emphasis on international economic and energy law. He previously worked as a Legal Advisor for the Department of State, and clerked for now-Justice Neil Gorsuch while he was on the 10th Circuit. Steve Charnovitz is Associate Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School. He is a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Law Institute, and the author of many publications including The Path of World Trade Law in the 21st Century. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Can an employment lawsuit be based on the premise that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a Title VII violation under the Civil Rights Act of 1964? On Feb. 26, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 10-3 decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express Inc. that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes a form of discrimination “because of . . . sex,” in violation of Title VII. Some legal experts have predicted that the case might eventually make its way to the Supreme Court. Last April, the Seventh Circuit ruled in a separate case that Title VII could be applied to a similar workplace situation. But the Supreme Court passed on a third case, out of Georgia, that dealt with the same issue. Joining us on this podcast are two experts with different takes on this question. John Eastman is Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Former Dean at Chapman University Law School. He is also the Director of the University’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. Suzanne Goldberg is Herbert and Doris Wechsler Clinical Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, where she also directs the Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law and its Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic. National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen moderates the discussion. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Can the federal government compel a U.S.-based email provider to turn over its records as part of a criminal investigation when those records are located outside of the country? The United States v. Microsoft case pending before the Supreme Court could have big implications for law enforcement, consumer privacy and the business operations of many companies that do business overseas. The Microsoft case deals with a specific question: If a U.S. provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant (issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703) by disclosing in the United States electronic communications within that provider’s control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad. Joining us to discuss these important issues are two leading experts on the case. Benjamin Battles is the solicitor general of Vermont, which filed an amicus brief with 34 other states and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico in support of the federal government in United States v. Microsoft. Vivek Krishnamurthy is a Clinical Instructor in Harvard Law School's Cyberlaw Clinic. He specializes in the international aspects of internet governance and on the human rights challenges associated with offering new internet-based services in different legal environments around the world. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Alicia Hickok and Eugene Volokh join National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss a major Supreme Court case about public-union dues. The Supreme Court is considering arguments in a case that could have a huge effect on public-section unions and their membership. The case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) will be heard on February 26 at the Court. The question in front of the nine Justices is if public-sector “agency shop” arrangements -- payments that workers represented by a union must pay even if they are not dues-paying members -- should be invalidated under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court said in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) that government employees who don’t belong to a union can be required to pay for union contract negotiating costs that benefit to all public employees, including non-union members. The Abood decision has been challenged in court several times, and an evenly divided Court couldn’t decide a similar case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in 2016. This time, a full Court will consider the issue. Alicia Hickok is a Partner at the law firm Drinker Biddle and a Lecturer in law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She wrote an amicus brief in the Janus case on behalf of the Rutherford Institute, siding with Janus’s position. Eugene Volokh is Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA Law School. He co-wrote an amicus brief in Janus with Will Baude siding with the union. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org And don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/survey The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joins National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a wide-ranging conversation in celebration of the 25th anniversary of her appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 75-minute interview, Justice Ginsburg talks about the #MeToo movement, confessed her affection for Millennials, discussed the Supreme Court cases she’d like to see overturned, and told some personal stories about the progress women’s rights have made—while reminding the audience of just how recently gender discrimination in American law seemed not only normal but entrenched. The event took place in Philadelphia on February 12, 2018, in partnership with the University of Pennsylvania Law School as the Owen J. Roberts Memorial Lecture in Constitutional Law.

In this episode, we’re answering questions that you, our listeners, have been asking about the Constitution, with the National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen. We’ve been collecting your questions over the past few months from social media, our weekly newsletter Constitution Weekly, and email. For starters, here were some of the questions discussed in this podcast: Why is the Ninth Amendment so important to understanding the Constitution? What are the unenumerated rights provided for in the Constitution and what were the big arguments about them in the past 100 years? What is the basis for the idea of the separation of church and state as understood by the Founders? And what are the theories of interpreting the Constitution that most apply to you? Jeffrey Rosen is president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates the discussion. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org And don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/survey The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

In anticipation of the 150th anniversary of the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, on Feb. 24, we look at the history of presidential impeachments, the interpretation of the Impeachment Clause, and the application to current day controversies. Joining us to discuss this important historical episode are two of America’s leading scholars on the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson. Keith Whittington is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University. He co-wrote the IC explainers on the Impeachment Clause with Neil Kinkopf. David O Stewart is a writer, historian, and former appellate lawyer. He is the author of many books including Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates the discussion. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org And don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/survey The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

On January 20, 2017, President Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States. In the year since he took office, a variety of novel constitutional issues have arisen, from the interpretation of the Emoluments Clauses, to the constitutionality of Executive Orders on immigration, and even the meaning of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. In this episode, we look at the past year of the Trump presidency and what it means for our Constitution. Joining us to discuss the past year of constitutional debates are two of America’s leading scholars of constitutional law. Josh Blackman is an Associate Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law in Houston who specializes in constitutional law, the United States Supreme Court, and the intersection of law and technology. He filed an amicus brief in the CREW v. Trump and DC and Maryland v. Trump lawsuits on behalf of another legal scholar, Seth Barrett Tillman. Lisa Manheim is an associate professor of law at the University of Washington School of Law and co-author of a recently published book, intended for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, called The Limits of Presidential Power: A Citizen’s Guide to the Law. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org And don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/survey The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

The relationship between the federal government and the states is currently at the center of controversies about sports gambling, marijuana use and sanctuary cities policies. In the past year, these and related issues have come before federal courts, including the Supreme Court. In December 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Christie v. NCAA, a case that examines whether a federal law that prohibits the modification or repeal of state gambling laws violates the Tenth Amendment and the anti-commandeering doctrine that bars the federal government from imposing certain costs on local government. The anti-commandeering doctrine is also at the heart of several federal lawsuits about the legal status of sanctuary cities. And Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision to reverse marijuana prosecution guidelines for federal attorneys in states with legal recreational marijuana has broad potential constitutional implications. Joining Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, to discuss these questions are two leading national constitutional experts. Michael Dorf is Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell Law School. Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org And don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/survey

This week, we look at the case Hargan v. Garza, a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of undocumented immigrantthat asks if the federal government can deny access to an abortion for pregnant undocumented teens. As of January 11, 2018, the Supreme Court was considering the case in private conference. Joining us to discuss this important question are two of America’s leading experts on constitutional and family law. Catherine Glenn Foster is President and CEO of Americans United for Life. She served as Counsel of Record for amicus curiae Alliance Defending Freedom’s Amicus Brief in Planned Parenthood v. Abbott, which defended Texas’ healthcare regulations around abortion clinics. Leah Litman is Assistant Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. She co-authored Petitioner’s Brief in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt case, which successfully challenged Texas’ healthcare regulations around abortion clinics. Jeffrey Rosen is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Constitution Center, the only institution in America chartered by Congress “to disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a nonpartisan basis.” He is also a professor at The George Washington University Law School, and a contributing editor for The Atlantic. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org And don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/survey

In the Gill case this year, the Supreme Court might determine the constitutional future of partisan gerrymandering. Scholars and advocates have been discussing the arguments at the heart of the case – as well as those involved in related cases heading toward the Supreme Court. At a December event at the National Constitution Center, Caroline Fredrickson, president of the American Constitution Society, Nolan McCarty, professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University, and David Wasserman, house editor for The Cook Political Report, explored the practical effects of gerrymandering, including its impact on polarization and competitive elections. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates this discussion. To learn more about this week's topic, visit our podcast resources page to explore show notes, guest bios, related Interactive Constitution essays, and more. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org

Franklin Foer, national correspondent for The Atlantic, explores how tech platforms like Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google have transformed the way we think and produced a new culture of misinformation that is trampling values such as privacy, autonomy, and individuality. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates this discussion, hosted at the Center in November 2017.

Gail Heriot and Diane Rosenfeld join National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss how several federal laws may work to address sexual harassment and assault claims. Gail Heriot is Professor of Law at the University of San Diego Law School and a Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. She is also a contributor to our Interactive Constitution on the 19th Amendment. Diane Rosenfeld is a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and Director, Gender Violence Program, Harvard Law School. She previously served as the served as the Senior Counsel to the Office of Violence Against Women Office of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey Rosen is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Constitution Center, the only institution in America chartered by Congress “to disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a nonpartisan basis.” He is also a professor at The George Washington University Law School, and a contributing editor for The Atlantic. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org

In May, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Since Mueller’s appointment, the probe has raised a number of constitutional questions, ranging from whether the president can legally fire Mueller and end the investigation to what remedies exist should Mueller find evidence of collusion. Specifically, the investigation has led to debates about the nature of potential obstruction of justice charges against a President; if a President can actually be charged with obstruction; and the role of Congress in the investigative process. National Constitution Center Jeffrey Rosen moderates a discussion about these issues two leading experts on these topics: Laura Donohue and Sai Prakash. Donohue is Professor of Law at Georgetown Law, Director of Georgetown’s Center on National Security and the Law, and Director of the Center on Privacy and Technology. Prakash is James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org

Gus Hurwitz and Travis LeBlanc join National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for an engaging debate about the potential repeal of Obama-era net neutrality rules. To learn more about this week’s topic, visit our podcast resources page at constitutioncenter.org/debate/podcasts. Visit the resources page to explore show notes, guest bios, related Interactive Constitution essays, and more. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network.

Vanita Gupta and Michael Moreland join National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to preview next week’s Supreme Court arguments about a dispute over a cake shop owner’s right to not create a cake for a same-sex marriage event. Gupta is the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. The Leadership Conference joined an amicus brief in this case with other civil rights groups (NAACP, Southern Poverty Law Center), siding with the Civil Rights Division. Moreland is University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy at Villanova Law School. He joined an amicus brief along with 34 other legal scholars supporting the cake shop owner. To learn more about this week’s topic, visit our podcast resources page at constitutioncenter.org/debate/podcasts. Visit the resources page to explore show notes, guest bios, related Interactive Constitution essays, and more. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network.

Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute and Orin Kerr of George Washington Law debate whether warrantless searches and seizures of cellphone records violate the Fourth Amendment in a special podcast hosted at the National Press Club. In late November, the Supreme Court will tackle a very modern question about the venerable Fourth Amendment: Does it allow police to see where you’ve been for the past four months by looking at your cellphone data without a warrant? In Carpenter v. United States, which will be argued on November 29, cell number data placed a robbery suspect, Timothy Ivory Carpenter, near the scenes of several crimes, and at about the same time as those crimes happened. The phone information was used as evidence leading to Carpenter’s conviction on robbery charges and he is serving a long prison sentence. The Carpenter case has spurred a flurry of activity among Fourth Amendment scholars. Carpenter’s lawyers believe modern cellphone records are fundamentally different than traditional phone records cited in a 1979 Supreme Court decision at permits such searches without warrants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against Carpenter and said the Fourth Amendment’s search warrant requirement only protects what was actually said in phone conversations. And it upheld a third-party doctrine that the phone records belong to the phone company, they aren’t private information. Note: Audio for this podcast was recorded at an October 26, 2017 live event at the National Press Club sponsored by the American Constitution Society and The Federalist Society and presented with the generous support of the Bernstein Family Foundation.

Joseph Fiskin from the University of Texas at Austin Law School and Steven Willis from the University of Florida, Levin College of Law join National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to look at potential constitutional issues related to tax reform measures under debate at Congress. Please rate and review our podcasts on iTunes. And visit our Resources page at constitutioncenter.org/podcasts to comment on this podcast, and get extra information about this important debate.

Bruce Ackerman and Chris Fonzone join National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss a lawsuit challenging several congressional actions used to authorize United States military actions against ISIS and other terror groups.

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump ran on a platform of rolling back the “administrative state.” Since taking office, President Trump has followed through on some of his campaign promises, signing various Executive Orders aimed at undoing previous Executive Orders issued by President Obama. What will be the impact of the president’s regulatory agenda? Is Trump restoring constitutional order and checks and balances through his executive orders? Joining us to discuss these important questions and more are two of America’s leading scholars of administrative law. Dan Hemel is Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. His research focuses on taxation, risk regulation, and innovation law. His current projects examine the effect of tax expenditures on inequality; the role of cost-benefit analysis in tax administration; and the use of tax incentives to encourage knowledge production. He has served as visiting counsel at the Joint Committee on Taxation. He blogs at Take Care. Karen Harned is Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, a post she has held since April 2002. Prior to joining the Legal Center, Ms. Harned was an attorney at a Washington, D.C. law firm specializing in food and drug law, where she represented several small and large businesses and their respective trade associations before Congress and federal agencies. Her organization, NFIB, was involved in litigation against the Affordable Care Act, in NFIB v. Sebelius, and is currently involved as an amicus in the NAM case before the Court.

Josh Blackman and Jed Shugerman join the National Constitution Center’s Jeffrey Rosen to discuss President Trump’s alleged violation of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses.

Debo Adegbile and Will Consovoy join National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss constitutional challenges to the Voting Rights Act and election law.

In the aftermath of the Las Vegas tragedy, renewed attention has come to controversy over the constitutional status of guns in the United States and the role of the Second Amendment. Joining National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss this central question are two of the leading scholars on this subject. Saul Cornell is the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University. Nelson Lund is University Professor at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School. Note to listeners: Take the Panoply user survey at survey.megaphone.fm.

Michael Morley and Daniel Tokaji join National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss Supreme Court arguments in a potential landmark case about gerrymandering.

Shannon Gilreath and Keith Whittington join National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss if the courts can regulate hate speech.

Michael Dorf and Ilya Shapiro join National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to preview a potentially blockbuster Supreme Court term starting in early October.

In commemoration of Constitution Day 2017, we will explore what James Madison would think of today’s presidency, Congress, courts, and media and how we can resurrect Madisonian values today.

Brian Kalt and Margaret Love join National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen in a broad-ranging discussion about the President’s constitutional powers to issue pardons.

Protests in Charlottesville, Baltimore, and Ferguson have prompted many questions about the right to protest in our country. What restrictions can governments place on assemblies? What responsibilities do governments have to protect protestors? How should we think about the right to protest in a free society? John Inazu and Burt Neuborne join National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss Charlottesville and the right to free assembly.

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, raise armies, and regulate forces. Yet Article II names the President the Commander-in-Chief and vests him with the executive power. Who should be in charge of the nation’s security? What does the Constitution say about the relationship between Congress and the President in wartime? With rising tensions with North Korea, Afghanistan, and the global war on terror, these questions are as important as ever. Joining National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss these important questions are two leading scholars of national security law. Sai Prakash is the James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is the author of Imperial from the Beginning: The Constitution of the Original Executive. He has written extensively on the domestic war powers of Congress, the powers of the presidency, and the Constitution. Deborah Pearlstein is an associate professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Her work on national security and the separation of powers has appeared widely in law journals and the popular press. Today, she serves on the editorial board of the peer-reviewed Journal of National Security Law and Policy. CREDITS Today’s show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Ugonna Eze and Lana Ulrich. Research was provided by Lana and Tom Donnelly. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. And finally, despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more.

Can President Trump block citizens from following his own Twitter feed? The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University has filed suit on behalf of several Twitter users who were denied the ability to follow the President’s Twitter feed after they made comments critical of him. The Institute claims that the ban is a violation of a First Amendment right to free speech and free assembly, and that a public official’s social media page is a designated public forum. The Justice Department, defending President Trump, says the courts are powerless to tell President Trump how he can manage his private Twitter handle and the Institute’s requests would “send the First Amendment deep into uncharted waters.” Joining our We The People podcast to discuss these arguments are Alex Abdo, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. CREDITS Today’s show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Ugonna Eze and Lana Ulrich. Research was provided by Lana and Tom Donnelly. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. And finally, despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more.

National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen moderates a special discussion about the 1963 Birmingham Church bombing and how it impacted the meaning of equality in America. In this event, held on June 16 in Philadelphia, bombing survivor Sarah Collins Rudolph, Washington Post editor and author of Kennedy and King Steven Levingston, and Philadelphia Orchestra composer-in-residence Hannibal Lokumbe spoke with Rosen about the bombing’s legacy could also bring about constitutional change.

John Avlon, editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast, discusses the first president’s momentous and prescient farewell address to the nation and how the address could help reunite America through the lessons rooted in Washington’s experience as described in his new book, Washington’s Farewell: The Founding Father’s Warning to Future Generations. Michael Gerhardt, scholar-in-residence at the National Constitution Center, moderates. the discussion.

In a special We The People podcast event, National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen talks about the importance of the Supreme Court’s future at the famed Chautauqua Institution. Rosen spoke to an enthusiastic crowd on July 26, 2017 at the Institution in the southwestern part of New York State, which was founded in 1874. Among the upcoming cases Rosen discussed were free speech and privacy issues in front of the Supreme Court during its next term, which starts in October. In particular, the case of Carpenter v. United States is expected to be one of the biggest decisions of the upcoming term, Rosen said. The Carpenter case involves the ability of police to seize a cellphone using a statute, and not probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, to see information about its user’s locations over a several-month period. Also, Rosen previewed an important religious freedom case before the Court in its next term, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, about compelled free speech. Today’s show was edited by David Stotz. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at [email protected]. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more.

Deborah Archer of New York Law School and Derek Muller of Pepperdine University discuss the agenda and challenges of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Read about the 24th Amendment on the National Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. Today’s show was edited by David Stotz and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Jackie McDermott. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen. Special thanks to Tom Donnelly for serving as host.

David Schleicher of Yale University and Todd Zywicki of George Mason University discuss the text, history, and future of this contested amendment. New essays are now available on the Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution. Read about the 17th Amendment, the 20th Amendment, the 24th Amendment, and the 25th Amendment. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. Today’s show was edited by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

At a live event in Los Angeles, CA, Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Eugene Volokh of UCLA discuss current debates about speech online. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. Today’s show was edited by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute break down the busy final days of the Court's 2016-2017 term. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. Today’s show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Legendary Supreme Court reporter Lyle Denniston reflects on the Court, the Constitution, and his long career. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitterusing @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at [email protected]. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. Today’s show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Cybersecurity expert Paul Rosenzweig and Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas explore the constitutional debate over leaks and their publication. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. Today’s show was edited by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Steve Calabresi of Northwestern University and Sheryll Cashin of Georgetown University discuss the landmark case and its constitutional legacy. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Please subscribe to We the Peopleand our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. Today’s show was edited by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Celebrated First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams examines the degree to which American law protects free speech more often, more intensely, and more controversially than anywhere else in the world. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at [email protected]. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by David Stotz and edited by Jason Gregory. It was produced by Nicandro Iannacci. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Alan Dershowitz and Laura Donohue join our Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the legal and constitutional issues surrounding President Donald Trump’s handling of the Russia probe. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacciand Scott Bomboy. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen. Continue today’s conversation onFacebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at [email protected]. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Please subscribe to We the Peopleand our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more.

Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, answers listener questions about the Preamble, judicial power, and more. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Nicandro Iannacci and Scott Bomboy. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen. Special thanks to Tom for serving as guest inquisitor.

Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina and Kevin Walsh of the University of Richmond explore the influential career of the nation's longest-serving chief justice. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the Peopleand our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by David Stotz and produced by Nicandro Iannacci and Scott Bomboy. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen. Special thanks to Tom Donnelly for serving as guest host.

Leah Litman of the University of California, Irvine, and Earl Maltz of Rutgers University discuss the latest legal developments and how the ban may ultimately fare at the Supreme Court. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by David Stotz and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Elizabeth Price Foley of Florida International University and Cristina Rodriguez of Yale University discuss President Trump's executive order on immigration and how Congress could respond to sanctuary cities going forward. Continue today’s conversation on Facebookand Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

In a special bonus episode, Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law in Houston and David Cole of the American Civil Liberties Union discuss what President Trump's firing of the FBI director means for our constitutional system. If you like what we did today - a shorter episode on breaking constitutional news - let us know at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Christopher Yoo of the University of Pennsylvania Law School and Tom Donnelly of the National Constitution Center discuss the Pennsylvania Federalist and America's greatest proponent of popular sovereignty. American Treasures: Documenting the Nation's Founding is now open at the Constitution Center. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

In excerpts from Freedom Day 2017, Mickey Edwards and Norm Ornstein reflect on the state of Congress, and George Will offers his take on the future of freedom. Listen to the full program, including great panels on the media, presidency, and more, on our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and David Stotz. It was produced by Nicandro Iannacci. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Marci Hamilton of the University of Pennsylvania and Hannah Smith of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty discuss the issues and best arguments in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

In a special event at Columbia University, David Pozen of Columbia and Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz of Georgetown University discuss how to restore the separation of powers. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was edited by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen. Special thanks to Zach Morrison and the Columbia chapters of the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society for their partnership in producing this event.

Richard Arenberg of Brown University and Josh Chafetzof Cornell University discuss the history of the Senate filibuster and whether or not it should be eliminated. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitterusing @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by David Stotz and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Alexandra Brodksy of the National Women's Law Center and Gary McCaleb of the Alliance Defending Freedom discuss whether Title IX or the Constitution bans discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.