We the People
About
Available on
Community
505 episodes
On Thursday March 28 at the NCC, Jeffrey Rosen sat down with Justice Stephen Breyer to discuss his new book, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism. Justice Breyer deconstructs the textualist philosophy of the current Supreme Court’s majority and makes the case for a better way to interpret the Constitution based on pragmatism. Resources Justice Stephen Breyer, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism (2024) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri and NRA v. Vullo—two cases in which government officials allegedly pressured private companies to target disfavored viewpoints. Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute and David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation join Jeffrey Rosen to break down both cases. Together they discuss the state action doctrine, explore the line between coercion and persuasion, and interrogate the tension between government speech and private speech. Resources: Murthy v. Missouri (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) NRA v. Vullo (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) Alex Abdo, Brief in Support of Neither Party, Murthy v. Missouri David Greene, Brief in Support of Neither Party, Murthy v. Missouri David Greene and Karen Gullo, “Lawmakers: Ban TikTok to Stop Election Misinformation! Same Lawmakers: Restrict How Government Addresses Election Misinformation!,” EFF (March 15, 2024) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
Three political scientists join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss democratic instability, backsliding, and demagogues from a historical and global perspective. Guests included Harvard’s Steven Levitsky, author of Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point, the University of Texas-Austin’s Kurt Weyland, author of Democracy’s Resilience to Populism’s Threat, and Princeton University’s Frances Lee. This program originally aired on November 27, 2023. Resources: Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point Frances Lee, “Populism and the American Party System: Opportunities and Constraints” Kurt Weyland, Democracy’s Resilience to Populism's Threat: Countering Global Alarmism Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
On Monday March 4th, the Supreme Court reversed Colorado’s decision to remove President Trump from the ballot. The Court unanimously held that individual states cannot bar insurrectionists from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Five Justices went further, ruling that Congress alone may enforce Section 3. In this episode, constitutional scholars Mark Graber of the University of Maryland Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the Court’s 9-0 decision to avoid a chaotic “patchwork” of state-level ballot eligibility decisions and the 5-4 majority’s view that Section 3 requires Congress to act before an insurrectionist may be disqualified from office. Resources: Trump v. Anderson (2024) Mark Graber, “Trump’s apologists say it doesn’t matter if he’s guilty of insurrection. That’s not true”, The Guardian, (March 5, 2024) Mark Graber, The Forgotten Fourteenth Amendment: Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty (2023) Michael McConnell, “Is Donald Trump Disqualified from the Presidency? A Response to Matthew J. Franck”, Public Discourse, (Jan. 18, 2024) Prof. Michael McConnell, Responding About the Fourteenth Amendment, “Insurrection,” and Trump, Volokh Conspiracy, (Aug. 2023) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, which involved challenges to attempts by Texas and Florida to prevent social media sites from banning viewpoint discrimination. The challenges were brought by NetChoice, which argues that the laws’ content-moderation restrictions and must-carry provisions violate the First Amendment. The case could determine the future of our most important platforms, from Facebook to X to YouTube. Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute and Larry Lessig of Harvard Law School recap the key issues in both cases; discuss the ideas raised in oral arguments; and preview the wide-ranging impacts these cases may bring. Resources: Moody v. NetChoice (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) NetChoice v. Paxton (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) Larry Lessig, Amicus Brief in Support of Respondents Alex Abdo, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party Lochner v. New York (1905) PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) Zauderer v. Office of Disc. Counsel (1985) Rumsfeld v. FAIR (2006) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on 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 Presidents’ Day 2024, NCC President & 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.
