Amarica's Constitution

Eleven Presidents - Special Guest Bob Woodward

The career of America’s greatest investigative reporter has spanned more than 50 years, and Bob Woodward has told the stories of eleven presidents, the Supreme Court, the Intelligence Community, and indeed the American political system with a penetrating, persistent drive towards the truth. (LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.) Today this titan spends 90 minutes with us, and the insights continue to pour out of him. One can’t help but see Nixon at one end and Trump near the other; Woodward certainly sees them, and even with his ever-present professional distance and restraint, it’s powerful to hear the most deeply informed perspective there has ever been on the Constitution’s most ambitious creation - the Presidency - and the extraordinarily aberrant occupants of that office.

Have Kavanaugh, Will Travel

It’s almost October, and the Supreme Court readies to hear a new set of cases.  The Roberts Court seems defined above all by the Dobbs decision at this point.  The opinion, authored by Justice Alito, has been exhaustively dissected, but looking forward, we see various states taking further and more extreme actions.  What role will the so-called swing justices, some of whom wrote concurrences in the case, play in the litigation that the new developments will likely spawn?  What of the dire predictions of many pundits in the aftermath of the case?  And what about Amarica’s Constitution - what did we say, and what say we now? Travel the road with us.

Justice Jackson’s Santa Clause

It’s an assortment of topics as listeners response to some recent developments and nagging questions.  We revisit the 303 case, specifically the dissent, as Justice Jackson lays out an interesting hypothetical that doesn’t produce, perhaps, the intended response - at least from Professor Amar.  Meanwhile, Justice Alito is back in the news with his judicial Declaration of Independence - Akhil may not quite agree.  We also have an exciting prelude to a big announcement about our podcast!

An Officer and a President

Two recent major podcast themes - section 3 of the fourteenth amendment, and judicial ethics - echoed through the news this past week.  Wisconsin legislators seek to impeach a new state Supreme Court Justice before she even sits for a case; and in Washington, Justice Alito is asked to recuse himself because of an interview he gave. Meanwhile, Section 3 is addressed by a former US Attorney General, who says it is inapplicable to the President for reasons that may seem counterintuitive, even strange.  We analyze the claims as well as what lies behind them in our constitutional system.

The Two Experts, Part Two - Special Guests William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen

We continue our exclusive discussion with the Professors Baude and Paulsen, authors of the bombshell article declaring Trump ineligible for the Presidency.  This time we explore some concerns that have been voiced in the media and elsewhere; we look at how this provision might make itself effective in practice.  We trace the possible routes such an effort might take; where would it be initiated - and importantly, who would be the final authority?  Along the way we enter the Fed Courts classroom and look at - what else - the Constitution’s voice on these matters, in the 14th amendment, and elsewhere.

The Two Experts on Section Three - Special Guests William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen

In a special episode, the two distinguished authors of a recent major article, which dives deep into Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and finds that Donald Trump is disqualified from the Presidency, join us for a thoughtful and rigorous examination of the tough questions about their conclusions.  These are leading conservative scholars who have gone where their methodologies, and the law, has taken them.  Reaction has been swift and impassioned around the country, and in this episode they respond for the first time to some of the critiques, explore the implications of their work, and in doing so, they bring an integrity to our civic conversation.  This is an important discussion of important issues, by real experts.

Georgia On Our Minds - Special Guest Ruth Marcus

Everyone needs a translator, and for decades there have been few better than Washington Post columnist, reporter, and editor Ruth Marcus.  She has made understandable the intricacies of many a Supreme Court matter, not to mention the vicissitudes of other Washington institutions.  Now, with Federal and State cases against former president Trump pending, the complexities are impressive, but we take you through them with Ruth’s help.  There are also stories galore, with angles political, constitutional, and gleeful.

This Must Be The Place

Ex-President Trump faces a number of trials, and he doesn’t like where some of them are.  Too many Democrats, or he doesn’t like the judge.  Does he have recourse?  No surprise - Professor Amar has written on this subject.  There is a fascinating history behind it, an originalism analysis, and, most importantly - an answer.  Changes of venue, bench trials, peremptory challenges, unanimous verdicts - they all find their way into this episode.

Third Time’s A Charm

He's baaack.  Former President Trump has been arraigned once again, this time on serious federal charges related to the very heart of democracy - the election itself.  Special Counsel Jack Smith continues to discharge his appointed function by bringing charges he deems warranted.  Beyond Smith, however, do the American people have other means of redress?  And if Trump is guilty, will these prosecutions prevent him from seeking and possibly gaining the White House?  Akhil has some surprising ideas - and one that even surprises himself!

The Legacy of the Harvard Case - Special Guest Jeffrey Brenzel

We return to the affirmative action case, and again former Yale Dean of Undergraduate Admissions, Jeffrey Brenzel, joins us with his peerless expertise.  The fallout of the opinion is enormous ,and we address some of its ramifications, including legacy admissions, donor admissions, private vs. public institutional options, admissions departments’ responses, and much more.  What about the new frontiers of litigation that seem to be emerging, from scholarships designed to address racial disparities to non-race-conscious policies that nevertheless have impact on racial makeup?  Former Dean Brenzel also offers a fascinating critique of the likely responses, showing how what might seem like a powerful response might actually be a foolish way to avoid real impact.