Amarica's Constitution

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. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

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

***CLE Available*** 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. Continuing Education Credit is available by going to podcast.njsba.com after listening.

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

***CLE available*** 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. Note: Continuing Legal Education Credit available after listening by going to podcast.njsba.com.

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.

Amara Culpa, Amara Bene

What’s in a name?  This week, it’s “Amar was wrong - Amar was right.”  Two weeks ago it was “bigots” and many made much of that.  So we take the feedback seriously and revisit it - you can judge the result.  Meanwhile, news from Long Island brings the 4th amendment to the fore again, and in a somewhat different way.  Different - how?  Listen and find out how to create a better jurisprudence without amending the Constitution, and the real differences in the lives of the people this would make.  Finally, Akhil has a new article in the popular press, and we introduce that for later elaboration.

Scrutinizing Affirmative Action - Special Guest Jeffrey Brenzel

It’s time to discuss the Affirmative Action cases from Harvard and the University of North Carolina, and we have brought in an expert on college admissions - Jeff Brenzel, the former Dean of Undergraduate Admissions at Yale.  Jeff is so much more than that - he has taught at Yale as a lecturer in philosophy and humanities; is the former head of the Alumni Association, and is a current trustee at Morehouse College, to name some of his many hats.  He offers a perspective that is a perfect supplement to the legal analysis from Professor Amar, as we make our way through 237 pages of Supreme Court opinion, concurrences, and fiery dissents, not to mention Akhil’s scholarship on this subject over the decades.  It’s potentially a morass and we begin to find our way through it, to hopefully understand the stormy present and the uncertain future of college admissions.