Amarica's Constitution

More or Less Moore

The North Carolina courts are having fun with Moore v. Harper, reversing their prior rulings as their new (Republican) judges took the bench.  We’ve previously considered what the Supreme Court might do with the NC Court reconsidering things - what about now that this decision has come down?  Would this be “judicial restraint,” and what exactly is that frequently heard meme all about, anyway?  We also take note of important dates on the academic calendar and that leads to all sorts of insights on college admissions, the meritocracy, and somehow that takes us back to the Supreme Court again.

Standing Rules

The Supreme Court issued a stay in the Mifepristone case, so everyone goes back to their corner - for now, anyway.  They’ll be back.  And when they are, the issue of standing may well be front and center.  We grab this opportunity to give you a primer on standing, starting with the Constitution, tracking the Court’s recent strange path on this issue - and then we hear the Amar approach.   Our listeners should be in a position to see the Mifepristone case clearly, as well as have a firm basis to keep from falling down on standing.

Judges and Adverse Events

The Judiciary continues to occupy the headlines, from the judge in Trump’s trial to judges and justices at the district and circuit level who somehow impact the lives of the whole nation.  And Justice Thomas keeps knocking at the ethics door.  We take it a step at a time, trying to be thorough.  Everyone, it seems, wants to be more than they seem.  So this time we look in some depth at judges being doctors, plaintiffs choosing judges, and regional judges offering national injunctions, while touching on some of these other areas as well.

Doubting Thomas, and doubting the doubters

Judges are in the news - all over it, in fact.  Donald Trump, arrested and charged, attacks the judge in his case, and the judge is under a microscope.  Deserved?  Meanwhile, a judge is elected in Wisconsin. Many say this is the result of actions other judges took in Washington last year, and judges in Wisconsin react - and find themselves under scrutiny, too.  Most prominently of all, a Supreme Court Justice’s lifestyle collides with disclosure requirements, drawing fire.  How can citizens view these controversies in a reasonably objective light, and what are the standards?  We take a shot at it.

Discretion and Indictment

The people of the State of New York have voted in Grand Jury to charge former President Trump with felony counts.  He stands arrested and arraigned.  If you were the District Attorney of New York City, and you had to make the decision whether to pursue this prosecution to this point, what factors should you have considered?  What obligations do you have to the citizens of New York in this matter?  What is your discretion?  Do you agree with DA Bragg’s decision?  Professor Amar will provide you with the background you need to approach these questions and make up your own mind.

Much to Bragg About?

The Grand Jury continues its work in New York, as a possible indictment of an ex-president and declared candidate for president awaits his fate.  Meanwhile, investigations and more grand jury proceedings continue in Georgia and Washington on other weighty matters. And the political establishment is worried, so the House Republicans have upped in with a subpoena of the New York City District Attorney, even as he conducts his grand jury investigation.  We don’t want to jump the gun on the virtues and facts surrounding any actual indictment, so instead we look at the many constitutional matters implicated here:  grand juries themselves, secrecy in general, congressional oversight and its limits, campaign finance, “hush money.”  Lots to talk about.

It’s Coming

Rumors swirl around the possibility of an indictment of former President Trump, from several sources - New York, Georgia, Washington.  We wait with you, and rather than speculate, we will pounce when and if something happens.  In the meanwhile, we give you some bonus material in the form of a great listener question, and some information about our favorite pastime.

The Lord Mayor Adams

The Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, delivered a controversial speech at an interfaith breakfast, raising issues of church/state separation, gun control, and the role of religion in governance.  Akhil uses the opportunity for some comparative constitutional analysis, and we look at the worldwide continuum of separationist approaches.  The mayor is quite provocative on school prayer and quite confusing on guns, and we take that up as well.  Meanwhile, we take a question on the judiciary in a far away and yet not so far away land.

Sing a Song (of) Mike Pence

Former Vice President Mike Pence has received subpoenas from Special Counsel Jack Smith.  Pence claims that he has grounds to challenge this subpoena; he locates this in the so-called “speech and debate” clause, and some claim that executive privilege is relevant as well.  We examine these clauses and doctrines deeply and offer our own conclusions on this issue.  Speaking of doctrines, the Supreme Court has brought the “major questions” doctrine out once again in the student debt case, and we look at that.  We also take a deeper dive on questions of standing - how do states have the ability to appear in court challenging this presidential action?  It may not surprise you to hear that Akhil wrote a relevant article, over 30 years ago.

Torture, Time Travel, and Transformation

This week we take your questions; our listeners are engaged and clever, so Professor Amar is challenged again and again.  How far do his 4th and 5th amendment views extend - do they reach torture?  A fellow law professor asks a deep question about Reconstruction and Women’s suffrage which has deep implications.  And we take a trip back in time to Akhil’s most treasured constitutional moments.  Meanwhile, there’s more on Moore v. Harper and mootness.