We continue our survey of the Roberts Court’s oeuvre of constitutional cases, with particular emphasis on the series of cases that concerned making rules for voting and for voting districts. These cases make particular use of “intratextualism” - a term coined by Professor Amar that provides tools - and traps - for textual analysis of the Constitution. And as it turns out, it is also valuable on some of the most important themes and cases in the history of the nation, including Brown v. Board and its companion case, Bolling v. Sharpe. A listener’s question takes us down this road, which intersects with our own prior path in fascinating ways. These and more cases are explored as only Professor Amar can. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.
