Amarica's Constitution The Surprising Score
7 snips
Jul 23, 2026 A wide-ranging look at the Roberts Court’s most consequential cases and how justices line up on them. They trace originalist takes on Heller, McDonald, Citizens United and Sebelius. Discussion includes standing rules, emoluments and recess appointment fights. Listeners’ questions spark tangents on academic influence, CLE logistics and patterns in recent rulings.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Later Laws Can Replace Earlier Invalidated Statutes
- Congress can implicitly replace an older statute by passing a later law covering the same field, so reviving the 1875 Act isn't necessary after the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
- Amar notes an 1875 provision about jury service survives and is enforced, illustrating partial severability across eras.
Who Could Sue Over An 18 Year Term For Justices
- Amar outlines who could have standing to challenge an 18-year Supreme Court term statute, including a justice appointed under it asserting diminished lifetime independence.
- He compares past standing puzzles like income tax objections and Hugo Black challenges to show complex recusal and severability issues.
Historical Complaints Show Standing Can Be Complicated
- Amar recalls historical examples where officials complained but couldn't litigate constitutional objections, like Chief Justice Taney's reaction to the income tax.
- He uses these anecdotes to show standing and adjudication can be messy when judges are personally affected.
