We the People

In a special Independence Day episode, scholars Akhil Amar of Yale Law School and Peter Onuf of the University of Virginia join host Jeffrey Rosen for a discussion on the historical legacy of founding father Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president and principal author of the Declaration of Independence. In a National Constitution Center event a few months ago, Professor Amar announced his intention to “break up with” Thomas Jefferson; and in this episode of We the People, we explore why he’s decided to break up with Jefferson—including his actions and views on slavery—and what aspects of Jefferson's legacy deserve defense. Professors Amar and Onuf also explore the positive and negative aspects of his legacy and influence on the country, as well as recommendations on how to understand and study Jefferson today.  Resources: Akhil Amar, The Words That Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840 (2021) Peter Onuf, The Mind of Thomas Jefferson (2007) Peter Onuf and Annette Gordon-Reed, “Most Blessed of the Patriarchs”: Thomas Jefferson and the Empire of the Imagination (2017) Peter Onuf, Jefferson and the Virginians: Democracy, Constitutions, and Empire (2018) Should We Break up with the Founders?, We the People episode (April 2023) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

This week, NCC President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen moderated a panel live from the Aspen Ideas Festival featuring three of America’s leading legal scholars: former deputy solicitor general and Georgetown Law Professor Neal Katyal, Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan, and Clark Neily of the Cato Institute. During the program, they discussed the major decisions from the Supreme Court’s most recent term, including Allen v. Milligan, in which the Court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; Moore v Harper, where the Court rejected the independent state legislature theory; Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, in which the Court struck down affirmative action programs in higher education as violating equal protection; and more. Resources: Aspen Ideas Festival 2023: Supreme Court Review Moore v. Harper (2023) Allen v. Milligan (2023) Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

This week, the Supreme Court handed down a major decision relating to elections in America in the Moore v. Harper case. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court rejected the independent state legislature theory, finding that the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures exclusive power over elections, and upholding the power of judicial review in electoral cases, including redistricting decisions. In this episode of We the People, guests Judge Michael Luttig and Professor Evan Bernick join to break down the Moore decision – including why the Court decided to reject the independent state legislature theory; why conservative Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented; and what this means for the future of judicial review of election laws. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.Resources: Moore v. Harper (2023) Judge Michael Luttig, “The Court Is Likely to Reject the Independent State Legislature Theory: And that offers hope for American democracy”, The Atlantic, April 13, 2023 Judge Michael Luttig, “There Is Absolutely Nothing to Support the ‘Independent State Legislature’ Theory”, The Atlantic, October 3, 2022 J. Michael Luttig, et al, Brief for Non-State Respondents, Moore v. Harper  Brief of Professor Evan Bernick in support of respondents in Harper v. Moore Check out previous We the People episodes on the Moore v. Harper case: Part 1 (March 2022) and Part 2 from (July 2022), and Part 3 (Dec. 2022) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court handed down a major voting rights decision in the Allen v. Milligan case. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and found that Alabama’s 2022 congressional map likely violated Section 2. This comes as a surprising victory for voting rights and the Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) test after a series of other Supreme Court cases that have narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act, including the Brnovich v. DNC case in 2021 and Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. The decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh along with the liberal justices. In this episode, Jason Torchinsky of Holtzman Vogel and Rick Hasen of UCLA School of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to break down the Allen decision; discuss why Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh voted with the liberal justices to uphold the Gingles framework; what other conservative justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wrote in dissent; and what this means for redistricting and voting rights in 2024 and beyond. Resources: Allen v. Milligan (June 2023) Jason Torchinsky, Amicus Brief on Behalf of the National Republican Redistricting Trust Rick Hasen, “John Roberts Throws a Curveball,” NYT (June 8, 2023) Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (1965)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Last week, former President Donald Trump was indicted by the U.S. government for allegedly retaining, mishandling, and concealing classified documents after he left office. Charged with 37 criminal counts—including many that stem from the Espionage Act—Trump appeared in a Miami federal court on Tuesday and pled not guilty to the charges brought against him. In this episode, legal experts Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School and Jamil Jaffer of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University join to break down the legal and constitutional significance of the federal indictment. They also discuss potential outcomes of the prosecution, including effects on the upcoming 2024 presidential election; how these charges intersect with other charges being brought against President Trump in other courts including charges brought by the Manhattan district attorney in New York for allegedly falsifying business documents; how other countries around the world deal with heads of state who have been charged with breaking national and international laws; and how the decision to prosecute a president affects rule of law and the future of constitutional democracy. Resources: United States v. Donald Trump and Waltine Nauta (indictment) Espionage Act: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) The Presidential Records Act (PRA) Oona Hathaway, “What Donald Trump and Reality Winner Have in Common” NY Times, June 11, 2023  Oona Hathaway on Classification of Government Documents, Washington Journal Interview, January 24, 2023 Jamil Jaffer, on “The Lead with Jake Tapper”, June 12th, 2023, Complete Transcript Scott Bomboy, “The question of president immunity back in the spotlight” National Constitution Center, July 24, 2017 Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

As ChatGPT and other generative AI platforms have taken off, they’ve demonstrated exciting possibilities about the potential benefits of artificial intelligence; while at the same time, have raised a myriad of open questions and complexities, from how to regulate the pace of AI’s growth, to whether AI companies can be held liable for any misinformation reported or generated through the platforms. Earlier this week, the first ever AI defamation lawsuit was filed, by a Georgia radio host who claims that ChatGPT falsely accused him of embezzling money. The case presents new and never-before answered legal questions, including what happens if AI reports false and damaging information about a real person? Should that person be able to sue the AI’s creator for defamation? In this episode two leading First Amendment scholars—Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law and Lyrissa Lidsky of the University of Florida Law School—join to explore the emerging legal issues surrounding artificial intelligence and the First Amendment. They discuss whether AI has constitutional rights; who if anyone can be sued when AI makes up or mistakes information; whether artificial intelligence might lead to new doctrines regarding regulation of online speech; and more. Resources: Eugene Volokh, Volokh Conspiracy, “First (?) Libel-by-AI (ChatGPT) Lawsuit Filed” (June 6, 2023) Walters v. OpenAI L.L.C., No. 23-A-04860-2 Eugene Volokh, Large Libel Models? Liability for AI Output Eugene Volokh, Volokh Conspiracy, “The Great Success of Artificial Intelligence” (June 7, 2023) Lyrissa Lidsky, “Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Discourse in Cyberspace”, Duke Law Journal (2000) Lyrissa Lidsky, “Of Reasonable Readers and Unreasonable Speakers: Libel Law in a Networked World” (2016) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  

Earlier this year, the National Constitution Center hosted an event in Miami, Florida, featuring a series of meaningful conversations about the Constitution with speakers of diverse perspectives. In this episode, we’re sharing one of those programs with you: A conversation with four leading constitutional experts about the NCC’s Constitution Drafting Project, the amendment process, Article V, and the future of constitutional reform. The four scholars are: Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, Caroline Fredrickson of Georgetown Law, David French of the New York Times, and Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Additional ResourcesNational Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project Stay Connected and Learn MoreQuestions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

The Supreme Court’s “shadow docket”—cases in which the Court issues emergency orders and summary decisions without oral argument—has been subject to growing scrutiny. Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak of The New York Times and Jennifer Mascott of the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School join Stephen Vladeck of The University of Texas School of Law for a conversation on Vladeck’s new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic, exploring the history and role of the shadow docket and the current debates surrounding the Court’s emergency rulings. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.Additional Resources Stephen Vladeck, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic  Stephen Vladeck, “Texas’s Unconstitutional Abortion Ban and the Role of the Shadow Docket,” Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee  National Constitution Center, “The Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket’,” We the People podcast  Jennifer Mascott, “Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court’s Orders Docket,” George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper  Adam Liptak, “Alito Responds to Critics of the Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket,” The New York Times  Stay Connected and Learn MoreQuestions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

The National Constitution Center and Khan Academy are partnering to create a free online Constitution 101 course premised on a simple, radical act: bringing together genuine experts who genuinely disagree about the most important constitutional issues facing our nation today; and use their examples to model thoughtful, respectful civil dialogue. In this special episode of We the People, host Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Khan Academy founder and CEO Sal Khan, in a one-on-one conversation to discuss the state of civics in America today, in light of the recent Nation’s Report Card data showing a nationwide decline in civics and history scores; explain how the NCC and Khan Academy partnership and the Constitution 101 course can improve outcomes in civics education nationwide; the role of AI like Khanmigo in education and teaching about the Constitution and civil dialogue; and much more. Resources: Jeffrey Rosen and Sal Khan, TIME, “How We Can Repair Our Democracy and Build a More Perfect Union” NCC/Khan Academy partnership announcement, press release National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Report Card NCC’s Constitution 101 course  Sal Khan, TED Talk, “How AI could save (not destroy) education” Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently weighing two cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina that could end affirmative action in higher education. The National Constitution Center hosted a live program on May 4, 2023, featuring a conversation between constitutional law experts William B. Allen of Michigan State University and Hasan Kwame Jeffries of The Ohio State University. They discuss the history of affirmative action, the current cases before the Court, how the Court might rule in them, and how the outcome of the two cases could affect the future of affirmative action programs across the country. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Resources: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (Oral Argument Transcript; audio hosted by C-SPAN) Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (Oral Argument Transcript; audio hosted by C-SPAN) William B. Allen, “End of Affirmative Action 2023”   Interview with Hasan Kwame Jeffries, “Why Conservatives want the Supreme Court to take up Affirmative Action Case,” Yahoo!News   National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 1,” We the People podcast   National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 2,” We the People podcast   Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)   Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)   Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)   Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) Slaughter-House Cases (1873) Shelby County v. Holder (2013) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.