The Electoral Count Act of 1887 is the law that dictates the congressional procedure for certifying Electoral College results in a presidential election. Congress passed it in response to the presidential election of 1876, where Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but lost the presidency to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes because of contested results in three states.The law is also implicated in the attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. Now, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Susan Collins of Maine have introduced a bill they say will fix the Electoral Count Act.Rick Pildes of NYU Law and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law co-authored a piece for the Election Law Blog called “Why Congress should swiftly enact the Senate’s bipartisan ECA reform bill,” and today they joinhost Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the pros and cons of the bill.Listen to our first episode on the Electoral Count Act with Ned Foley and Brad Smith from January 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.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade and found no constitutional basis for a right to choose abortion. Teresa Stanton Collett of the University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota), David French of The Dispatch, Katherine Mayall of the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Mary Ziegler of UC Davis School of Law and author of Dollars for Life: The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican Establishment, join for a conversation exploring the role of the Supreme Court in shaping abortion rights under the Constitution, how U.S. abortion law compares to that of other countries after Roe, and what lessons the United States can learn from how abortion is treated by law in other nations. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.This program is presented in partnership and generously sponsored by the Center for Constitutional Design at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law.The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.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.

In June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, a case out of North Carolina about the power of state courts to review election regulations set by state legislatures. At the heart of the case is the so-called “independent state legislature” theory, which has gained popularity in some limited circles. The Supreme Court will now directly address it when it hears arguments in the case next term.Joining us to examine the arguments for and against the independent state legislature theory is Vikram Amar, dean of Illinois College of Law and co-author of an article in the Supreme Court Review that’s critical of the theory; and Jason Torchinsky, partner at Holtzman Vogel, and author of an amicus brief in Moore v. Harperon the side of North Carolina, on behalf of the National Republican Redistricting Trust. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Check out What is the “Independent State Legislature Doctrine”? – Part 1 from March 2022.The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.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.

On July 6th, the National Constitution Center hosted a panel to present the reports of teams participating in the Center’s Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy project. The project brings together three teams of leading experts— conservative, libertarian, and progressive—to identify institutional, legal, and technological reforms that might address current threats to American democracy.  Team conservative is comprised of Sarah Isgur, Jonah Goldberg, and David French—all of The Dispatch. Team libertarian includes Clark Neily and Walter Olson of the Cato Institute, and Ilya Somin of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. Team progressive is comprised of Edward Foley of The Ohio State University and Franita Tolson of USC Gould School of Law. The three team leaders—Sarah Isgur, Clark Neily, and Ned Foley—presented their reports and discussed their various suggested reforms, including those on which they agree and disagree about. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderated.  Learn more about the Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy initiative and read the full reports on the National Constitution Center’s website.Read the reports: Sarah Isgur, David French, and Jonah Goldberg, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy: Team Conservative Clark Neily, Walter Olson, and Ilya Somin, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy: Team Libertarian Edward B. Foley and Franita Tolson, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy: Team Progressive The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.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.

Back in March, we recapped oral arguments in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case concerning the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. On the last day of its term, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 opinion dealing a significant blow to the federal government’s ability to enact climate regulations, and calling into question the future of the administrative state. Joining us to unpack the opinion is Jonathan Adler, inaugural Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and founding director of the Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law; and Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.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.

Toward the end of yet another landmark Supreme Court term, the Court issued decisions in two major cases concerning religious liberty when it comes to education in America. Carson v. Makin held that the state of Maine can’t withhold public funding from families relying on vouchers to attend religious schools. And Kennedy v. Bremerton came out in favor of a public high school football coach who lost his job after leading prayers on the 50-yard line. These are big First Amendment cases with widespread implications for free exercise of religion and separation of church and state in schools nationwide. In this episode, Michael Moreland, of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, and Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, unpack the Court’s reasoning and help explain the outcomes. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.Also check out: “Student Aid, Religious Education, and the First Amendment,” We the People episode on Carson v. Makin “Football, Faith, and the First Amendment” and “Football, Faith, and the First Amendment – Part 2” We the People episodes on Kennedy v. Bremerton  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.

On Friday, June 24th, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The decision overrules the landmark cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which held that women have the constitutional right to seek pre-viability abortions. In this episode, professors Mary Ziegler of UC Davis Law School and O. Carter Snead of Notre Dame Law School join once again to unpack the constitutional reasoning in the majority opinion and the dissent, and the implications for the future of other unenumerated rights in America. Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Listen to “The Dobbs v. Jackson case – Part 1,” from November 25, 2021 Listen to “The Dobbs v. Jackson case – Part 2,” from December 3, 2021 Listen to “The Dobbs v. Jackson Case – Part 3,” from May 12, 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.

On Thursday, June 23, the Supreme Court released its opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v.Bruen. In a 6-3 opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that New York’s law requiring anyone seeking a concealed carry license to demonstrate they had “proper cause” for the license—or a special need for self-defense—violated the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. The decision expands the Second Amendment right to bear arms to include outside the home. To help us understand the opinion and what it means for gun rights, gun control measures and future reforms and legislation surrounding guns—including assault weapons bans—are Adam Winkler of UCLA, author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, and Clark Neily of the Cato Institute, who served as co-counsel in the landmark Second Amendment case District of Columbia v. Heller. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.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.

June is Pride Month. The first Pride March took place in June 1970, to commemorate the Stonewall Uprising the year prior. Today on We the People, we look back on LGBTQ rights and advocacy throughout American history—from key stories and figures to key court cases interpreting the scope of LGBTQ rights under the Constitution. James Kirchick, author of Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington, and Dale Carpenter, Judge William Hawley Atwell Chair of Constitutional Law at SMU and author of Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v Texas, join Jeffrey Rosen for the conversation.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.

As the congressional hearings for the events of January 6, 2021, continue, we’ll hear from The Honorable J. Michael Luttig, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, as he recounts a story of his historical tweet that contributed to Vice President Mike Pence’s decision to certify the results of the 2020 election, along with his reflections on how to prevent another January 6. He’s then joined by three experts—Ned Foley of The Ohio State University, Sarah Isgur of The Dispatch, and Clark Neily of the Cato Institute—who are each leading a team on a bipartisan project for the National Constitution Center, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy. They discuss other potential reforms including whether changes should be made to the Electoral Count Act and preview their forthcoming reports for the project, which will be published later this summer. Together, our panelists consider ways to strengthen American constitutional and democratic institutions against current and future threats. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This conversation was originally part of a live, private event hosted by the National Constitution Center in Coral Gables, Florida, recorded in May 2022 with permission from the speakers. The Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy project is made possible with the support of Mike and Jackie Bezos.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.