We the People

In this episode, two war powers experts explain and grapple with the legal and constitutional ramifications of the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian military leader General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad last week.Did the president have the authority under the Constitution – as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces – and under domestic and international law to unilaterally carry out the airstrike? Can it be justified as an act of self-defense, a response to an “imminent threat”, or anything less than an act of war? Or, does the law require Congress, not the president, to authorize such strikes? John Bellinger, former State Department Legal Adviser under Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and Oona Hathaway, an international law professor at Yale Law and Adviser to the State Department, answer those questions and more in conversation with host Jeffrey Rosen.Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The case that may determine if former White House Counsel Don McGahn must testify before Congress – about whether President Trump obstructed justice during the Mueller investigation – is being argued on appeal tomorrow, January 3rd. And, three other cases concerning requests for President Trump’s financial records – issued by Congress and, separately, by a New York State grand jury – will be heard by the Supreme Court in early 2020. All of these cases involve subpoenas – written orders compelling an individual or organization to produce evidence or to testify – and raise important questions about the power of Congress and the states to investigate the president and his aides. Guests Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law and Andy Grewal of Iowa Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to explain all four cases:These three cases will be heard by the Supreme Court in March 2020: Trump v. Mazars: The House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena requesting that President Trump’s accounting firm Mazars USA turn over financial records of President Trump and several of his business entities. The committee states that it's investigating whether and how to legislate on presidential financial disclosure requirements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the committee’s subpoena is valid. Trump v. Deutsche Bank: The House Committee on Financial Services and the House Intelligence Committee issued subpoenas requesting that President Trump’s creditors, Deutsche Bank and Capital One, release documents related to President Trump’s, his family’s, and his business’s finances. The committees state that they’re investigating whether and how to legislate on the practices of financial institutions and potential presidential conflicts of interest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the subpoenas. In this case and Mazars, the Trump administration is arguing (among other things) that the subpoenas exceed the committees’ powers and do not serve a “legitimate legislative interest.” Trump v. Vance: Cyrus Vance, district attorney of the County of New York, issued a state of New York grand jury subpoena requesting nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns for an inquiry into whether the President or his businesses violated New York law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the subpoenas. This case differs from the other two because the subpoena was issued by a state, not federal, authority. The McGahn case4.Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Donald F. McGahn II: The House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena calling for former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify before the committee on whether President Trump obstructed justice in Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. U.S. District Judge Ketanji Jackson ruled that McGahn must testify, and the Trump administration’s appeal of that decision will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia tomorrow.Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

2019 saw the impeachment of a president for just the third time in American history, the release of the Mueller report, and court battles over DACA, reproductive rights, and the Affordable Care Act. David French, TIME columnist and senior editor at The Dispatch, and Kate Shaw, Cardozo Law professor and ABC Legal Analyst, join host Jeffrey Rosen to review this year in constitutional debate. They give their takes on the possible long-term constitutional implications of the ongoing impeachment, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation in retrospect, and how the “Kavanaugh Court” is likely to rule in a key upcoming abortion case, the battle over rescinding DACA, and the question of whether President Trump must release his financial records.Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joins National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss his new book, Conversations with RBG: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life, Love, Liberty and Law—an informal portrait of the Justice through an extraordinary series of conversations, starting in the 1990s and continuing to today. They expand upon several of the conversations featured in the book, such as Justice Ginsburg’s favorite dissents, key gender cases she worked on throughout her career, and how to lead a productive, compassionate life of service. They also reflect on the performance that preceded the discussion. The discussion was preceded by a special performance of “The Long View: A Portrait of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Nine Songs” by Patrice Michaels, composer/soprano/creator and daughter-in law of Justice Ginsburg.The National Constitution Center gratefully acknowledges the Bernstein Family Foundation for its generous support of our education programs in Washington D.C. This program is made possible in part through support from the John Templeton Foundation. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As the House Judiciary Committee unveils articles of impeachment against President Trump, we’re sharing a fascinating two-part conversation on impeachment hosted here at the National Constitution Center on December 2nd. The first panel features leading constitutional scholars including NCC Scholar-in-Residence Professor Michael Gerhardt who testified as an impeachment expert before the House Judiciary Committee. The next panel (starting at 37 minutes) features current and former members of congress, including Vice Chair of the House Judiciary Committee Representative Mary Gay Scanlon. They share their candid takes on the current impeachment inquiry, how it’s been handled, and what the Framers might think.This program was originally shared on our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, in two parts. You can listen at these links: part one featuring the impeachment scholars and part two featuring the current and former members of Congress.Panel one features: Michael Gerhardt – National Constitution Center Scholar in Residence, CNN impeachment expert, and professor at UNC Law School Keith Whittington – professor of politics at Princeton University Kimberly Wehle – professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and CBS News legal analyst John Malcolm – Vice President of the Institution for Constitutional Government at Heritage  Moderator: Jeffrey Rosen – National Constitution Center President Panel two features: Rep. Dwight Evans (PA-03) Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-05)  Fmr. Rep. Charles Dent (PA-15) Fmr. Rep. Ryan Costello (PA-06) Moderator: Jeffrey Rosen – National Constitution Center President Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard the case New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. the City of New York which centers around a New York City gun regulation prohibiting residents from taking their guns to second homes and shooting ranges outside the city. After New York’s NRA affiliate and some gun-owning residents challenged the regulation, New York changed it – raising the question of whether this case is now “moot.” Explaining the “mootness” issue and diving into the legal and practical implications of the case – Second Amendment experts Darrell Miller of the Duke Center for Firearms Law and Clark Neily of Cato join host Jeffrey Rosen. They discuss the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment, what the right to “bear arms” really means, and how the Court should decide its first major Second Amendment case in almost a decade.Here’s some vocabulary that may be helpful to know this week:  Mootness: A case becomes moot if the controversy that was present at the start of litigation no longer exists.  Judicial review doctrines: A judicial review test is what courts use to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. There are three main levels in constitutional law:  Strict scrutiny: For a law to survive a court’s review under strict scrutiny, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Intermediate Scrutiny: A level down from strict scrutiny. The law must be substantially related to an important government interest. Rational basis: The most deferential kind of review. The law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Special thanks to the Duke Center for Firearms Law.Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The National Constitution Center’s initiative, ‘A Madisonian Constitution for All,’ is launching an essay series where leading scholars explore what James Madison, the “father of the Constitution”, might think about the presidency, Congress, courts, and the media today. This week, two of the authors celebrate the launch of the series by diving into all things presidential – how the office was conceived of at the Founding, evolved throughout history, was impacted by the rise of political parties and partisanship, and increasingly expanded its power. They also give their takes on the current impeachment investigation. Scholars Sai Prakash and Sean Wilentz, authors of the ‘Madisonian Constitution for All’ essays on the presidency, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Twitter recently announced that it will stop paid political advertising, with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey asserting that interest in political messaging should be earned, not bought. Meanwhile, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook would not stop hosting political ads, saying that the platform should not be responsible for policing speech online. Will Twitter’s efforts to regulate political ads work? Might Facebook’s more “hands-off” approach lead to unintended consequences for our democracy? Which approach to regulating speech might foster free expression the most? And how do policies of private institutions shape our free speech landscape, given that the First Amendment doesn’t bind Twitter or Facebook? This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Abrams v. United States, so we also consider: Are the landmark First Amendment cases, many of which were decided decades before social media existed, still relevant in a world of ever-changing digital platforms, bots, and disinformation campaigns? Digital speech experts Ellen Goodman of Rutgers University Law School and Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law join host Jeffrey Rosen.Some terms you should know for this week: Microtargetting: a marketing strategy that uses people’s data — about what they like, their demographics, and more — to segment them into small groups for content targeting on online platforms. Interoperability: the ability of computer systems or software to exchange and make use of information. In this context, that means that if platforms like Facebook were required to share data with other developers, those developers could create new platforms and there would be more competition in the market. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Two years ago, the Trump administration decided to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) — a policy enacted under President Obama that deferred the deportation of undocumented people brought to the United States as children. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard challenges to that decision and was faced with the questions: can the Court even review the decision to end DACA, since it was an action taken by the Department of Homeland Security, an executive branch agency? If it can, was the decision to rescind DACA legal? And is DACA itself legal and constitutional? Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston join host Jeffrey Rosen to dive into the questions.Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week, we’re celebrating the launch of host Jeffrey Rosen’s newest book, Conversations with RBG: Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life, Love, Liberty, and Law—an informal portrait of the justice through an extraordinary series of conversations, starting in the 1990s and continuing to today. Jeff has collected Justice Ginsburg’s wisdom from their many conversations on the future of the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade, which Supreme Court decisions she would like to see overturned, the #MeToo movement, and how to lead a productive, compassionate life – illuminating the determination, self-mastery, and wit of the “Notorious RBG.” Dahlia Lithwick, veteran Supreme Court reporter and host of the Slate podcast Amicus, moderates.Check out Conversations with RBG on Amazon and listen to the audiobook on Audible. The audiobook also has its very own Alexa skill – Ask RBG. You can ask your Amazon echo things like, “Alexa, ask RBG about the #MeToo movement” and you’ll hear clips from the real-life interviews with Justice Ginsburg featured in the audiobook.This episode is a crossover with our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall – live constitutional conversations held here at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and across America – which is available wherever you get your podcasts.