We the People

Richard Cordray, the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from 2012-2017, and Ilya Shapiro, the co-author of an amicus brief in support of Seila Law, joined host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case. This case, which the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in on Tuesday, is a challenge to the constitutionality of the leadership structure of the CFPB, and its outcome could affect the future of the agency as a whole.The CFPB is a regulatory agency responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. Currently, the president can only fire the CFPB director “for cause,” i.e. only for wrongdoing, not for a policy disagreement. This lawsuit asks whether that restriction violates presidential power and the separation of powers, and, if it does, can it be struck down without invalidating the entire Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB? This episode explores those questions and more.Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The controversy over the sentencing of President Trump’s former associate Roger Stone has raised larger questions about the role of the Department of Justice, presidential power, and the rule of law including: Should the president be able to influence sentencing in individual cases? What level of control should he have over DOJ? And, more broadly, how should the president exercise power? Host Jeffrey Rosen dives into those questions with Professor John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, and Professor Kim Wehle, former assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C.Need a refresher on the Stone sentencing controversy? Here’s a timeline of events from ABC News.Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Picking up on some of the themes of last week’s episode, historians Lindsay Chervinsky and Craig Bruce Smith discuss how George Washington conceived of civic virtue, honor, and public service both as a general and as president. They explain why, during the Revolution, “without Washington there was no army” and, how, later, President Washington was considered by many to be “the embodiment of the nation.” Smith and Chervinsky offer a holistic portrayal of Washington — the good and the bad — and contemplate his constitutional legacy as the creator of a powerful executive branch and the first president to peacefully transfer power. Washington’s birthday is this Saturday, February 22.Correction: In this episode, Jeff mistakenly said that Alexis Coe’s book You Never Forget Your First: A Biography of George Washington includes a claim that Washington “likely engaged in premarital sex - nonconsensual sex - with an enslaved woman.” Instead, Coe actually quotes a letter written about Washington that describes his possible premarital sex with a “Cirprian Dame,” and explains what that term might have meant.Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In these polarized times and in the wake of impeachment – how can we be a better “We the People”? Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Margaret Taylor of Lawfare and Adam White of AEI to discuss the values that our founders thought were necessary to uphold American government, and whether or not the American people and our representatives are living up to them. The episode centers around the idea of civic virtue: a political philosophy term which describes personal qualities associated with the effective functioning of the civil and political order, or the preservation of its values and principles (per Encyclopedia Britannica.) Margaret Taylor and Adam White are authors of pieces for The Battle for the Constitution – a partnership between The National Constitution Center and The Atlantic which features essays exploring the constitutional issues at the center of American life. Check out the page here: https://www.theatlantic.com/projects/battle-constitution/ Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This live conversation at George Washington Law School recaps the arguments presented on both sides of the impeachment trial. GW Law professor Andrew Knaggs – who served in the Trump administration’s Department of Defense – presents arguments against convicting the president, and his colleague Professor Peter Smith – a former Justice Department lawyer – presents pro-conviction arguments. They discuss the facts and circumstances surrounding President Trump’s impeachment, how “mixed motive” situations should be dealt with, what constitutes obstruction of Congress, whether or not impeachable offenses must be crimes, and more. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Virginia legislature ratified the Equal Rights Amendment earlier this month, and Virginia, Illinois, and Nevada filed a lawsuit this morning urging a federal judge to declare that the ERA is now part of the Constitution. This episode explores the fast-developing constitutional question of whether an amendment that declares that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex” will be adopted, despite its unusual ratification process. Dr. Julie Suk, author of a forthcoming book on the ERA, and Professor Sai Prakash, author of an article on its ratification process, join host Jeffrey Rosen.Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue – a case that may have major implications for the free exercise of religion and the future of school choice and public education. The lawsuit asks whether Montana violated the federal constitution when it terminated a program that gave tax breaks to people who donated to a scholarship fund, which was used by students attending both religious and secular private schools. Our guests explain the technicalities of the case, and how it squares with some of the Court’s key decisions on the separation of church and state. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Michael Bindas – a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice (IJ), the group representing the parents who filed suit after the program was terminated – and Alice O’Brien – General Counsel at the National Education Association (NEA), who’s written about the case for SCOTUSblog.Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Today, Chief Justice John Roberts was sworn in at the United States Senate to preside over the third presidential impeachment trial in American history. On this week’s episode, Ken Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Clinton before his impeachment, and Joan Biskupic, CNN Supreme Court analyst and biographer of Chief Justice Roberts, join host Jeffrey Rosen to preview the trial. They discuss how disagreements over trial procedure, including whether or not to call witnesses, might be resolved. They also offer insight into how the Chief will likely handle his role, and how past Chief Justicse have presided. [This episode was recorded on Monday, January 13th, before the announcement that Ken Starr would be joining President Trump's legal team.]Questions or comments? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.[Jeff offers a special chance to win his book Conversations with RBG if you write in before 11:59 a.m. on 1/20/19 completing the stanza of one of his favorite operas. Book contest open to US + Canada legal residents 18 +. No purchase necessary; void where prohibited! Limit one per listener.]

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.