It's 200 episodes for Amarica's Constitution, and we mark the occasion by bringing you a key expert for an in-depth exploration of a breaking development.  Ruth Marcus, long-time Washington Post columnist, editor, Pulitzer Prize nominee, and insider, joins us to explore the inexplicable:  the last-minute decision by the Post and its owner, billionaire Jeff Bezos, to withhold what would have been an endorsement for Vice President Harris for election to the Presidency.  What goes on in an editorial board?  What is the role of the owner?  What are the alternatives for editors, columnists, and reporters? Was Bezos intimidated by Trump?  What does all this mean for the nation?  We have the perfect means to explore this shocker: a frank and unhurried inquiry with our friend, Ruth Marcus.  What a way to mark our bicentennial.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

We are approaching our 200th episode and completing our 4th year of “Amarica’s Constitution,” and it seems appropriate to take stock.  By coincidence, the Yale Law School is celebrating its own anniversary, and these things come together as Akhil is part of a big event and presents a “big idea” that sounds like a strange saying: “the Constitution is a thing.”  We explain, elaborate, and celebrate a little bit.  We look back, and we look ahead to some real excitement over the next few months (besides the election, that is).  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

This discussion dives into the constitutional crisis sparked by Trump v. United States, highlighting the potential dangers of recent court decisions. Law professors suggest ways to rein in judicial authority, but flaws in their proposals are identified. The complex dynamic between Congress and the Supreme Court is examined, shedding light on historical tensions and the impact of public sentiment on legal decisions. Additionally, the podcast tackles voting dynamics, military residency issues, and misconceptions about voter fraud, all while addressing essential questions from listeners.

The Supreme Court has, through its recent follies, managed to bring the status of ex-presidents into the spotlight.  How appropriate, then, that perhaps America’s greatest ex-president reaches a milestone this past week:  Happy Birthday, President Carter.  The ex-presidents, it turns out, have told a myriad of stories through the centuries.  America largely avoided succession crises until recently, but as far back as Alexander Hamilton, the potential for mischief was seen and feared.  Professor Amar, one of the few who have studied ex-presidents in any detail, treats us to a master class in this unusual but suddenly vital group of Americans. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Donald Trump continues to spout inflammatory rhetoric; he has compounded his talk of being “a dictator on day one” with an intention to conduct a “purge” with extreme violence allowed, again allegedly for one day.  All this makes one expect that he will not back off his first-term tendency to take an authoritarian posture regarding the Justice Department. The New York Times ran an article presenting new and thorough look at Trump and the Dept in his prior term, and we analyze.  We also take more of your election-related constitutional questions. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.  

Nebraska is no flyover state; its unusual electoral vote structure puts Omaha’s one electoral vote up for grabs - both as a contest for votes, and a legislative battle to possibly restructure Nebraska’s election law.  We tell an originalist story form the early Republic that surprisingly echoes some of the issues in today’s situation. Meanwhile, other types of blue dots, and how the right to travel and to reside where one wishes can play a role in the election.  We also try to proactively refute the inevitable accusations to come from predictable sources on these matters.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The New York Times looks at the Constitution as an allegedly anti-democratic, divisive, secession-promoting document.  They bring authority to bolster their case in the person of the Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky.  We take a close look at this article and the arguments it employs.  This takes us to the center of the Constitution’s purposes, of course to questions of originalism, as well as an analysis of what sort of democracy the Constitution protects, and what sort it might protect against. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

It’s time for your questions, and having a great audience means there are so many fascinating directions to go.  A Canadian listener tells of how a non-originalist purpose-oriented approach to constitutional law works for them - why not in the US?  We go in a different direction when we consider the wisdom of increasing the size of the House of Representatives.  Still another asks about whether the presidential immunity decision has undermined some fundamental aspects of criminal law, not to mention one of the Court’s greatest moments - the Nixon tapes case.  Keep those questions coming!  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Ruth Marcus, a sharp Washington Post columnist, dives into the intriguing world of political legacies and constitutional themes. She analyzes RFK Jr.'s surprising endorsement of Trump and its familial fallout. The discussion also critiques Senate Majority Leader Schumer's proposed legislation responding to Trump's immunity opinion. With a nod to political dynasties, they explore the tension between familial legacies versus merit in elections, emphasizing the need for principles over opportunism in political endorsements.

Professor Amar, a prominent legal scholar, discusses the Supreme Court's surprising trend of overruling the Fifth Circuit, exposing its implications for judicial integrity. He explores the historical context of judicial structures and contrasts them with the ideological influences driving today’s rulings. Amar also critiques past behaviors of various circuits, including the liberal Ninth Circuit. The conversation exposes the tension between judicial independence and accountability, raising essential questions about potential reforms in a polarized legal landscape.