Amarica's Constitution

The Colorado Supreme Court opinion on disqualifying Donald Trump, though long anticipated, landed like a tornado.  Op-eds, pundits, academics, officials - all are weighing in.  It’s a victory for democracy - no, it’s antidemocratic.  Section Three is a dead letter - no, it’s self-executing.  Trump is out - no, this helps him.  America is reaffirmed - no, there will be violence in the streets. Liberals are split; conservatives are split.  What will the Supreme Court do?  Spend some time with Amarica’s Constitution and we will help you make sense of it, and we will present the best and worst arguments out there.  And - get some CLE for your trouble!  Visit podcast.njsba.com after listening.

The administrative state is up for grabs, some say, in the case of SEC v. Jarkesy, which was argued before the Supreme Court recently.  We have another “clip” episode, with Akhil weighing in on attorneys and justices alike.  It’s particularly appropriate in this case, because so much of the case concerns juries and the 7th amendment - which, by the way, Akhil has written extensively on.  That’s probably why he’s cited in so many of the briefs.  We also heard some noise out of Colorado, by the way.  CLE credit is available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.

Special guests William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, leading experts on Donald Trump's disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, discuss the arguments made in court and in the media. They cover topics such as confirmatory evidence, interpretation of Section 3, critiques of enforcement, understanding departmentalism, the nature of law and constitution, risks of political retaliation and violence, disqualification vs punishment, the psychology of judges, judicial restraint, the importance of judges ruling on cases, and the extent of Supreme Court authority.

There is no shortage of tributes to the just passed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and rightly so, and this first female Justice richly deserves praise and memory.  We aim to offer a tribute by taking her seriously as a Justice of ideas as well as the frequently mentioned deeply human remarkable woman she was. Fortunately, Akhil’s career has been intertwined with Justice O’Connor’s in a remarkable back-and-forth of ideas, cases, refinement, and legal innovation, so our perspective is a deeply informative one.  Among other things, we look at the 10 most significant areas of jurisprudential impact in this remarkable but somehow underestimated to the end titan. CLE credit available after listening from podcast.njsba.com.

Donald Trump’s disqualification for the Presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is on the docket for the Colorado Supreme Court next week.  We have brought the two leading experts on the history of this clause to our podcast. They have written extensively on the 38th-40th Congresses who passed and first acted under the amendment; on John Bingham, the “James Madison” of the Fourteenth; and they continue to provide pertinent historical details on almost a daily basis.  Professor Magliocca testified in the District Court hearing on this.  Suffice it to say, then, that the best arguments on both sides will be aired here first, before they are heard in Colorado, and you will be the judge today.  CLE credit available at podcast.njsba.com.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in US v. Rahimi, a significant gun case, and we get to work.  We have pulled clips from the argument so you can hear the justices and advocates in their own words, and Akhil comments after each clip.  The case is important in itself, with wide implications regarding permissible gun regulation, and it also touches on a number of key methodological points that teach about originalism - properly done, and perhaps at times, improperly done.  CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com

The Amars’ amicus brief in Moore vs. United States is the talk of the legal ecosphere.  Akhil’s co-author, Professor Vik Amar, joins us for analysis of the precedents that followed Hylton - faithful and otherwise.  This tour de force of legal analysis is perfectly suited for your CLE credit.  We also look at recent comments from the Supreme Court on Moore’s issues, and survey the reactions to the brief’s release.  Various arguments that purport to address some of the brief’s claims have emerged:  in support, in conflict, and complementary; we analyze and respond to them.

In our 150th episode, we present the amicus brief in Moore v. United States, authored by Professor Amar with his brother, Professor Vikram Amar.  Reminder: CLE credit is available after listening by going to podcast.njsba.com.  The brief begins with the provocative statement that most other briefs in the case have missed the point?  What is the point that they missed?  We explain how their focus on the 16th amendment misses the basic constitutional questions which the Court answered back in 1796 in the Hylton v. US case. Who says so?  Some guys named Washington and Hamilton, to start. And this Lincoln fellow agreed later. But everyone seems to have missed this.  You won’t.

The follies in the House have ended, for now.  Many Americans looked upon the travesty with despair, wondering if our government might yet be up to the task of leading and reaching beyond party to find country and duty.  We take a good look and search for places where reaching across the aisle might still take place - and we try to do our part and go beyond demonizing those not in our own party.  Plus - the Amars’ amicus brief is up in Moore vs. US, and we open that door.  This episode is eligible for CLE credit at podcast.njsba.com.

Still no speaker.  Is it really the case that the House can’t do anything?  How might it work?  What about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - does it play any role in the Speaker selection process?  Meanwhile, we turn towards the other Jordan and see the dangers of insecure borders that are inherently hard to defend.  Professor Amar explains how this simple fact led him to insights that resulted in a constitutional narrative quite different from those you may have been taught, and which makes certain predictions and conclusions.  Does it stand up?  We begin a process, which we will return to, of seeing where it leads us.  A sweeping episode - eligible for CLE credit by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.