We deliver a long-promised episode, as the audience guides the discussion this week with their penetrating questions.  Was Akhil too easy on Mitch McConnell?  How about bringing on expert X or Y?  Should SB8 prompt a new exception to Younger abstention?  Oh, and by the way - what is "Younger abstention?" Can judges be ousted without impeachment?  As you see, we have a very educated audience.  Indeed, once you have completed the podcast, you will find yourselves that much more informed, as these sometimes complex concepts are explained in Akhil’s usual approachable if inimitable way.

We continue our discussion of the Equal Rights Amendment.  Is it the proposed ERA, the adopted ERA, or the dead ERA?  Some say we already have an ERA in the 14th and 19th Amendments; Akhil and Jesse explore what some women, such as Elizabeth Lady Stanton, had to say about the 14th Amendment and equal rights back in the day.  The SCOTUS was asked to weigh in on amendment adoption dates back in the 1930’s - they punted.  Would that happen again, should this reach them?  And - would it be better to have an ERA “Now Now Now,” as many insist, or is there a better way? Finally, Professor Amar is about to do something he hasn’t done in 22 years.  What is so important that it prompted this?

The Archivist of the United States is in the news, and if that’s happening, you know some esoteric constitutional question is up.  Fortunately, “Amarica’s Constitution,” is on the case.  We have New York Times Editorial Board member, Jesse Wegman, who wrote for the Times on this subject recently, raising all sorts of issues - which Akhil is happy to answer for Jesse and for all of us.  Meanwhile, this is all about the Equal Rights Amendment, and Amendments in general, and Article V of the Constitution, and what about ERA anyway - what would it do?  All this and more - with feeling.  There’s a lot here, so this is part one of two.

We continue our mining of Gary Hart’s wisdom, as the former Senator, and Presidential candidate weighs in on the sort of questions a public and political intellectual confronts over a lifetime.  How can we think about Ukraine and Russia in light of our past?  Would tensions between the US and Russia today be particularly different if Gary Hart had won the presidency in 1988, given the story he tells about his prospective inauguration?  The richness of a conversation with Gary Hart is such that even a passing reference produces a new insight on how the Cold War might have taken a different path.  We hear inside references on what it’s like to run for President from a principal player in 3 presidential races:  1974, 1984, and 1988. Inevitably, stories never before heard emerge, and they are here for you to savor.

Amidst a host of state-level voting law initiatives, the Senate considers voting rights bills.  Without 60 votes on hand, the Democrats have proposed extending the “nuclear option” to some or all legislation; this past week, they debated and voted on it.  We have digested the 13 hours of debate and play for you relevant clips, with Professor Amar weighing in on who has the history and/or the Constitution right, and who is playing with facts and founders.  A potpourri of Senators, from Leaders McConnell and Schumer, to recent Presidential candidate Klobuchar, and numerous others, weigh in and debate on whether or not the Senate shall, in fact, debate.  

Exactly 10 years to the day prior to the January 6 outrages, Professor Amar and former Senator Gary Hart teamed up for a history-changing article explaining how the filibuster could become a thing of the past. In ensuing years, the “nuclear option” they outlined was invoked on presidential appointments, then Supreme Court nominations, and now it is so close to being gone for good.  But this is just one episode in an epic American life served in the public sphere, and we go afield to begin to tap the endless insights of this man who was nearly President, and wound up doing, and knowing, more than you can imagine - and he begins to share it with us.  Part one of two special episodes.

As year 2 of “Amarica’s Constitution” begins, we complete our year 1 recap with remarkable clips, some from outstanding guests: Neal Katyal on preparing and executing Supreme Court advocacy (including the specifics of a recent case he argued); Nadine Strossen (on how this ACLU leader has some surprisingly nuanced positions that the ACLU might not love); and Linda Greenhouse (on sources - who has them, and who doesn’t). We also hear from the SCOTUS Justices in oral argument clips from one of our most popular episodes, on abortion, unsurprisingly. We update our thoughts on the Biden commission. Finally, your questions are getting better, prompting Akhil to give respectful (!) and nuanced answers.

Amarica’s Constitution takes to the road, as the Yale Club of the Palm Beaches, Florida, hosts us with a live audience of constitutional aficionados!  The long-delayed book tour of “The Words That Made Us” finally assumes a recognizable form, as Akhil gives a whirlwind tour of the first 80 years of America’s Constitutional Conversation.  Aside from a sense of the book, you should come away from this episode knowing 20-30 things you either didn’t know, or wrongly understood before.  The audience then questions Professor Amar from founding to Trump - literally, as no holds are barred.

Amarica’s Constitution celebrates one year of podcasting, and what a year it was.  From the steps of the Capitol to the bench of the Court, we were there with coverage and analysis. In this episode we replay clips from, among others, Bob Woodward, Philip Bobbitt, and Neal Katyal, as they discussed and debated everything from impeachment to abortion with Akhil and Andy.  And, as long promised, your questions submitted throughout the year are answered!

The Supreme Court is still in the news, with vaccine mandate follies and more, and we continue to be there to help you decipher it.  This week, our timing is perfect: the long-time, Pulitzer-winning NY Times correspondent, now columnist, Linda Greenhouse, joins us for a discussion of the Court and her new book: “Justice on the Brink: The Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Rise of Amy Coney Barrett, and Twelve Months that Transformed the Supreme Court.”  In light of Justice Breyer’s retirement issues (and how RBG’s retirement echoes loudly), the current torrent of impactful cases, and our recent commentary and other guests, this couldn’t be more timely.  Linda’s book prepares us to ask if the Roberts Court is gone and the Trump Court arrived - and now we can begin to answer the question, as the Court slowly unveils its character.   Best of all, you can find out what all this has to do with an iguana.