Amarica's Constitution

We’re back early this week, as promised in our last episode, to help you take in the spectacle underway on the floor of the House of Representatives.  We give you the historical background, the constitutional framework, and we look at some of the tactical and political machinations playing out in as close to real time as podcasts allow.  We also peek at the still-simmering Santos situation, which takes us back into the law classroom for a look at the classic case of Powell v. McCormack and how it resonates in this situation.  This is “next week’s episode” this week to keep you ahead of the game.

Two year anniversaries in Washington mean a new Congress, but this year January also brings the echoes and the legacy of January 6.  These intertwine most intimately, as the end of the old Congress necessitated the windup of the January 6 Commission, a report, some referrals, and all sorts of constitutional questions.  Meanwhile, it also brings a new Speaker election and why should anything be simple in Washington these days?  If that wasn’t spicy enough, the usually routine seating of the new House brings Representative-ish Santos to Washington with all of his chameleon-like mendacity.  We have to talk a bit about that, too.

The third season of Amarica’s Constitution begins with a special guest, as the star of the podcast “Strict Scrutiny,” Professor Kate Shaw, spends an hour with us.  Like Andy and Akhil, she attended the oral arguments in Moore v. Harper - as she had attended many arguments when she clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens.  Her insights on clerking for the Court are particularly timely, since Justice Stevens wrote the dissent in Bush v. Gore, which listeners know has been enjoying a lamentable rehabilitation, it seems, as the Moore case is argued and the infamous case keeps popping up.  Professor Shaw also scoops her own podcast with a fascinating insight that links the January 6 commissions actions this past week with the Moore case, and you are there to hear it!

The oral argument in Moore v. Harper lasted approximately three hours.  In our last podcast, we began an analysis by tracing some of the advocates’ arguments and justices’ responses.  This time, we go to the key questions that lay at the basis of all the back and forth.  We answer them, but more than that, we look at their underpinnings and construct a framework in which, we believe, all elements of the case fit together.  For your trouble, audience, you will receive a master class in the law of “Fed Courts,” you will hear excerpts from a debate with Professor Amar, and even hear from the dictator of San Marcos.

After a year of lead-up, Moore vs. Harper has landed at the Supreme Court for oral argument.  Akhil and Andy travel to Washington and attend the three hours of argument in the Chamber.  We play clips and analyze them - the words, the logic, the briefs, the lawyers, the justices, the clerks, the legal world, as America holds its collective breath while democracy itself hangs in the balance.  This is the place for the most nuanced and informed analysis of the positions.  We also post relevant documents at akhilamar.com/podcast-2, for your “one stop shopping” whether you are a concerned citizen, a member of the media, or even a Supreme Court clerk or justice.

Amarica’s Constitution is invited to Yale Law School by the YLS chapter of the Federalist Society for a live podcast, and Yale cooperates by choosing this day to withdraw from the US News rankings of Law Schools.  Naturally, we take that on, and it is the law students themselves that serve as our guests for a lively discussion.  Beyond this issue, however, we take a look inside this iconic Law School, and we see what it’s like for the FedSoc members - perhaps outside of YLS’ ideological mainstream, but as you will hear, an impressive and thoughtful lot.  Many of you will emerge from this listen with a sense that a valuable discourse can be had with them - and we can all agree that our nation needs more of that.  Or so one would think - but does Yale Law School concur?

It’s Part 2 of our discussion of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action cases, with Harvard and the University of North Carolina defending their procedures  We play clips from the oral arguments, with every justice chiming in along with the advocates, and our analysis follows.  This time we address themes that recurred during the arguments - how does one determine an endpoint for racial preferences in admissions?  How can we measure or pinpoint the educational value of diversity?  What is the appropriate level of diversity - is it necessarily identical to the proportional representation in the population?  And importantly, what might take the place of the “checkbox” that currently appears on most college applications, designating one’s race?  Professor Amar’s 1996 article, co-authored with Neal Katyal, somewhat prophetically touched on these and other themes, and it is referenced frequently in these discussions. 

It’s Amarica’s Constitution’s 100th episode, and anniversary celebrations are in the air!  We bring back Professor Steve Calabresi, who returns from the Federalist Society’s Lawyers Convention - which just celebrated its own 40th anniversary.  The occasion was marked by a memorable Rosenkranz Debate, wherein Akhil took on Professor John Yoo on - what else? - the merits and demerits of ISL theory, and the forthcoming case of Moore v. Harper.  Steve Calabresi was present at the debate, and he offers his color commentary .  Of course, Steve was one of the three authors of the amicus brief that has received so much attention, together with our two Amar brothers, and we hear his perspective and his unique contributions.  On top of it all, we celebrate our milestone by launching video, through our new Instagram account, amaricas_constitution, and soon, a TikTok account as well, with highlight clips, photos, and more.

Affirmative action is before the Supreme Court, and two cases - one involving Harvard, and one implicating the University of North Carolina - were recently argued before the Court.  We have pulled out clips from the more than six hours of argument, culled the main arguments, and we present them to you.  Listen to the voices of the justices and the advocates, and hear Akhil’s commentary and analysis.  This is the first of a planned two-podcast series.

The recent brief in the ISL case, Moore v. Harper, was notable in part because it was co-authored not only by our own Professor Amar and his brother, Dean Vik Amar, both well-known Democrats, but also by one of America’s best-known conservatives, Professor Steven Calabresi.  Steve is a co-founder and national chair of the Federalist Society, and importantly, this is not the first time he has crossed the aisle in matters of national import.  He joins our podcast and engages with his close friend, Akhil Amar, on a conversation that spans decades and gives insight in the founding, development, and present of this iconic conservative organization.  Characters from Ed Meese to Guido Calabresi take the stage.  You may be surprised as you learn the inside story from a consummate insider and scholar.