Amarica’s Constitution is 50 - 50 episodes, that is.  The Supreme Court isn’t done with abortion yet, as it marks our “silver episode” unveiling with a pair of rulings on the Texas abortion law, SB8.  The rulings themselves may not be long remembered, but the opinions contained sentences that shocked Professor Amar.  In a happy coincidence, the Friday rulings coincided with a Friday taping, and we happened to have a special guest - Ed Whelan, creator of the well-known “Bench Memos” legal blog and Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.  We dissect the very revealing statements by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Sotomayor, and others, on an eventful day.

The oral argument is complete in the Mississippi abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. In our previous two episodes, Professor Amar prepared our audience with a remarkable menu of constitutional theory, a recap of the relevant cases and the orientation of the justices.  We now look at the actual argument and find where it cohered with Akhil’s notions.  We critique the arguments, the advocates, and the arbiters, and discuss arguments that might have been made.  Was precedent ("Stare Decisis") the theme, and did it have to be?  The voices of the justices, inserted in our podcast, put you right there, with Professor Amar as your guide.

Fifty years of controversial jurisprudence have followed Roe v. Wade, and now the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case that many see as this story’s reckoning: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  In our last episode Professor Amar identified “precedent” as the legal coordinates where the abortion road may fork.  He now lays out the conflicting theories of precedent which the informed citizen needs to command when following this case. i Listeners to this episode will be armed with the tools to decipher today’s oral argument and tomorrow’s decision/opinion; indeed, in the briefs attached to this week’s “Show Notes,” both sides make arguments that will sound familiar to listeners to this podcast.  One can only hope that the Justices are as informed as Amarica’s Constitution’s audience.

Abortion, and Roe v. Wade, is in the news again as the Supreme Court prepares to review challenges to the Mississippi law which, if upheld, would amount to an overrule of Roe.  Professor Amar tells us that the argument, in addition to discussions of abortion itself, will center on the role of precedent.  To prepare us for an examination of the particulars of this case, he conducts a master class on precedent.  Akhil has written extensively and authoritatively on this over the years; our audience will thus be among the most informed and comprehending spectators when oral argument takes place in December.  We will follow this next week, as we did in the recent gun case, by applying the principles just covered to the actual case.

Now that our audience are masters of rights analysis after last week’s overview and framework presentation, we turn to the current SCOTUS gun rights case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Consistent with Professor Amar’s approach, we begin with the text of the 2nd and 14th Amendments, along with a fascinating historical analysis.  When that is complete, the questions the Justices asked during oral argument take on a whole new meaning, both in seeing clearly the points they were emphasizing, and perhaps in some cases, those they were missing.  

Gun rights are in the news again as the Supreme Court hears New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.  Professor Amar discusses his landmark work on the Bill of Rights, and invites you to join him in an analysis of the issues in this and other “rights” cases.  These cases require an appropriate methodology, and we are treated to a master class in the tools we need to perform this analysis.  As we jump into the case, we will be armed with the framework we need for 2nd amendment cases, 14th amendment cases, and indeed most of the landmark cases that have come before the court over the past half-century, and will be before us, and the Court, now and in the near future.

Our series on books and authoring takes a look back at - what else?  - the opening of a book.  What comes first can make all the difference, but what makes for a great opening?  And there are things before the opening - the forward, the preface, the dedication, the title, the cover.  It’s all grist for our mill, with classic openings as well as deep dives into Akhil’s own books’ kickoffs.

What began as an exploration of sources of authority - citations, rankings, reviews, sales - now continues with our inside look at book writing and publishing.  For those who have considered eventually writing a book themselves - and who among us hasn’t? - we take a deeply honest and nuanced look at all aspects of the process, including many most of us take for granted.  Professor Amar’s personal approach to book writing is discussed, and one short example of it tells the story of Story himself - Joseph Story, that is, and his ongoing role in Akhil’s ambitions.

Remember “18 reasons for 18 years?”  Well, so did the Biden Commission, and as they reject court packing, they flirt with the 18 year plan.  A few voices are raising in the media and even some on the commission, so we review their arguments and analyze their possible merits.  A big question - can it be implemented by statute, or is a constitutional amendment required?  No surprise that Akhil has a clear opinion on this.  If this happens, you heard it here first - or rather, you read it first back in 2002 when Akhil and his co-author came up with it.

Amarica’s Constitution shares the stage this week with the fine podcast “So to Speak” from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).  Professor Amar is interviewed by FIRE, and the history of the First Amendment leads to - surprise! - any number of fascinating constitutional law issues.  Akhil takes time out to take issue with Robert Bork, by the way.   And who kicked the dog?