Amarica's Constitution

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?

The academic year is underway, and Professor Amar’s crazy teaching schedule, as usual, includes co-teaching with some of the greatest constitutional scholars in the nation.  This semester Akhil is joined by Professor Edward Larson, whose amazingly wide range includes a PhD in History of Science in addition to his Harvard Law degree. So it is not surprising that as Professor Larson joins us for this episode, our discussion of George Washington ventures into GW the scientist.  And speaking of scientists, Ed Larson also wrote a book on GW and Benjamin Franklin - was this an odd couple as it might first seem?  We also take another shot at the James Madison vs. GW question while we’re at it.  Oh, and religion shows up as well.

Our look inside the literary world continues. So many of us are aspiring or perhaps would-be authors, but what is really involved, and can we really join that world?  Akhil takes you through the many and sometimes surprising corners of this sphere, which is far more intricate than one might think.  His personal route was not quite as smooth as it might seem, and the story of his move from a very successful book to another publisher, told here for the first time, is quite revealing of the milieu and the man.

It’s fitting that our recent discussion of how authors and their books are realized is followed this week by a discussion with the finest example of a historian, Gordon Wood.  We explore his new book, “Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution;” locate it in the amazing arc of Gordon’s peerless career, and then conduct a lively discussion of what at first glance seems a clear disagreement between Akhil and Gordon:  who was the “father of the Constitution?”  The conclusion may surprise you.  Finally, our historical and constitutional titans address an area of ongoing controversy surrounding the American Founding.

It’s Constitution Week, and Akhil is “booked;” not only with events of the week, but on his book tour.  Our series on scholars, schools, and scholarship resumes, then, with a comprehensive look at the entire ecosystem of books.  What is the author’s process, and what happens after a book is written?  How does a book, and an author, gain authority in a world of ubiquitous social media?  And how does this take us to discussions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments?  We all believe we have a book in us, so this inside look speaks to all.

Texas has brazenly - or boldly, depending on your point of view - thrown down a gauntlet on abortion with their new law purporting to ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected.  The Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the law prior to its effective date, so the nation holds its breath wondering where abortion rights, long treasured by many, will head.  Meanwhile, the law deputizes the citizenry and takes enforcement out of the hands of state officials.  What’s going on?  Is this vigilantism?  Is this a rogue, unconstitutional adventure?  Is Roe v. Wade dead already?  Professor Amar is your guide to what is really happening.

Suppose there is a controversial issue of constitutional law.  Where does one go for authoritative exposition? We continue what is essentially a discussion of expertise and authority.  How do you know whom to trust?  Who has the right answers?  How might we go about finding out these things?  We continue to look at these questions in several arenas:  scholars, scholarship, and schools.  Interesting sidelights abound, as usual, and a Friendly detour finds an unusual consensus in the “who’s the best” category.

What do Willie Mays and Laurence Tribe have in common?  Andy and Akhil start with an Amar citation from Clarence Thomas in a case last term and branch off into a discussion of scholars’ rankings, the fourth amendment, legal realism, scholarship and schools, books vs. articles, and a dizzying array of other topics.  This potpourri launches a series on the inside of the academic world as well as a look at the recently concluded SCOTUS term.

We return to our look at all the sitting Supreme Court justices with the final two - Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.  This necessarily involves revisiting the confirmation process, particularly in the case of Justice Kavanaugh, where Professor Amar played a role in print and in the witness chair.  How have the first years of his tenure, along with Justice Barrett’s, played out in light of some of the events of those confirmations?  The early returns are fascinating.