The podcast discusses the opinion in Trump v. Anderson, Justice Barrett's concurrence, audience questions, news media's latest directions, Justice Breyer's new book, and seeds planted by Professor Amar. CLE credit is available. The hosts share details about an upcoming scholar program at Yale focusing on the revolution course. Contrasting viewpoints on Aristotle and Plato are explored. Constitutional interpretation, gender rights, civil discourse in the legal field, impeachment analysis, congressional authority, electoral count process, due process arguments, unenumerated rights, and tradition in constitutional law are discussed.

A deep dive into the dissenting Justices' critique of the Trump v. Anderson case, focusing on their disagreement with the per curiam. Exploration of the complexities of assuming motives and interpretive charity. Detailed examination of a concurrence by three Justices and their level of agreement and disagreement. Delving into the Warren Court's response to a new statute challenging prior Supreme Court cases and Congressional authority over court actions.

Exploring different types of concurrences in Trump v. Anderson and diverging opinions among justices; dissecting arguments and addressing opposition to the entire Court. Delving into outlier laws, Fifth Amendment implications, elector selection, criticisms of majority decisions, federalism principles, state influence on elections, and flawed arguments in legal citations.

The podcast discusses a rushed Supreme Court ruling on Trump v. Anderson with unanimous errors. Critiques on lack of quality, notorious cases cited, and a flawed opinion dissected. Examining the 14th Amendment's enforcement and state/federal power dynamics. Debates on state autonomy, statutes in Colorado, and challenges of removing officeholders. Analysis of constitutional problems, lack of engagement with key points, and disqualification post-14th Amendment. Courthouse discussions on unity despite discord among justices.

We’re back, and still waiting for the opinion in Trump v. Anderson, which gives us a chance to highlight important new evidence that has come to light - thanks in large part to Professor Amar’s great law student team.  It fatally undermines what seemed likely to be the reasoning the opinion was going to take.  Will it matter?  This is related to the role amici play in the Court ecosystem, and we look at how another case we had a brief in, Moore v. US, seemed to be possibly influenced by our brief by beginning our long-promised clip-based analysis of that oral argument. So a whole lot in a compact episode.  CLE is available from podcast.njsba.com.

As promised, we return in very short order with the completion of our analysis and response to the oral argument in Trump v. Anderson - before the Court has ruled. Again, key clips from the argument are played and dissected. The previous Part I episode concentrated on arguments concerning self-execution of Section Three; this episode reviews many of the other issues addressed by the Court, from questions of the nature of the Presidential Election and the closely related Electoral College, to the persistent irritant of "officer" and "office" questions.  As in the prior episode, Professor Amar “slows everything down” to allow you and hopefully the Court avoid sweet-sounding but flawed paths.  This episode is posted 8 days early for this reason. Continuing legal education credit is available; visit podcast.njsba.com after listening.

The podcast discusses the oral argument in the Trump v. Anderson case, highlighting mistaken representations and key lines of argument. It analyzes various topics including state offices, term limits, voting against longevity in office, and complexities of enforcing rules for sitting officers. The potential consequences of Jonathan Mitchell's statements and the role of the Supreme Court in presidential elections are also explored.

Special guest Ted Widmer, a distinguished historian and professor, joins the podcast to discuss the conspiracy to prevent Lincoln's election and cripple the Union, exploring the implications for the Trump v. Anderson case. They compare historical events to the Capitol insurrection, analyze Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and emphasize the importance of a peaceful transfer of power.

Debate on Trump's disqualification, importance of 14th Amendment enforcement, provisions as swords and shields, criticism of trial judge's findings, misinterpretation of Cohen's case, expectations for enforcing restrictions on insurrectionists, inconsistency in 14th Amendment Section 3 interpretation, irrelevance of McKee, challenges of accelerated briefing schedules, correcting mistakes in legal practice, challenges of applying originalism, importance of disseminating legal knowledge in society.

Explore the upcoming Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson and the compelling history in the amicus brief. Learn about the parallels between ex-President Trump's actions and the concerns of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Delve into the motivations and figures behind the drafting of the amendment, with a focus on John B. Floyd. Discover the enduring lessons of the 14th Amendment and its application to Jefferson Davis and Trump. Analyze conflicting rulings and disqualification based on Section Three of the Constitution. Also, learn about opportunities for legal education and the importance of proper citation.