In our 150th episode, we present the amicus brief in Moore v. United States, authored by Professor Amar with his brother, Professor Vikram Amar.  Reminder: CLE credit is available after listening by going to podcast.njsba.com.  The brief begins with the provocative statement that most other briefs in the case have missed the point?  What is the point that they missed?  We explain how their focus on the 16th amendment misses the basic constitutional questions which the Court answered back in 1796 in the Hylton v. US case. Who says so?  Some guys named Washington and Hamilton, to start. And this Lincoln fellow agreed later. But everyone seems to have missed this.  You won’t.

The follies in the House have ended, for now.  Many Americans looked upon the travesty with despair, wondering if our government might yet be up to the task of leading and reaching beyond party to find country and duty.  We take a good look and search for places where reaching across the aisle might still take place - and we try to do our part and go beyond demonizing those not in our own party.  Plus - the Amars’ amicus brief is up in Moore vs. US, and we open that door.  This episode is eligible for CLE credit at podcast.njsba.com.

Still no speaker.  Is it really the case that the House can’t do anything?  How might it work?  What about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - does it play any role in the Speaker selection process?  Meanwhile, we turn towards the other Jordan and see the dangers of insecure borders that are inherently hard to defend.  Professor Amar explains how this simple fact led him to insights that resulted in a constitutional narrative quite different from those you may have been taught, and which makes certain predictions and conclusions.  Does it stand up?  We begin a process, which we will return to, of seeing where it leads us.  A sweeping episode - eligible for CLE credit by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.

The House is at it again, and there is no Speaker in the chair as of this recording.  So many implications - for Presidential succession, for democratic governance, for legislative stalemate.  Meanwhile violence escalates in the Middle East.  How are these connected?  We explore all these, and Akhil has some fascinating originalist analyses - of history you surely didn’t know; of structural reasons that the Speaker can’t be in the line of succession; and a new textual analysis.  Meanwhile - why can’t the House act?  Has this happened before?  (Hint: yes)  NOTE: CLE Credit Available for this episode by going to podcast.njsba.com after listening.

After the Court decided important voting rights and affirmative action cases last term, these issues are back either before the Court or apparently headed for it. Why? We look at Allen v. Milligan, and affirmative action in the service academies, and find that the bounce-back of what seem to be entirely unrelated cases in fact demonstrates important constitutional and indeed originalist principles.  And who is at the center of all this?  Justice Kavanaugh, once again. (CLE CREDIT IS AVAILABLE for lawyers and judges for this episode.)

The career of America’s greatest investigative reporter has spanned more than 50 years, and Bob Woodward has told the stories of eleven presidents, the Supreme Court, the Intelligence Community, and indeed the American political system with a penetrating, persistent drive towards the truth. (LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.) Today this titan spends 90 minutes with us, and the insights continue to pour out of him. One can’t help but see Nixon at one end and Trump near the other; Woodward certainly sees them, and even with his ever-present professional distance and restraint, it’s powerful to hear the most deeply informed perspective there has ever been on the Constitution’s most ambitious creation - the Presidency - and the extraordinarily aberrant occupants of that office.

It’s almost October, and the Supreme Court readies to hear a new set of cases.  The Roberts Court seems defined above all by the Dobbs decision at this point.  The opinion, authored by Justice Alito, has been exhaustively dissected, but looking forward, we see various states taking further and more extreme actions.  What role will the so-called swing justices, some of whom wrote concurrences in the case, play in the litigation that the new developments will likely spawn?  What of the dire predictions of many pundits in the aftermath of the case?  And what about Amarica’s Constitution - what did we say, and what say we now? Travel the road with us.

It’s an assortment of topics as listeners response to some recent developments and nagging questions.  We revisit the 303 case, specifically the dissent, as Justice Jackson lays out an interesting hypothetical that doesn’t produce, perhaps, the intended response - at least from Professor Amar.  Meanwhile, Justice Alito is back in the news with his judicial Declaration of Independence - Akhil may not quite agree.  We also have an exciting prelude to a big announcement about our podcast!

Two recent major podcast themes - section 3 of the fourteenth amendment, and judicial ethics - echoed through the news this past week.  Wisconsin legislators seek to impeach a new state Supreme Court Justice before she even sits for a case; and in Washington, Justice Alito is asked to recuse himself because of an interview he gave. Meanwhile, Section 3 is addressed by a former US Attorney General, who says it is inapplicable to the President for reasons that may seem counterintuitive, even strange.  We analyze the claims as well as what lies behind them in our constitutional system. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Legal experts William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen continue their exclusive discussion on the enforceability of Section Three of the 14th Amendment, exploring its potential application to Donald Trump and others. They analyze Congress's role in enforcement, discuss recent cases related to the January 6th insurrection, and raise questions about who has the authority to interpret the Constitution. The podcast also delves into the concept of rebellion, the president's obligations, and the exclusion of specific individuals from office.