Amarica's Constitution

Professor Amar's star student joins the podcast to discuss constitutional issues from Trump's trial. They address family questions, explore college campus protests, and highlight the intricacies of presidential pardons and self-pardons.

This week we continue with clips from the oral argument in the immunity case (Trump v. United States).  Most of this week’s clips come from attorney Dreeben (representing the Special Counsel, and therefore the people of the United States), and some of the Justices have at him, sometimes in way Professor Amar finds wrong-headed or worse.  Our own argument is brought to bear upon these controversies, and a consistent way of addressing these questions emerges.  Clarity on the argument emerges.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The nine Justices heard arguments on ex-president Trump’s attempt to claim a sweeping immunity from criminal liability and prosecution.  We present clips from the argument and our commentary, including some historical analysis of claims that Benjamin Franklin spoke in favor of such a thing (spoiler:  NO), and many other claims which we had predicted in recent weeks.  There is clear acceptance of some of the arguments we have made by many of the Justices, but questions remain to be sure, and we begin to address them in this first part of a planned two-episode arc of clip and comment.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

As we close in on oral argument in the Trump v. United States case wherein Trump asserts some sort of permanent presidential immunity, we close out our preparatory analysis.  Impeachment’s relationship to criminal prosecution is explored.  Some founding-era conversations involving, for example, John Adams, inform our discussion.  Does the concept of double jeopardy play a role? Our hope is that these episodes prepare you for the oral argument with a comprehensive theory of how no one is held above the law even as a powerful executive sits high in We the People’s government.  CLE credit is available after listening from podcast.njsba.com.

As oral argument in the Trump immunity case draws closer, we continue our discussion of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Do so-called “official acts” during a president’s tenure in office raise special considerations? Constitutional text seems to offer an easy way out of the case - but does it, really -  and historical precedents enter the conversation.  Ultimately, some basic principles of immunity emerge, which leaves us with a much richer understanding of the many issues than a bland look the text alone would  Meanwhile, a listener’s question takes us abroad for a change, and developments in Arizona remind us of several of our podcast’s recurring themes.  CLE credit is available by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.

Former President Trump is making an extraordinary claim to the Supreme Court: that he is immune from criminal prosecution for crimes he may have committed while president. The Court has agreed to hear arguments on this proposition on April 25.  We begin the preparation by posing the questions and taking them on. Professor Amar is an expert on Presidential immunities.  Our analysis goes through originalism as well as precedent.  This and subsequent episodes form an oral amicus brief of sorts - another “master class,” if you will.  We also take a listener’s question seriously as we address the Comstock Act and related issues. CLE credit is available at podcast.njsba.com.

Legal expert Professor Amar discusses standing in the Supreme Court case on FDA regulation of Mifepristone. Insights from the EverScholar program and musings on the Trump gag order. A wide-ranging episode with CLE available.

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.