Amarica's Constitution

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.

Distinguished authors of a major article on the 14th Amendment, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, discuss the disqualification of Donald Trump. They explore Section Three of the Amendment, the uncertainty of the Constitution's future, the importance of historical originalism, the power of amendments, duties to enforce the Constitution, technicalities of aid and comfort, lessons from the Civil War, the historical context of the 14th Amendment, and potential constitutional crises.

Everyone needs a translator, and for decades there have been few better than Washington Post columnist, reporter, and editor Ruth Marcus.  She has made understandable the intricacies of many a Supreme Court matter, not to mention the vicissitudes of other Washington institutions.  Now, with Federal and State cases against former president Trump pending, the complexities are impressive, but we take you through them with Ruth’s help.  There are also stories galore, with angles political, constitutional, and gleeful.

Ex-President Trump faces a number of trials, and he doesn’t like where some of them are.  Too many Democrats, or he doesn’t like the judge.  Does he have recourse?  No surprise - Professor Amar has written on this subject.  There is a fascinating history behind it, an originalism analysis, and, most importantly - an answer.  Changes of venue, bench trials, peremptory challenges, unanimous verdicts - they all find their way into this episode.

He's baaack.  Former President Trump has been arraigned once again, this time on serious federal charges related to the very heart of democracy - the election itself.  Special Counsel Jack Smith continues to discharge his appointed function by bringing charges he deems warranted.  Beyond Smith, however, do the American people have other means of redress?  And if Trump is guilty, will these prosecutions prevent him from seeking and possibly gaining the White House?  Akhil has some surprising ideas - and one that even surprises himself!

We return to the affirmative action case, and again former Yale Dean of Undergraduate Admissions, Jeffrey Brenzel, joins us with his peerless expertise.  The fallout of the opinion is enormous ,and we address some of its ramifications, including legacy admissions, donor admissions, private vs. public institutional options, admissions departments’ responses, and much more.  What about the new frontiers of litigation that seem to be emerging, from scholarships designed to address racial disparities to non-race-conscious policies that nevertheless have impact on racial makeup?  Former Dean Brenzel also offers a fascinating critique of the likely responses, showing how what might seem like a powerful response might actually be a foolish way to avoid real impact.

What’s in a name?  This week, it’s “Amar was wrong - Amar was right.”  Two weeks ago it was “bigots” and many made much of that.  So we take the feedback seriously and revisit it - you can judge the result.  Meanwhile, news from Long Island brings the 4th amendment to the fore again, and in a somewhat different way.  Different - how?  Listen and find out how to create a better jurisprudence without amending the Constitution, and the real differences in the lives of the people this would make.  Finally, Akhil has a new article in the popular press, and we introduce that for later elaboration.

It’s time to discuss the Affirmative Action cases from Harvard and the University of North Carolina, and we have brought in an expert on college admissions - Jeff Brenzel, the former Dean of Undergraduate Admissions at Yale.  Jeff is so much more than that - he has taught at Yale as a lecturer in philosophy and humanities; is the former head of the Alumni Association, and is a current trustee at Morehouse College, to name some of his many hats.  He offers a perspective that is a perfect supplement to the legal analysis from Professor Amar, as we make our way through 237 pages of Supreme Court opinion, concurrences, and fiery dissents, not to mention Akhil’s scholarship on this subject over the decades.  It’s potentially a morass and we begin to find our way through it, to hopefully understand the stormy present and the uncertain future of college admissions.

A Colorado website designer refuses to create sites for gay couples’ weddings, going afoul of Colorado’s public accommodations law.  Can she be compelled to author such a site?  The Court has ruled, and we have the analysis.  Along the way, we find ourselves discussing the intricacies of stipulations, and getting into the fine points of how one gets to federal court, even as we consider more mainstream questions as speech vs. conduct, the limits of rights, and some interesting hypotheticals.  Professor Amar, as usual, has his own take on such things.