Civics In A Year

The Center for American Civics
  • 0.0 (0)
  • COURSES

What do you really know about American government, the Constitution, and your rights as a citizen? Civics in a Year is a fast-paced podcast series that delivers essential civic knowledge in just 10 minutes per episode. Over the course of a year, we’ll explore 250 key questions—from the founding documents and branches of government to civil liberties, elections, and public participation. Rooted in the Civic Literacy Curriculum from the Center for American Civics at Arizona State University, this series is a collaborative project supported by the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership. Each episode is designed to spark curiosity, strengthen constitutional understanding, and encourage active citizenship. Whether you're a student, educator, or lifelong learner, Civics in a Year will guide you through the building blocks of American democracy—one question at a time.

  1. 17 HR AGO

    Election of 1912: The Republican Breakup

    A former president comes home, looks at his handpicked successor, and decides the country needs a completely different Constitution in practice. That’s the spark behind the Election of 1912, and we walk through why Theodore Roosevelt’s break with William Howard Taft becomes more than a party feud. It turns into a real argument about presidential power, federalism, separation of powers, and what “progressive” reform is allowed to look like in a constitutional system.  We trace the lines between three smart contenders with three distinct governing visions: Roosevelt pushing an aggressive national government, Taft defending reform with constitutional restraint, and Woodrow Wilson trying to stake out a middle path while still promising tough antitrust action. We also get into the people around them who feel the pressure most, especially Elihu Root and Henry Cabot Lodge, allies who increasingly resist Roosevelt’s direction even when they admire him personally.  And yes, the drama delivers: Alice Roosevelt campaigning in her husband’s district, Nicholas Longworth paying the price at the ballot box, and the strange electoral details like Arizona placing Taft behind Socialist Eugene Debs. If you like political history that treats leaders as real people while still taking ideas seriously, this one is for you. Subscribe, share the episode with a friend, and leave a review so more listeners can find the series. Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum! School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership Center for American Civics

    20 min

  2. 1 DAY AGO

    Roosevelt, Taft, And Wilson Debate The Presidency

    The presidency didn’t become powerful by accident. We trace today’s executive-branch arguments back to an early-20th-century clash between three outsized figures and three competing theories of American constitutional government: Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft. If you’ve ever heard a president claim “a mandate” to act, or watched an administration push the limits of executive power, the roots of that logic are sitting right here in the Progressive Era. We start with Wilson the scholar, who calls the founders’ checks and balances an outdated machine and argues modern government should be more coordinated and more efficient. That path leads straight into the rise of the administrative state, where professional bureaucrats and expert management do more governing while voters act mainly as reviewers of results. From there we pivot to Taft’s constitutional restraint: the president can be energetic, but only when authority can be fairly traced to a specific constitutional grant or congressional statute. Policy leadership belongs primarily to Congress, and “public interest” is not a magic phrase that creates new powers. Then comes Roosevelt’s stewardship presidency, the most familiar to modern ears. He frames the president as the steward of the whole people, free to act unless the Constitution clearly says no, with elections and public opinion as the main check. We stress-test that claim against Federalist 70, Hamilton’s idea of “energy in the executive,” and Lincoln’s most aggressive actions, drawing out Taft’s insistence on the wartime versus peacetime distinction. By the end, you’ll have a clearer map for reading modern fights over executive orders, separation of powers, and constitutional limits. If this helped you see current politics with sharper eyes, subscribe, share the episode with a friend who loves American history, and leave us a review. Which vision do you think actually runs the presidency today? Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum! School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership Center for American Civics

    25 min

  3. 2 DAYS AGO

    Political Thought: T Roosevelt vs Wilson

    Two presidents. One Progressive Era dilemma that still won’t go away: do you fix a modern economy by breaking up power or by controlling it with an even stronger federal government? We dig into Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as political thinkers, not just historical characters, and we map how their reform instincts overlap while their constitutional instincts collide. If you’ve ever wondered why people can agree on regulation but fight over “how government should work,” this conversation puts names and arguments to that fight.  We walk through Roosevelt’s evolution from a fairly conventional Republican successor to McKinley into the New Nationalism champion who argues the federal government must defend the public welfare against special privilege. That leads to big questions about antitrust, corporate mergers, railroads, labor vs capital, and the idea that the presidency should act as a steward with broad discretion. The more Roosevelt trusts national supervision, the more he doubts federalism and the separation of powers.  Then we turn to Wilson the professor and the New Freedom vision shaped by Louis Brandeis: more antitrust, more suspicion of monopoly, and a decentralizing tone that later shifts once Wilson governs. Along the way, we unpack what “progressive” and “conservative” meant in 1912, why constitutional conservatism could coexist with policy reform, and how debates over courts and substantive due process fueled radical proposals like recalling judicial decisions. We even take a detour into presidential education, Wilson’s PhD, and what academic confidence can do to political negotiation.  If you like American history, civics, constitutional design, or the 1912 election drama that’s coming next, subscribe, share this with a friend, and leave a review to help more listeners find the show. Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum! School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership Center for American Civics

    22 min

  4. 3 DAYS AGO

    Sherman Antitrust Act

    A law you can read in about five minutes still shapes some of the biggest fights in the American economy. We walk through the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 with Dr. Sean Beienberg and unpack what “restraint of trade,” “trusts,” and “monopolize” actually mean in practice, not just in a textbook. Along the way, we connect the original goal of antitrust law to a very modern question: when does a private company become an unavoidable choke point for everyone else? We start with the late 1800s panic over consolidation, especially railroads and other industries where there is no real substitute. Then we hit the first major stumble, the EC Knight Sugar Trust case, where the Supreme Court treats a near-total sugar monopoly as “manufacturing” rather than interstate commerce. That early narrowing sets up the long argument over what counts as national market power and when the federal government can step in. From there, the trustbusting era kicks back into gear. We cover Roosevelt’s enforcement push, Northern Securities, the shift that allows regulation of meatpacking as a national bottleneck, and the blockbuster Standard Oil case. That decision also helps cement the “rule of reason,” the idea that antitrust law targets unreasonable, harmful restraints while allowing consolidation that benefits consumers. We close with the underrated debate over who deserves the trustbuster crown, Theodore Roosevelt or William Howard Taft, and why the Sherman Act still anchors antitrust law today alongside later statutes like the Clayton Act. If you care about competition policy, monopoly power, mergers, or the FTC, this one is for you. Subscribe, share the episode with a friend, and leave a review, then tell us: should antitrust focus on prices, or on power? Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum! School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership Center for American Civics

    17 min

  5. 3 DAYS AGO

    The Populist Moment

    We trace what populism looks like in the 1890s and why it’s less a single doctrine than a coalition of anger, hope, and economic suspicion. We follow the money fight over gold and silver into the Panic of 1893, Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech, and the constitutional conflicts that shaped labor and taxation battles.  • populism as a shifting set of perspectives rather than a fixed creed  • farmers as the backbone of the 1890s populist movement  • deep skepticism of banks and financial institutions as “unproductive” power  • antitrust and railroad power as recurring targets  • the gold versus silver currency debate as a fight over inflation and deflation  • the Sherman Silver Purchase Act and the run on gold claims after 1893  • William Jennings Bryan’s rise and the 1896 election turning on monetary policy  • John Peter Altgeld, the Pullman Strike, and limits on federal troops for enforcement  • the “Cross of Gold” speech as economic fairness and national sovereignty rhetoric  • the early income tax, Pollock (1895), and the long road to the 16th Amendment  • why the Populist Party fades and gets absorbed into the Democratic coalition Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum! School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership Center for American Civics

    18 min

  6. 4 DAYS AGO

    Who Becomes President? Succession, the Vice Presidency, and Executive Power

    The most fragile part of the presidency isn’t the election. It’s the moment something goes wrong and the country still needs a commander in chief, a working cabinet, and a government that doesn’t freeze. That’s why we brought on Jordan Cash, assistant professor of political theory and constitutional democracy at Michigan State University, to walk us through presidential succession, the vice presidency, and what these rules say about executive power. We start with a simple but underrated idea: the executive branch has to run all the time. Congress can recess and the courts can wait for cases, but enforcement, diplomacy, and crisis response don’t stop. From there, we dig into why the framers invented the vice presidency so late in the Constitutional Convention, why it originally helped the Electoral College function, and how it solved a very practical Senate problem with tie breaking without giving any state extra votes. Then the history gets real. We unpack John Tyler’s 1841 showdown over whether a vice president becomes president or merely serves as acting president, and how the Tyler precedent shaped every transition after it. We also trace how Congress keeps reworking the presidential line of succession, and why debates over cabinet officials versus congressional leaders always come back to legitimacy and separation of powers. Finally, we break down the 25th Amendment’s rules for vacancies and presidential incapacity and why Watergate made those safeguards feel “just in time,” including Gerald Ford’s unique path to the Oval Office. If you like constitutional history, the 25th Amendment, the Electoral College, and the real mechanics of executive power, this one will give you a clean map plus a few great rabbit holes. Subscribe, share this with a civics nerd, and leave us a review with your take: who should be next in the line of succession after the vice president? The Isolated Presidency Adding the Lone Star: John Tyler, Sam Houston, and the Annexation of Texas Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum! School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership Center for American Civics

    42 min

  7. 4 DAYS AGO

    Susan B. Anthony and a Constitutional Challenge

    Susan B. Anthony’s most radical move was not that she voted, it was why she believed she had every right to. After she walked into a Rochester polling place in 1872 and cast a ballot, the state treated her like a criminal. Anthony treated the Constitution like evidence. Her speech, “Is it a Crime for a U.S. Citizen to Vote?”, becomes a blueprint for how Americans challenge power when the law says one thing and the nation’s ideals say another. We step into the Reconstruction era, when the 14th Amendment redefines U.S. citizenship and the 15th Amendment tries to protect voting rights while leaving women out entirely. Anthony seizes that omission and makes a precise constitutional argument: if women are persons, and persons born in the United States are citizens, then women are citizens. And if citizenship means anything, she argues, it must include political rights. Along the way we unpack popular sovereignty, the meaning of “we the people,” and why she connects women’s disenfranchisement to taxation without representation and the consent of the governed. Then the hard part: the courts disagree. Minor v. Happersett draws a line between citizenship and suffrage, revealing a gap between constitutional ideals and constitutional law. We close by following Anthony’s influence into the women’s suffrage movement, the 19th Amendment, and the reminder that equal voting rights still required the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and sustained enforcement. If the Constitution speaks for the people, who gets counted, and who has to fight to be heard? Subscribe for more stories at the crossroads of history and constitutional law, share this with a friend who loves civic debates, and leave a review if it helped you see voting rights differently. What do you think should come automatically with citizenship? Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum! School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership Center for American Civics

    10 min

  8. 2 APR

    Plessy Vs. Ferguson

    We walk through Plessy v. Ferguson and how a planned railcar protest helps the Supreme Court legitimize Jim Crow through the “separate but equal” doctrine. We also dig into Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent and why his warning about caste and constitutional duty keeps showing up in modern legal fights.  • rise of Jim Crow segregation in the 1880s and 1890s and why transportation becomes a focal point  • why public accommodations matter in constitutional law and equal access  • Homer Plessy’s test case and what “passing” reveals about racial classification  • the unusual coalition of civil rights activists and railroad operators opposing segregation mandates  • the Court’s reliance on “reasonableness” and its attempt to recast civil rights as social policy  • Harlan’s separation of powers critique and his colorblind Constitution argument  • how Plessy becomes a green light for broader segregation across schools and daily life  • how dissents shape legal strategy and help pave the way to Brown v. Board of Education  Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum! School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership Center for American Civics

    18 min
See All (197)

Trailer

About

What do you really know about American government, the Constitution, and your rights as a citizen? Civics in a Year is a fast-paced podcast series that delivers essential civic knowledge in just 10 minutes per episode. Over the course of a year, we’ll explore 250 key questions—from the founding documents and branches of government to civil liberties, elections, and public participation. Rooted in the Civic Literacy Curriculum from the Center for American Civics at Arizona State University, this series is a collaborative project supported by the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership. Each episode is designed to spark curiosity, strengthen constitutional understanding, and encourage active citizenship. Whether you're a student, educator, or lifelong learner, Civics in a Year will guide you through the building blocks of American democracy—one question at a time.

Information

  • Creator
    The Center for American Civics
  • Years Active
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodes
    197
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2026 Civics In A Year
  • Show Website
    Civics In A Year

You Might Also Like