This Constitution

Savannah Eccles Johnston & Matthew Brogdon
  • 5.0 (21)
  • EDUCATION
  • UPDATED BIWEEKLY

This Constitution is an every-two-weeks podcast ordained and established by the Center for Constitutional Studies at Utah Valley University, the home of Utah’s Civic Thought & Leadership Initiative.    Co-hosted by Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon, This Constitution equips listeners with the knowledge and insights to engage with the most pressing political questions of our time, starting with Season 1, focusing on the powers and limits of the U.S. presidency.  

  1. Season 4, Episode 1 | A Watery Revolution: How the Sea Decided American Independence

    1D AGO

    Season 4, Episode 1 | A Watery Revolution: How the Sea Decided American Independence

    When we picture the American Revolution, we see George Washington on horseback, minutemen at Concord, and the signing of the Declaration. But what if the real story of independence was written not on land, but on water?  In this season premiere, host Matthew Brogdon sits down with National Book Award–winning historian Nathaniel Philbrick (author of Bunker Hill, Valiant Ambition, In the Heart of the Sea, and Travels with George) to explore the revolution as a maritime conflict.  From the siege of Boston to the desperate crossing of the Delaware, from Benedict Arnold’s makeshift “mosquito fleet” on Lake Champlain to the French naval victory at the Battle of the Chesapeake that sealed Cornwallis’s fate at Yorktown, Philbrick reveals how control of rivers, lakes, and oceans determined the war’s outcome. Philbrick also discusses the power of visiting historical sites, the essential role of Washington’s resilience and leadership, and why the coming America 250 anniversary is the perfect moment to get on the road and see these places for yourself. He shares how moving to Nantucket first ignited his passion for history, why the Revolution was far longer and more fragile than most textbooks suggest, and how a hurricane in the Caribbean, not a land battle, set the stage for victory at Yorktown. Tune in to learn why the American Revolution was, in Philbrick’s words, a “watery revolution” and how understanding the sea changes everything we thought we knew about the fight for independence. In This Episode (01:37) Meet Nathaniel Philbrick(02:10) Why physically visiting Revolutionary War sites matters(04:30) America 250 and renewed interest in historic travel(06:39) From Nantucket to becoming a historian and writer(09:01) The next book: the gold rush and the western frontier(12:25) The sea as a key force in America’s origins(13:55) Why the Revolution was more naval than we remember(15:10) Rivers, lakes, and controlling movement during the war(16:39) Boston, New York, and British naval dominance(20:09) The Hudson River and the fight for key waterways(21:19) Washington’s crossing of the Delaware: myth and reality(24:38) Washington’s leadership under pressure(25:27) Creativity and leadership during moments of crisis(28:39) Benedict Arnold and Lake Champlain’s role in the Revolution(33:05) Ingenuity and the “Mosquito Fleet” at Valcour Island(36:25) Saratoga, Arnold, and the New York campaign(37:35) Yorktown, Washington, and the French fleet(40:07) What if Washington had joined the British Navy?(42:01) Why the French nearly abandoned the American cause(45:25) Hurricanes and the overlooked role of the French Navy(46:40) The Battle of the Capes and the road to Yorktown(48:16) Leadership, statesmanship, and chance in the Revolution(49:00) Where to go for America's 250th(49:57) Final reflections Notable Quotes (06:04) "You don't take a trip,  the trip takes you. There's always something unexpected." — Nathaniel Philbrick, quoting John Steinbeck(13:56) "The narrative of the revolution for most of us begins with the minutemen at Lexington and Concord. And then each battle is like a stepping stone that inevitably leads us to Yorktown. The fact is, this war went on forever — for close to a decade." — Nathaniel Philbrick(16:48) “Washington began to realize, wow, I need to really consider the water if we're ever going to have a chance of winning this battle.” — Nathaniel Philbrick(25:30) "There was a military tradition at that time that your army went into winter quarters and the fighting stopped. Washington decided one last gamble — one roll of the dice — was worth it." — Nathaniel Philbrick(34:48) "Benedict Arnold, during a naval battle fought inland on a lake, saved America in the fall of 1776." — Nathaniel Philbrick(44:48) "Three successive hurricanes hit in the fall of 1780, including the Great Storm of 1780, where 20,000 people were estimated to have died — to this day the most devastating hurricane ever recorded." — Nathaniel Philbrick(46:59) “Without the French Navy, we would not have won the American Revolution.” — Nathaniel Philbrick(48:16) "It all came down to leadership. Without Washington, we would not have won the American Revolution — and we probably would not have formed a long-standing republic." — Nathaniel Philbrick(49:33) "Wherever you are, think about what did Americans contribute to the winning of independence in that place." — Matthew Brogdon

    49 min
  2. Season 3, Episode 19 | Saving Principles: Frederick Douglass, the Declaration, and the Soul of Civic Education

    MAY 4

    Season 3, Episode 19 | Saving Principles: Frederick Douglass, the Declaration, and the Soul of Civic Education

    Why has civic education taught students to look to Washington, when citizenship starts in their own neighborhood? In this episode, host Matthew Brogdon sits down with David Bobb, president of the Bill of Rights Institute, to explore the state of civic education in America as the country approaches its 250th birthday. Together, they make the case that civic life begins not in Washington, D.C. but in local communities, mediating institutions, and the habits formed early in life.  Bobb introduces BRI's expanding library of free resources, including BRI Jr. for elementary students, and argues that civic education has overindexed on government and underinvested in the kind of local, associational life Tocqueville recognized as the beating heart of American self-governance. The conversation delves into Frederick Douglass's landmark July 5 oration of 1852, unpacking his image of the Declaration as a "ring bolt," the anchor to which the ship of American destiny must cling.  Brogdon and Bobb trace how the Declaration's "saving principles" of freedom and equality have served as the touchstone for abolition, suffragists, and the civil-rights movement, and why those principles must be actively chosen, not passively inherited.  They also wrestle with what it means to demote politics in favor of human dignity, how Lincoln warned of the danger of alienation from our laws, and why the appeal to universal principles through a specifically American inheritance is not a contradiction but a necessity. In This Episode (01:29) BRI's offerings: thinking about the next 250 years(03:09) Why local civic engagement matters more than national politics(06:37) Civic engagement vs. political engagement(09:05) The telos of civics(11:37) Storytelling as civic education(13:51) American citizenship vs. "global citizenship."(16:16) Lincoln's Lyceum Address and the danger of losing attachment to law(20:39) The shift to primary sources: why textbooks are being set aside(26:25) The Declaration as the "ring bolt" of American destiny(30:01) Frederick Douglass's July 5 oration(39:52) The Declaration as an anchor in storms of change(42:28) The "positive-good" school, Woodrow Wilson, and the fight over the Declaration(49:39) Limited government as ground for consensusNotable Quotes (06:00) "Tocqueville said, if you want to draw an American out of their kind of individual orbit, you propose to build a road through their property." — David Bobb(07:29) "Being engaged in a productive activity, benefiting your community, employing people, bringing services and goods to the public is in fact the fulfillment of a civic role, I think that people play." — Matthew Brogdon(14:06) "I don't understand what the term 'global citizenship' means. It seems to me an oxymoron. We do American citizenship, an education in universal principles, instantiated in the American experiment." — David Bobb(16:16) "About 30 percent of Americans are willing to say that we need a leader who is willing to break or bend things that can lead to the mobocratic spirit. We have to be very careful about that." — David Bobb(30:11) "Frederick Douglass speaks with admiration and alienation, two complex emotions woven through a message of hope and hopelessness. The 'you' is bracing. A ring bolt is an anchor, but also the thing to which an enslaved person could be shackled." — David Bobb(35:13) "You have a choice to cleave to these principles or not. You can choose to abandon them, or you can choose to move into greater conformity with them. It's a powerful reminder." — Matthew Brogdon(48:05) "To demote politics is to elevate the limitless opportunity of every human person. That's the message of ultimate dignity." — David Bobb

    52 min
  3. Season 3, Episode 18 | Who Counts as the Press? From Printing Presses to Afroman

    APR 20

    Season 3, Episode 18 | Who Counts as the Press? From Printing Presses to Afroman

    Does the freedom of the press protect only journalists with printing presses or everyone with something to say? From the founding era to social media, the line between “speech” and “press” has blurred. In this episode, host Savannah Eccles Johnston talks with legal commentator and former DOJ official Sarah Isgur about how the First Amendment’s protection of the press has evolved and whether it has gone too far. They explore three eras: the original understanding in 1791 (when “press” meant owning a printing press), the Supreme Court’s twentieth-century expansion of free speech, and today’s dilemmas over influencers, citizen journalists, and government access. Sarah explains why she’s a textualist free-speech absolutist (and why that means Jefferson is the bad guy in her bedtime stories), revisits the infamous Skokie Nazi march as the “apotheosis of the First Amendment,” and breaks down two very different recent cases: Afroman (lemon pound cake, police mockery, and a jury victory) and La Gordil Loca (a citizen–journalist arrested for asking a state employee for information). The conversation also covers New York Times v. Sullivan, the Pentagon press access fight, and why Sarah’s new book, Last Branch Standing, argues the Supreme Court is more Ted Lasso than Game of Thrones. In This Episode (00:00) Introduction(00:11) Meet Sarah Isgur and episode overview(01:32) What did “the press” mean in 1791?(03:03) Freedom of the press vs. freedom of speech(03:46) Defamation and truth at the founding(05:43) Are Americans freer today than ever before?(06:17) New York Times v. Sullivan and modern defamation law(09:21) Free speech and the search for truth(09:47) Originalism vs. textualism(12:57) The Skokie Nazi march(13:35) Free speech in extreme cases(14:01) Is Mill wrong in 2026? Echo chambers, algorithms, and truth(17:18) Crisis and the dangers of “this time is different.”(17:26) The Afroman case and viral speech(20:41) Citizen journalism and the Priscilla Villarreal (“La Gordiloca”) case(22:19) Profit, media, and credibility(23:05) Juries and American free speech instincts(24:46) Pentagon press access rules(26:31) The complexity of press freedom in practice(28:09) Viewpoint neutrality and unintended consequences(29:57) Sarah’s book: Last Branch Standing(32:06) OutroNotable Quotes (05:07) “An American living in 2026 has a greater protection under the First Amendment for their speech than at any time in the rest of our history. And it’s not even close.” — Sarah Isgur(10:42) “A textualist would simply look at the text of the First Amendment that says, ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.’ Sorry, that’s an absolutist statement. I don’t really care what you thought you were doing at the time.” — Sarah Isgur(12:11) “Jefferson is the bad guy in every story. When I tell my kids bedtime stories, it’s Jefferson who is the boogeyman coming after them in the night.” — Sarah Isgur(12:58) “The greatest moment in American legal history is when the Nazis marched through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois. 99.9% of people found it repugnant. As a country, we said, fine, say it. See who you can convince.” — Sarah Isgur(17:26) “Doesn’t every road lead us to Afroman?” — Sarah Isgur(31:46) “Congress isn’t doing its job. The President is trying to take over all the jobs of the other branches. The Supreme Court is the last branch standing.” — Sarah Isgur (on her book title)

    33 min
  4. Season 3, Episode 17 | Congress Underrated: Representation, Gridlock, and What We Miss

    APR 6

    Season 3, Episode 17 | Congress Underrated: Representation, Gridlock, and What We Miss

    Is Congress the most underrated institution in American government? Widely criticized for gridlock, partisanship, and dysfunction, it’s often seen as the weakest branch. But what if that frustration reflects a misunderstanding of what Congress is designed to do? In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon sits down with Princeton professor Frances E. Lee, author of A Case for Congress, to challenge the narrative that Congress is broken. They begin by rethinking “gridlock.” While fewer individual laws are passed today, modern legislation is far more expansive, often bundling multiple policies into single bills. By that measure, Congress is doing more, not less. They then delve into what really holds Congress back. It’s not just partisan opposition, it’s internal division. Narrow majorities and cross-pressured members make sweeping agendas difficult, even when one party holds power and procedural barriers like the filibuster are removed. Lee also reframes Congress as one of the most representative institutions in government. Its partisan makeup closely tracks the national electorate, and its members are deeply rooted in the communities they serve.  Tune in to challenge what you think you know about Congress and discover why the institution we trust the least may be working more as intended than we realize. In This Episode (00:38) Why Congress is underrated(01:45) Is Congress really gridlocked?(03:53) Congress as an obstacle to parties(05:12) Unified vs. divided government(08:27) Role of cross-pressured members(09:39) The filibuster’s real impact(10:25) Budget-reconciliation process(11:54) Filibuster as a scapegoat(13:01) Congress as a mirror of America(15:03) Diversity and local ties in Congress(18:20) Geographical representation & pluralism(19:51) Bipartisanship in lawmaking(22:32) Voice votes and consensus(24:46) Why Congress is unpopular(26:39) When parties enact big agendas(29:15) Quality of rushed legislation(31:04) Improving Congress: institutional patriotismNotable Quotes (00:54) “The ratings for Congress have been low for a long time. It's really nothing new.”— Frances Lee(03:25) “The contemporary Congress actually passes substantially more legislation than the Congress of the middle 20th century.” — Frances Lee(11:45) “What the filibuster does for a majority party is that it often allows them to hide their divisions behind the other party.” — Frances Lee(13:15) “It’s credibly representative in partisan terms that the parties are getting the share of seats in the House and the Senate that reflects the party’s strength in the national electorate.” — Frances Lee(23:28) “It will surprise you if you take a look back, how many matters go through without any dissent.” — Frances Lee(26:28) “Checking and balancing, when neither party really has the confidence of the American people, is that something we would say is dysfunctional? I tend to think it’s not dysfunctional.” — Frances Lee(32:32) “I would like to see Congress operate in a more pluralistic way; I think it works better when the committees are able to work through the legislative issues, rather than have it all happen behind the scenes in leadership offices.” — Frances Lee(33:27) “I do think members of Congress feel a sense of personal honor that they've been selected as representatives, but I think they also need to feel a sense of pride in the institution of which they're part” — Frances Lee

    36 min
  5. Season 3, Episode 16 | Religion in the Public Square: When Protestants, Catholics, and Jews Learned to Get Along (Mostly)

    MAR 23

    Season 3, Episode 16 | Religion in the Public Square: When Protestants, Catholics, and Jews Learned to Get Along (Mostly)

    How did America move from the religious pluralism of the founding era to the “Judeo-Christian consensus” of the twentieth century? Why did that consensus begin to fracture? In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon continues his conversation with James Patterson, associate professor of public affairs at the Institute for American Civics at the University of Tennessee. They explore how religious pluralism evolved during the twentieth century as immigration, world wars, and political movements reshaped the nation’s religious landscape. They begin the conversation with the massive immigration waves of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which dramatically expanded America’s Catholic population while also bringing German Lutherans, Scandinavian Protestants, and other religious communities. These demographic shifts sparked political battles over public education, sectarian funding, and the role of religion in civic life, illustrating how deeply religious differences shaped American politics. The discussion then delves into the emergence of the “Judeo-Christian consensus” after World War II. Influential figures such as Archbishop Fulton Sheen and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. helped articulate a vision of American public life in which Protestants, Catholics, and Jews could cooperate while maintaining distinct theological traditions. The conversation wraps up with an examination of our present moment: the resurgence of religious affiliation after decades of decline, the arrival of significant Muslim and Hindu populations, and the internal tensions within contemporary conservatism between what Brogdon calls ‘South Park conservatives’ and religious traditionalists. The First Amendment consensus, they suggest, remains very much a work in progress. In This Episode (00:00) Introduction and recap of previous episode(01:11) Religious diversity and immigration in the 20th century(04:31) Post–Civil War religious conflicts and school controversies(07:43) Religious violence and media adaptation(09:15) Rise of the Judeo-Christian consensus(11:36) Jewish immigration and inclusion(13:03) Visionary leadership and civil religion(15:00) Religious leaders and the civil rights movement(16:21) Rise of the Moral Majority and partisan religion(21:02) Changing religious and political dynamics(22:28) Media, technology, and generational shifts(25:40) Increasing religious diversity beyond Judeo-Christianity(26:18) Religion, politics, and the Trump era(29:37) Internal tensions among conservatives(30:40) Summary and end of conversationNotable Quotes (01:18) "Even though we're a very religious people, we've got broad freedom to form our own associations and worship freely." — Matthew Brogdon(05:41) "The reason why this was such a harm isn't just because I'm a partisan of Catholicism, but it actually contributes directly to the ignorance of the population." — James Patterson(15:32) "We can't meet in the same pew, the same church, but we can all meet on our knees in prayer." — James Patterson(17:53) "American government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. And at the moment, in spite of the people." — Jerry Falwell (quoted in discussion)(25:05) “American religious institutions have been very adept at using either old but still effective technology or using new technology to reach souls." — James Patterson(30:30) "We have religious pluralism in America. We have great religious diversity in the country. And across those lines, we typically have a very strong attachment. You call it a sort of First Amendment consensus, a strong attachment to the idea that government doesn't tell us what to believe and how to worship." — Matthew Brogdon

    33 min
  6. Season 3, Episode 15 | For God and Country: How Religious Pluralism Shaped the American Founding

    MAR 9

    Season 3, Episode 15 | For God and Country: How Religious Pluralism Shaped the American Founding

    When we think of the American Founders, we typically imagine figures like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison—all Protestant gentlemen. But what about the Catholics? And how did a nation built on religious establishments become a model for religious pluralism? In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon and James Patterson, associate professor of public affairs at the Institute for American Civics at the University of Tennessee, explore the religious landscape of early America and the surprising role that Catholics, Baptists, Quakers, and other minority groups played in shaping the nation’s commitment to religious freedom. The conversation begins with the often-overlooked Catholic founders, including Charles Carroll of Carrollton, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and John Carroll, the first Catholic bishop in the United States and founder of Georgetown University. Their experiences reveal how religious minorities helped shape the early republic. Brogdon and Patterson then turn to the debates that led to disestablishment in the states, focusing on Virginia’s struggle over whether the government should tax citizens to support clergy.  Ultimately, Americans discovered that removing religion from political competition lowered tensions among religious groups and protected liberty of conscience for all. The result was a uniquely American approach to religion and politics: a system where many faiths could flourish without direct state control. Let’s dive in. In This Episode (01:12) Catholic founders and Maryland’s history(02:19) Catholic experience in colonial America(03:17) Catholic representation and treatment(04:34) Religious pluralism in colonial America(07:27) Suspicion of Catholics and religious freedom(09:13) Reasoning behind religious pluralism(10:01) Jefferson, Madison, and the religious freedom bill(12:33) Weakness of the Anglican establishment in the South(15:57) Class and financial issues in church establishments(19:29) Disestablishment and religious pluralism(20:24) Harvard and the concentration of religious power(21:14) Support for pastors vs. modern vouchers(23:30) Patrick Henry’s defense and its limits(24:23) Religious schools vs. church subsidies(27:15) Catholic bishops and American ecclesiology(29:02) John Carroll’s appointment and Georgetown(31:24) French Catholic influence and Washington’s supportNotable Quotes (06:52) "They were also very upset that the British, after winning Quebec, retained its Catholic establishment. They could not believe this.” —James Patterson(08:05) "One of the causes for unique suspicion of Catholics was a very legitimate concern that Catholics were trying to usurp political authority. I mean, this is the thing that happened with Mary, Queen of Scots. There was the Guy Fawkes attack on Parliament, and then there had been the tumult of James II. And so there was a very big concern." —James Patterson(08:59) "So religious freedom was, as Michael Breidenbach puts it, it was 'dear-bought,' right? " It was one that they fought on the battlefield to secure, and it was important that they did so in order to earn that trust that was maybe not so earned yet." —James Patterson(13:08) “Madison actually traveled to see one of these people preach from his prison cell. Their congregants would gather outside, and they would preach through the prison bars.” —Matthew Brogdon(24:00) "Why do people have to tithe to the state first for the state to then give that to the church? Can't they just tithe to their own church?" —Matthew Brogdon(25:55) “You mutually benefit from the protection of conscience rights much more than you do from the competition over state patronage.." —James Patterson

    33 min
  7. Season 3, Episode 14 | From London to Paris: How the World Received America's Breakup Letter

    FEB 23

    Season 3, Episode 14 | From London to Paris: How the World Received America's Breakup Letter

    Did you know that while Americans were celebrating independence on July 4, 1776, it took until August for the news to reach London? Across the Atlantic, the reaction was far more muted, highlighting how information traveled slowly in the 18th century and how the bold step of declaring independence was experienced differently on each side of the ocean. In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon explore how the world reacted to America’s bold declaration of independence. They trace the document’s uncertain journey across the Atlantic, with copies lost in shipwrecks and others seized by British vessels, and examine how foreign governments and the press responded once the news finally reached them. In Britain, officials publicly dismissed it, but the press debated it vigorously. Some magazines printed the full text alongside loyalist rebuttals. Jeremy Bentham issued a sharp critique, and King George III cast American leaders as reckless agitators misleading their people. France paid close attention, but real support only came after the American victory at Saratoga proved the revolution could succeed.  Savannah and Matthew also examine the Declaration’s built-in restraint, especially its warning against changing governments for light and transient causes. That note of prudence may explain the world’s initial shrug. Military victory secured independence, but over time, the Declaration’s ideas reshaped global thinking about liberty and self-government. In This Episode (00:00) Opening and introduction(00:17) International reaction overview(01:56) Universal and provocative language(03:53) Prudence and limits on revolution(05:19) Comparison to other revolutions(06:47) Declaration as diplomatic statement(07:23) Spread of the Declaration in Europe(08:11) Suppression in Russia and Spain(10:06) British reaction: official response(11:57) King George III’s speech(13:57) Parliamentary debate(16:53) British press reaction(23:32) Impact on US-British relations(23:55) French reaction and delayed support(26:32) Spanish reaction and suppression(30:43) Summary and long-term impactNotable Quotes (00:30) "The Declaration of Independence is wonderfully important within the colonies, but internationally it's kind of met with a bit of a yawn.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston(00:44) "The rest of the world, now they know that this isn't a British civil war, but these colonists think they're actually independent. But mostly it's still a shrug." — Savannah Eccles Johnston(05:53) "This is the place where I think the American Revolution is revolutionary, but it doesn't become global in the sense that the French Revolution does. The French Revolution sparked basically a world war." — Matthew Brogdon(09:06) "These Germans living in St. Petersburg knew that the Russian government would never put up with them printing the word 'independence' in a newspaper." — Matthew Brogdon(09:27) “The Spanish government suppressed the Declaration, even though the Spanish are going to play a very important role in the American Revolution. The Spanish will suppress it.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston(12:23) "No people ever enjoyed more happiness or lived under a milder government than those revolted provinces." — King George III (quoted by Savannah Eccles Johnston)(18:43) "The unalienable right of talking nonsense." — British magazine editorial aside (quoted by Savannah Eccles Johnston)(27:53) "It's a bit of a compliment to the British, actually. The country with which we're actually at war has a robust discussion about our claims in its newspapers. The allies that we wind up with in the war do not want this published." — Matthew Brogdon

    33 min
  8. Season 3, Episode 13 | George Washington and the Constitutional Design of Article II

    FEB 16

    Season 3, Episode 13 | George Washington and the Constitutional Design of Article II

    Was the American presidency meant to be weak, or was it powerful from the start? In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston sits down with Dr. Sai Prakash to examine the original design of Article II and how George Washington shaped the presidency in practice. They explore the Vesting Clause, the creation of a unitary executive, and why early Americans ultimately embraced a strong president after rejecting monarchy. The conversation then turns to the modern “living presidency.” Executive power has expanded through precedent, practice, and political necessity rather than constitutional amendment. From war powers to campaign mandates, Professor Prakash argues that today’s presidency is stronger than ever while Congress grows weaker. At stake is a central question. Can constitutional balance be restored, or are we drifting toward government by executive alone? In This Episode (00:00) Introduction to Dr. Sai Prakash and his forthcoming book on the presidential pardon(02:11) Washington as commander in chief and father of the Constitution(03:26) The anti-monarchical moment and weak state executives(04:36) The Philadelphia Convention and the move to a unitary executive(06:50) Creating the presidency with George Washington in mind(07:44) Comparing the presidency to an elective monarchy(11:27) Washington’s theory of executive authority(12:39) The Vesting Clause and foreign-affairs power(15:07) How Article II came to be seen as weak(17:31) The rise of the living Constitution(19:09) War powers and presidential precedent(21:27) Delaying statutory mandates and administrative reinterpretation(23:24) Is a living presidency necessary?(25:58) Campaign promises and the idea of a presidential mandate(27:00) The presidency as law-enforcement officer, not policy engine(28:30) Congress’s institutional decline(29:19) Restoring constitutional balanceNotable Quotes (06:50) “We kind of created this office with George Washington in mind.” — Sai Prakash (12:39) “The Constitution grants executive power. It’s a suite of powers related to law execution and foreign affairs.” — Sai Prakash (19:29) “The strongest declaration of war is from the mouths of cannons.” — Sai Prakash (25:03) “We can’t wait.” — Referencing modern executive justification for unilateral action (27:00) “The president is meant to be the institution of law enforcement, not primarily about making law.” — Sai Prakash (29:19) “Letting a president get away with usurping another branch’s authority today might be in your short-term interest, but it isn’t healthy for the country.” — Sai Prakash

    28 min
See All (54)

Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
21 Ratings

About

This Constitution is an every-two-weeks podcast ordained and established by the Center for Constitutional Studies at Utah Valley University, the home of Utah’s Civic Thought & Leadership Initiative.    Co-hosted by Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon, This Constitution equips listeners with the knowledge and insights to engage with the most pressing political questions of our time, starting with Season 1, focusing on the powers and limits of the U.S. presidency.  

Information

  • Creator
    Savannah Eccles Johnston & Matthew Brogdon
  • Years Active
    2024 - 2026
  • Episodes
    54
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2026 This Constitution
  • Show Website
    This Constitution

You Might Also Like