National Constitution Ctr

•

Kanaal • 4 programma’s

Geschiedenis

Geschiedenis

Wekelijks bijgewerkt
Kind en gezin

Kind en gezin

Bijgewerkt 28 apr
Geschiedenis

Geschiedenis

Tweewekelijks
Nieuwscommentaar

Nieuwscommentaar

Wekelijks bijgewerkt

29-04-2015

Debating the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage arguments

The National Constitution Center's Jeffery Rosen is joined by John Eastman and Paul M. Smith to break down the historic arguments about same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court this week.

29-04-2015

•

45 min.
02-07-2021

A Constitutional Commemoration of Independence Day

As Americans look forward to celebrating Independence Day this holiday weekend, this week’s episode dives into the Declaration of Independence. We trace where its words and its ideals came from and how it went on to influence state constitutions, the U.S. Constitution, and other key American texts—including President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, author of The Words That Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation 1760-1840, and Steven G. Calabresi of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

02-07-2021

•

1 u 4 m
14-01-2022

The Case for Reforming the Electoral Count Act

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 dictates the congressional procedure for certifying electoral college results in a presidential election. The Act was passed in response to the presidential election of 1876—where Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but lost the presidency to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes because of contested results in three states—in an effort to avoid future contested elections But a large bipartisan group of election law scholars and politicians across the political spectrum have argued that the law creates more confusion and needs to be reformed. Today on We the People, we’re doing a deep dive into the Electoral Count Act and proposals for fixing it—which have gained traction after the events of January 6, 2021, when members of Congress challenged the electoral slates of several states and some, along with President Trump, asked Vice President Pence not to certify these votes, which would have switched the presidential election results from Joe Biden to Trump. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are two election law experts who co-authored an op-ed in The Washington Post titled “How Congress can fix the Electoral Count Act. Ned Foley holds the Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law at The Ohio State University, and he also directs its election law program. Brad Smith is the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School. And from 2000-2005, he served on the Federal Election Commission. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

14-01-2022

•

56 min.
15-09-2015

Explore the new Interactive Constitution

Richard Pildes of the New York University School of Law and Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz of the Georgetown University Law Center join the National Constitution Center's Jeffrey Rosen to introduce the Center's online Interactive Constitution.

15-09-2015

•

47 min.
09-06-2015

Zivotofsky: Which branch controls foreign affairs?

The National Constitution Center's Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California-Irvine School of Law and Richard Epstein of the New York University School of Law to discuss a major ruling on the separation of powers and to preview an upcoming decision about housing discrimination

09-06-2015

•

48 min.
02-01-2020

Understanding the Four Executive-Branch-Subpoena Cases

The case that may determine if former White House Counsel Don McGahn must testify before Congress – about whether President Trump obstructed justice during the Mueller investigation – is being argued on appeal tomorrow, January 3rd. And, three other cases concerning requests for President Trump’s financial records – issued by Congress and, separately, by a New York State grand jury – will be heard by the Supreme Court in early 2020. All of these cases involve subpoenas – written orders compelling an individual or organization to produce evidence or to testify – and raise important questions about the power of Congress and the states to investigate the president and his aides. Guests Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law and Andy Grewal of Iowa Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to explain all four cases: These three cases will be heard by the Supreme Court in March 2020: Trump v. Mazars: The House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena requesting that President Trump’s accounting firm Mazars USA turn over financial records of President Trump and several of his business entities. The committee states that it's investigating whether and how to legislate on presidential financial disclosure requirements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the committee’s subpoena is valid. Trump v. Deutsche Bank: The House Committee on Financial Services and the House Intelligence Committee issued subpoenas requesting that President Trump’s creditors, Deutsche Bank and Capital One, release documents related to President Trump’s, his family’s, and his business’s finances. The committees state that they’re investigating whether and how to legislate on the practices of financial institutions and potential presidential conflicts of interest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the subpoenas. In this case and Mazars, the Trump administration is arguing (among other things) that the subpoenas exceed the committees’ powers and do not serve a “legitimate legislative interest.” Trump v. Vance: Cyrus Vance, district attorney of the County of New York, issued a state of New York grand jury subpoena requesting nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns for an inquiry into whether the President or his businesses violated New York law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the subpoenas. This case differs from the other two because the subpoena was issued by a state, not federal, authority. The McGahn case 4.Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Donald F. McGahn II: The House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena calling for former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify before the committee on whether President Trump obstructed justice in Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. U.S. District Judge Ketanji Jackson ruled that McGahn must testify, and the Trump administration’s appeal of that decision will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia tomorrow. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

02-01-2020

•

54 min.
02-05-2019

Is Asking About Citizenship on the Census Unconstitutional?

Would adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census—which a lawsuit argues could dissuade people from responding to it—violate the Constitution’s enumeration clause, which requires that an “actual enumeration,” or a counting, of all Americans be performed every ten years? Does it matter how and why the question is added? Tom Wolf, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, and John Eastman, Professor at Chapman University School of Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen to debate these questions. They discuss the pending Supreme Court case Department of Commerce v. New York, in which numerous states are suing Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross over his decision to add a citizenship question to the census. Wolf and Eastman consider how Ross’s motive for asking about citizenship on the census might affect how the justices rule on the case, and offer a helpful historical deep dive into the census itself and its inclusion of questions regarding citizenship. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

02-05-2019

•

53 min.
13-02-2015

Presidential powers and the Constitution

Influential scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Richard Epstein join our Jeffrey Rosen for a special Presidents Day podcast about the true constitutional meaning of executive power.

13-02-2015

•

27 min.
12-05-2016

Marijuana and the Constitution

Douglas Berman of The Ohio State University and Randy Barnett of Georgetown University explore the constitutional issues at stake in the regulation and legalization of marijuana. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on our Facebook page and Twitter feed. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People on iTunes. While you’re in the iTunes Store, leave us a rating and review—it helps other people discover what we do. Please also subscribe to Live at America’s Town Hall, featuring conversations and debates presented at the Center, across from Independence Hall in beautiful Philadelphia. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out all of our sibling podcasts at iTunes.com/Panoply. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit—we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Josh Waimberg and Danieli Evans. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

12-05-2016

•

54 min.
08-03-2018

Workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation

Can an employment lawsuit be based on the premise that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a Title VII violation under the Civil Rights Act of 1964? On Feb. 26, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 10-3 decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express Inc. that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes a form of discrimination “because of . . . sex,” in violation of Title VII. Some legal experts have predicted that the case might eventually make its way to the Supreme Court. Last April, the Seventh Circuit ruled in a separate case that Title VII could be applied to a similar workplace situation. But the Supreme Court passed on a third case, out of Georgia, that dealt with the same issue. Joining us on this podcast are two experts with different takes on this question. John Eastman is Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Former Dean at Chapman University Law School. He is also the Director of the University’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. Suzanne Goldberg is Herbert and Doris Wechsler Clinical Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, where she also directs the Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law and its Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic. National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen moderates the discussion. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

08-03-2018

•

47 min.

Listen to the latest discussions, debates, and analysis on the biggest constitutional issues of the day from the National Constitution Center.

Website

National Constitution Ctr

Topprogramma’s

Debating the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage arguments

A Constitutional Commemoration of Independence Day

The Case for Reforming the Electoral Count Act

Explore the new Interactive Constitution

Zivotofsky: Which branch controls foreign affairs?

Understanding the Four Executive-Branch-Subpoena Cases

Is Asking About Citizenship on the Census Unconstitutional?

Presidential powers and the Constitution

Marijuana and the Constitution

Workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation

Info

National Constitution Ctr

Topprogramma’s

Topafleveringen

Info