Professor Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University and one of the nation’s leading authorities on the Constitution, offers weekly in-depth discussions on the most urgent and fascinating constitutional issues of our day. He is joined by host Andy Lipka and guests drawn from other top experts including Bob Woodward, Lawrence Lessig, Neal Katyal, Michael Gerhardt, and many more.
Sense and Nonsensibility on Section 3 - Special Guests Mark Graber and Gerard Magliocca
Donald Trump’s disqualification for the Presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is on the docket for the Colorado Supreme Court next week. We have brought the two leading experts on the history of this clause to our podcast. They have written extensively on the 38th-40th Congresses who passed and first acted under the amendment; on John Bingham, the “James Madison” of the Fourteenth; and they continue to provide pertinent historical details on almost a daily basis. Professor Magliocca testified in the District Court hearing on this. Suffice it to say, then, that the best arguments on both sides will be aired here first, before they are heard in Colorado, and you will be the judge today. CLE credit available at podcast.njsba.com.
Guns, Clips, and Rahimi
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in US v. Rahimi, a significant gun case, and we get to work. We have pulled clips from the argument so you can hear the justices and advocates in their own words, and Akhil comments after each clip. The case is important in itself, with wide implications regarding permissible gun regulation, and it also touches on a number of key methodological points that teach about originalism - properly done, and perhaps at times, improperly done. CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com
Moore on the Brief - Special Guest Vikram David Amar
The Amars’ amicus brief in Moore vs. United States is the talk of the legal ecosphere. Akhil’s co-author, Professor Vik Amar, joins us for analysis of the precedents that followed Hylton - faithful and otherwise. This tour de force of legal analysis is perfectly suited for your CLE credit. We also look at recent comments from the Supreme Court on Moore’s issues, and survey the reactions to the brief’s release. Various arguments that purport to address some of the brief’s claims have emerged: in support, in conflict, and complementary; we analyze and respond to them.
Moore, in Brief
In our 150th episode, we present the amicus brief in Moore v. United States, authored by Professor Amar with his brother, Professor Vikram Amar. Reminder: CLE credit is available after listening by going to podcast.njsba.com. The brief begins with the provocative statement that most other briefs in the case have missed the point? What is the point that they missed? We explain how their focus on the 16th amendment misses the basic constitutional questions which the Court answered back in 1796 in the Hylton v. US case. Who says so? Some guys named Washington and Hamilton, to start. And this Lincoln fellow agreed later. But everyone seems to have missed this. You won’t.
Aisles, not Walls
The follies in the House have ended, for now. Many Americans looked upon the travesty with despair, wondering if our government might yet be up to the task of leading and reaching beyond party to find country and duty. We take a good look and search for places where reaching across the aisle might still take place - and we try to do our part and go beyond demonizing those not in our own party. Plus - the Amars’ amicus brief is up in Moore vs. US, and we open that door. This episode is eligible for CLE credit at podcast.njsba.com.
Still no speaker. Is it really the case that the House can’t do anything? How might it work? What about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - does it play any role in the Speaker selection process? Meanwhile, we turn towards the other Jordan and see the dangers of insecure borders that are inherently hard to defend. Professor Amar explains how this simple fact led him to insights that resulted in a constitutional narrative quite different from those you may have been taught, and which makes certain predictions and conclusions. Does it stand up? We begin a process, which we will return to, of seeing where it leads us. A sweeping episode - eligible for CLE credit by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.
Intellectual Law podcast
I’ve been looking for a podcast that goes deep into intellectual thought, discussion of the law & how a non-lawyer, law enthusiast can learn more & think deeper about the law. This podcast does it all!
I discovered Akhil Amar about a year ago (thank you Politicology for having him on as a guest), and he quickly rose to the top of my podcast list. i’ve been going back and listening to the episodes that I missed and just finished Voracious Horatius—a riveting look into the intrigue surrounding the election of 1800 and subsequent peaceful (barely) transfer of power. Akhil reads excerpts from his then just released book, The Words That Made Us, artfully weaving in and out of witty and playful banter with his host Andy Lipka. i’ve read this book, but listening to the author himself do the readings provided so much more insight into the story of these giants of the founding of America and their unique, often powerful personalities.
Amar repeatedly attempts to deceive his audience by lying or at least using misleading words to justify his Trump derangement syndrome. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Trump but Amar can’t be trusted to fairly present them.
Now he’s brings on Bob Woodward, a criminal who tampered with the grand jury and violated individual privacy rights while Being part of the first media/FBI plot to bring down a president. Now he wants to repeat the leftist coup the brought down Nixon