This Constitution

Savannah Eccles Johnston & Matthew Brogdon

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 3 | How Do You Govern When You’re Also Fighting a War?

    4d ago

    Season 4, Episode 3 | How Do You Govern When You’re Also Fighting a War?

    When we talk about America's founding, we tend to jump straight from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution. But what held the country together in the eleven years between? What happened after independence was declared? Who ran the war? Who paid for the army? And how did thirteen quarreling states manage to hold together long enough to win? In this episode, co-hosts Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon dive into the much-maligned Articles of Confederation, the nation’s first written constitution. They ask whether the Articles deserve their bad reputation, or whether they were actually a surprisingly effective revolutionary government. Topics include the tension between “perpetual union” and state sovereignty, the five-year ratification battle over western lands, the complete absence of an executive or judiciary, and how George Washington’s personal restraint prevented a military coup. The episode also explores the Articles’ genuine successes: the Northwest Ordinance, which governed slavery in the territories for 70 years, the creation of ad hoc executive departments run by people like Robert Morris, and the lessons that shaped the 1787 Constitution. Along the way, Johnston and Brogdon debate the European Union as a modern analogy, mourn the death of geography education, and ask whether a government that can’t tax but can win a war deserves more credit than it gets. Tune in to learn why the Articles of Confederation, clunky, slow, and underpowered, might just be the most underrated constitution in American history. In This Episode (00:00) Introduction(01:02) What problem were the Articles designed to solve?(02:08) Drafting the Articles of Confederation(03:44) Was America building a nation or a league of states?(04:15) “Perpetual union” versus state sovereignty(05:24) Why federalism was still an unfinished idea(06:23) Building a government while fighting a war(07:12) Comparing the Articles to the European Union(09:02) The rise of an American identity distinct from Europe(10:42) The structure of the Confederation Congress(11:28) Why Congress struggled to function effectively(13:22) Why deliberative assemblies struggle during wartime(16:05) The dangers of having no executive branch(18:08) Committees, enforcement, and the limits of the Articles(19:02) How America still managed to win the Revolution(19:41) Why ratification took five years(20:22) Western land disputes and Maryland’s veto(21:02) Did the Declaration itself function as a constitution?(22:24) Sea-to-sea charters and the fight over western territories(24:03) Why geography matters in civic education(25:56) The Confederation Congress and Western Lands Policy(28:11) Fear of tyranny versus fear of ineffective government(28:35) Madison, factions, and the logic of federalism(31:19) Did the Articles accomplish their real purpose?(32:01) The Northwest Ordinance and territorial expansion(33:32) Why foreign affairs exposed the Articles’ weaknesses(34:04) “The plane did fly,”  reassessing the Articles(34:17) George Washington and civilian control of the military(35:53) How America avoided military dictatorship(37:04) The ad hoc executive departments of the Revolution(37:53) Final reflections on America’s first government  Notable Quotes (01:02) "If you're going to win a war, you have to have a government. Armies don't equip themselves." — Matthew Brogdon(06:18) "They really are building the plane while flying it. They are engaged in the act of constructing these institutions in the middle of fighting a war." — Matthew Brogdon(12:41) "The Articles of Confederation treated things as though this was a league of sovereign states — and then it gives the confederation responsibilities that belong to a government, not just a diplomatic assembly." — Matthew Brogdon(18:01) "A government without an executive and a judicial power to carry the laws into execution is like a body without arms and legs to act and move." — Matthew Brogdon, quoting Madison(19:21) "It was a fairly effective revolutionary government, as revolutionary governments go. You can think of some really not successful ones." — Savannah Eccles Johnston(34:05) "Congress does build the plane while flying it, but the plane does fly — it's a bit of a clunker, but it got the job done." — Matthew Brogdon(35:50) "At least part of what allowed them to be successful was Washington's restraint." — Savannah Eccles Johnston(36:29) "Without people making the right choices, without people taking virtuous action, the best-laid structure is not going to save you from disaster or tyranny." — Matthew Brogdon(37:59) "They did the job they were supposed to do. They didn't dissolve into anarchy. They didn't become a tyranny — because of the civic virtue of George Washington." — Savannah Eccles JohnstonResources and Links This Constitution   Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/this-constitution/id1771900485Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0IQCq5DUPWlImiAdc4t3pf?si=85085b24b55b4130Website: https://www.uvu.edu/ccs/projects/this_constitution_podcast.htmlYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@centerforconstitutionalstu8915/videosSavannah Eccles Johnston linkedin.com/in/savannah-eccles-johnston-515a72198https://www.uvu.edu/ccs/people/savannah_eccles_johnston.htmlMatthew Brogdon https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-brogdon-8a21bb89/https://www.uvu.edu/ccs/people/matthew_brogdon.htmlRecommended Reading The Articles of Confederation: The First Constitution of the United States (primary source)Ratification by Pauline MaierThe Quartet by Joseph J. Ellis

    39 min
  2. Season 4, Episode 2 | Splitting Sovereignty: How the Colonies Defended Local Control

    Jun 1

    Season 4, Episode 2 | Splitting Sovereignty: How the Colonies Defended Local Control

    Was the American Revolution really about breaking away from Britain? Or was it first a fight over who had the right to govern local communities? In this episode, host Matthew Brogdon sits down with constitutional scholar Sean Beienburg to unpack the forgotten federalism debate at the heart of the American Founding. Long before the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, Americans were already arguing that Parliament could not truly represent people living thousands of miles away. What began as a dispute over taxation quickly became a much deeper constitutional conflict about sovereignty, local self-government, and the dangers of concentrated power. Together, Brogdon and Beienburg trace how ideas first argued during the Stamp Act crisis eventually shaped the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment itself. They explore why early Americans believed states retained most governing authority, how federalism helped anti-slavery movements spread across northern states, and why the Civil War debate over “states’ rights” is far more complicated than modern political narratives suggest. The conversation also dives into prohibition, Reconstruction, the Progressive Era, and modern fights over marijuana, immigration, and federal authority, revealing how constitutional federalism continues to shape political battles across the ideological spectrum. Tune in to discover why the struggle between local self-government and centralized power has been part of the American story from the very beginning. In This Episode (00:15) Introduction Sean Beienburg(00:47) The American Revolution and local self-government(03:58) The British Constitution debate(06:40) Continuity from colonies to states(08:05) The First Continental Congress's Declaration and Resolves(11:20) Federalism in early state constitutions(14:18) The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780(17:54) British sympathy for the American argument(21:02) The Articles of Confederation(27:44) From the Articles to the Constitution(31:01) Federalism and the abolition of slavery(38:27) Federalism during the Civil War and Reconstruction(42:04) The "Lost Cause" narrative(42:51) Federalism in later American politics(45:43) Prohibition as a federalism debate(50:42) The enduring relevance of federalismNotable Quotes (01:06) "The American Revolution is obviously about the idea of self-government, but the question is self-government by whom? And I think that if you look at the debates, what jumps out is that the grounds cited were about power being vested in the provincial, the colonial legislatures." — Sean Beienburg(08:56) "They're not saying give us representation in Parliament. They're saying: we are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures. This is the assertion that the English colonies in North America are self-governing states that are part of a broader empire." — Matthew Brogdon(13:34) "All of the northern state constitutions — the states that are rewriting a new one — they put this language in there. I've got the goods on this. Federalism, the idea that most stuff stays in-house at the states, is a value they assert repeatedly." — Sean Beienburg(17:07) "The Federal Constitution is only part of the people's constitution. If you want to know the rest of the Constitution that governs the people of the state of Utah, you'd have to go look at our state constitution." — Matthew Brogdon (citing Troy Smith)(35:06) "If you look at the secession manifestos from the Southern states, they are as angry or angrier at northern states invoking federalism against slavery, like they're mad that the northern states aren't participating in extradition or the Fugitive Slave act kind of stuff.." — Sean Beienburg(52:34) "Constitutional federalism is a part of all of our constitutional heritage, and I think we've sort of lost track of that. I hope that's something America will continue to rediscover." — Sean Beienburg(53:15) "Even if they might be disingenuous, they might get in the habit and decide they like it. Try it, you might like it. Constitutional federalism is a pretty good thing." — Sean BeienburgResources and Links This Constitution   Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/this-constitution/id1771900485Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0IQCq5DUPWlImiAdc4t3pf?si=85085b24b55b4130Website: https://www.uvu.edu/ccs/projects/this_constitution_podcast.htmlYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@centerforconstitutionalstu8915/videosSean Beienburg https://search.asu.edu/profile/3326978Matthew Brogdon https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-brogdon-8a21bb89/https://www.uvu.edu/ccs/people/matthew_brogdon.html

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

    May 18

    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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
See All (56)

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
    56
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2026 This Constitution
  • Show Website
    This Constitution

You Might Also Like