This Constitution

Savannah Eccles Johnston & Matthew Brogdon
  • 5.0(21개의 평가)
  • 교육
  • 격주 업데이트

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

    3일 전

    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

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

    3월 23일

    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

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

    3월 9일

    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

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

    2월 23일

    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

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

    2월 16일

    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

    28분
  6. Season 3, Episode 12 | Announcing Independence: How the Declaration Went Viral in 1776

    2월 9일

    Season 3, Episode 12 | Announcing Independence: How the Declaration Went Viral in 1776

    What good is a declaration if no one hears it? After the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, the real work began: Announcing it to the American people and the world.  In this episode of This Constitution, host Savannah Eccles Johnston is joined by Matthew Brogdon to explore how the Declaration of Independence was published, proclaimed, and received in 1776. Together, they trace the Declaration’s journey from Congress to the public square, examining how a fledgling nation used print culture, public readings, and a robust free press to unite the colonies and justify rebellion to the world. Savannah and Matthew walk through the critical timeline from July 2 to July 4, explaining why Independence Day commemorates publication rather than the vote itself. They unpack the importance of John Hancock’s role as the public face of the Declaration, the significance of the Dunlap Broadside as the first printed versions Americans actually read, and why the famous handwritten parchment played little role in the document’s original impact. The episode highlights how the Declaration spread rapidly through newspapers, churches, courthouses, and military camps, becoming as much an oral event as a written one. Public readings mobilized soldiers, artisans, farmers, women, and those unable to read, transforming the Declaration into a shared civic experience. Savannah and Matthew also explore the dramatic colonial reactions from celebrations and statue-toppling to loyalist resistance and rebuttals, revealing a nation deeply divided even at the moment of independence. Finally, the conversation turns to the Goddard Declaration, the first printed version to include the signers' names, produced by Mary Katherine Goddard in 1777. The episode argues that the successful announcement of independence was not just a political achievement, but a triumph of the American free press and a powerful early expression of democratic communication. In This Episode (00:18) The challenge of announcing independence(01:04) What’s new about the Declaration?(01:31) Congress’s role and the importance of eloquence(02:47) The Declaration’s immediate impact and fading(02:57) Timeline: July 2 vs. July 4(03:28) Why July 4th matters(05:24) John Hancock’s role in publication(08:10) The Dunlap broadside: the first printed Declaration(10:33) Dunlap’s editorial changes and official record(12:10) The engrossed copy vs. the Dunlap broadside(15:38) The technology and democratization of the Declaration(16:11) Distribution and public readings(17:45) First public readings and military announcements(19:11) The Declaration’s oral and print spread(21:07) The Declaration in print culture(23:20) Speed and reach of distribution(24:20) Colonial reactions: revolutionary celebrations(28:19) Colonial reactions: loyalist responses(32:13) The Goddard broadside: publishing the signers(35:21) The Declaration’s enduring legacyNotable Quotes (03:32) “A declaration doesn’t matter unless you make it public.” — Matthew Brogdon(05:47) “It’s not Jefferson who is the face of the Declaration at first. It’s John Hancock.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(10:23) “It  was the eighteenth-century version of going viral.” — Matthew Brogdon(16:11) “There’s something very democratic about the Dunlap broadsides.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(17:24) “The Declaration was written to be read out loud.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(25:22) “We’ve been tearing down statues since the very beginning.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston(35:34) “The Declaration of Independence announcement is a testament and a victory of the American Free Press.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston

    37분
  7. Season 3, Episode 11 | Not Just Jefferson: How Congress's Red Pen Helped Create the Declaration We Know

    1월 26일

    Season 3, Episode 11 | Not Just Jefferson: How Congress's Red Pen Helped Create the Declaration We Know

    Who really wrote the Declaration of Independence? Was it Thomas Jefferson’s carefully crafted vision, or the outcome of an intense, compromise-driven process inside Congress? In this episode of This Constitution, host Savannah Eccles Johnston is joined by Matthew Brogdon to examine how Congress transformed Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence into the document the world would come to know. The conversation traces the Declaration’s path from the Committee of Five to the Committee of the Whole, where Congress cut a quarter of Jefferson’s draft. Savannah and Matthew unpack the most significant changes, including the removal of the slavery passage, the shift from emotionally charged rhetoric to a more legal tone, and the deliberate decision to aim grievances at the Crown rather than the British people. These revisions, they argue, were driven by prudence, diplomacy, and the need to persuade both domestic and foreign audiences. The episode also highlights Congress’s surprising additions. References to divine providence and a Supreme Judge of the world were strengthened, shaping a civil religious language that would echo throughout American political life. In the end, Savannah and Matthew argue that while Jefferson’s genius is undeniable, the Declaration is best understood as Congress’s declaration. It is a democratic document, forged through collaboration, compromise, and representation, and a model for how Americans would speak and govern themselves from the very beginning. In This Episode (00:00) Opening and introduction(00:17) Background to the Declaration(01:00) Drafting and committee process(02:12) Congressional revision process(03:23) Major edits and reactions(04:34) Removal of the slave passage(06:57) Strengthening legal arguments(07:31) Toning down emotional language(08:30) Example of emotional language removed(10:41) Toning down anti-British rhetoric(12:06) Example of anti-British language removed(15:07) Summary of major changes(15:17) Addition of religious language(16:22) Significance of religious additions(20:27) Motivations for religious language(20:45) Is Congress’s version better?(23:00) Examples of improved rhetoric(25:00) The Declaration as a collaborative product(26:44) Conclusion and podcast outroNotable Quotes (04:25) “25% Congress slashes and burns. I mean, they took a red pen to the thing.” — Matthew Brogdon(01:34) "So this wasn't just Jefferson's hand. You know, it wasn't like Jefferson the author. Everybody else is a clerk. There's actually quite a lot of collaboration." — Matthew Brogdon(07:32) “By making it more legally efficacious, some of that means making the document a little more boring.” — Matthew Brogdon(08:07) "Adam says he defended every word of the draft like he didn't want to see any of this change, as though he grudgingly admits to Abigail later that maybe some of this was prudent, making this less personal, less antagonistic." — Matthew Brogdon(14:10) “The road to glory and happiness is open to us too. We will climb it in a separate state and acquiesce in the necessity which pronounces our everlasting adieu." — Matthew Brogdon(22:41) "All the changes seem to be for the better." — Savannah Eccles Johnston(25:05) "Yes, Jefferson is the primary author of the declaration, but it's actually Congress's declaration." — Savannah Eccles Johnston(26:30) “I think the best way to sum this up is with the title of the declaration itself.” — Matthew Brogdon(26:42) "It's Congress's declaration. It's not the committee's, and it's not Jefferson's. It's not Adams's. It's Congress's declaration speaking for the United States of America." — Matthew Brogdon

    28분
  8. Season 3, Episode 10 | Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr.: Two Visions of the Constitution and Equality

    1월 19일

    Season 3, Episode 10 | Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr.: Two Visions of the Constitution and Equality

    How can the same Declaration of Independence lead Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. to such different conclusions about the Constitution?  In this special MLK Day episode of This Constitution, host Savannah Eccles Johnston is joined by Dr. Lucas Morel, professor of ethics and politics at Washington and Lee University, to delve into how Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. interpreted the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the American political order. The conversation traces Douglass’s intellectual evolution from initially condemning the Constitution as a pro-slavery pact, influenced by William Lloyd Garrison, to later embracing it as a “glorious liberty document” capable of delivering on the Declaration’s promise of natural rights and equality. Dr. Morel explains how Douglass came to see the Constitution as fundamentally anti-slavery when read according to its text and purpose, rather than the clouded intentions of its framers. The episode then turns to Martin Luther King Jr., examining how King remained deeply committed to the Declaration’s ideals while growing increasingly skeptical of whether the constitutional order and the American people could fully realize them without massive federal intervention. From I Have a Dream to Where Do We Go From Here, the discussion highlights King’s shift toward arguments for reparations, equality of outcomes, and expanded federal power. Ultimately, Savannah and Lucas ask a profound constitutional question: Which vision better preserves America’s founding principles? Is freedom best secured by equal laws and fair play, as Douglass believed, or by equity-driven reforms designed to correct historic injustice, as King increasingly argued? The episode offers a rigorous, thoughtful comparison of two towering figures whose legacies continue to shape debates over equality, rights, and constitutional meaning. In This Episode (01:07) Why Frederick Douglass matters(03:21) Douglass’s early constitutional views and Garrison(07:37) Douglass’s break with Garrison and shift in views(07:51) Douglass’s reinterpretation of the Constitution(12:08) Douglass’s arguments for congressional power over slavery(13:46) Douglass vs. Lincoln on federal power(18:41) Principled vs. rhetorical shift in Douglass’s views(19:53) Douglass and Lincoln as statesmen, not founders(25:45) MLK’s relationship to the Declaration and Constitution(27:15) MLK’s shift toward reparations and federal intervention(28:28) MLK’s critique of colorblindness and equality(30:30) MLK’s influence on modern equality debates(31:04) MLK’s reinterpretation of the Constitution(35:41) Competing notions of liberty and the Declaration(36:14) Who got it right, Douglass or MLK?Notable Quotes (07:24) “Douglass believed in the Declaration more than Garrison did.” — Lucas Morel(00:27:15) "Frederick Douglass can be considered a statesman because of the way he used the English language, the king's English, as it were, on behalf of the principles of the regime." — Lucas Morel(36:40) “I’ll put all my eggs in the Douglass basket.” — Lucas Morel(37:08) “Frederick Douglass, as you said earlier, was a true believer in these principles. He believed in them more than most white Americans believed in their principles.” — Lucas Morel(37:37) “King came to believe what he called this thing called color shock, that there was a way in which color still has this power over people in the United States.”— Lucas Morel(38:51) “At the end of the day, Frederick Douglass vision overlapped much more closely to Lincoln than Martin Luther King's did.”— Lucas Morel

    40분
모두 보기(51개)

예고편

평가 및 리뷰

5
최고 5점
21개의 평가

소개

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.  

정보

  • 제작진
    Savannah Eccles Johnston & Matthew Brogdon
  • 방송 연도
    2024년 - 2026년
  • 에피소드
    51
  • 등급
    무삭제판
  • 저작권
    © 2026 This Constitution
  • 웹사이트 보기
    This Constitution

좋아할 만한 다른 항목