523 episodes
We the People National Constitution Ctr
-
- News
-
-
4.6 • 1K Ratings
-
A weekly show of constitutional debate hosted by National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen where listeners can hear the best arguments on all sides of the constitutional issues at the center of American life.
-
The Evolution of Originalism
Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett is the author of A Life for Liberty: The Making of an American Originalist, a new memoir about his remarkable legal career. He joins Jeffrey Rosen to discuss his role in the evolution of originalism from a philosophy of judicial restraint to one of constitutional conservatism dedicated to restoring “the lost Constitution.”
Resources:
Randy Barnett, A Life for Liberty: The Making of an American Originalist (2024)
Randy Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2014)
Randy Barnett, “Two Conceptions of the Ninth Amendment,” (1989)
Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (1978)
Antonin Scalia, “Originalism: The Lesser Evil,” (1989)
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
“Originalism: A Matter of Interpretation,” NCC America’s Town Hall Program (2022)
Stay Connected and Learn More:
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.
You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
Donate -
Judge David Tatel on Vision: A Memoir of Blindness and Justice
Judge David Tatel’s new memoir, Vision: A Memoir of Blindness and Justice, recalls his remarkable legal career. In this episode, Judge Tatel joins Jeffrey Rosen to discuss his experience as a civil rights lawyer, landmark cases he presided over as a federal judge, the challenges his blindness posed, and how he overcame them.
Resources:
Judge David S. Tatel, Vision: A Memoir of Blindness and Justice (2024)
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.
You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. -
Presidential Immunity From the Founding to Today
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down its 6-3 ruling in the landmark case Trump v. United States, finding that the president is entitled to presumptive immunity from prosecution for all official acts, but not for unofficial acts. In this episode, Sai Prakash of the University of Virginia Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School join Jeffrey Rosen to delve into the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and explore the history of presidential power and immunity from the founding to present day, and whether the Court’s decision comports with the original understanding of the Constitution.
Resources:
Trump v. United States (2024)
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)
Michael McConnell, The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution (2020)
“Former Federal Judge Michael McConnell Discusses Presidential Immunity and Trump Cases with Pam Karlan,” Stanford Legal podcast
Sai Prakash, Imperial from the Beginning: The Constitution of the Original Executive (2015)
Sai Prakash, The Living Presidency: An Originalist Argument Against Its Ever-Expanding Powers (2020)
“Does the Supreme Court ruling make the president a king? Not quite, says this Virginia law professor,” WTOP News (July 2, 2024)
Sai Prakash, Prosecuting and Punishing Our Presidents, Texas Law Review (Nov. 2021)
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.
You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. -
Trump v. United States and the National Security Constitution
In this episode, Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School, Deborah Pearlstein of Princeton University, and Matthew Waxman of Columbia Law School join Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation to explore Trump v. United States and the updated edition of Koh’s landmark book, The National Security Constitution in the Twenty-First Century. This program originally streamed live on July 1, 2024 as part of the NCC’s America’s Town Hall program series.
Resources:
Harold Koh, The National Security Constitution in the Twenty-First Century (2024)
Trump v. United States (2024)
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Steel Seizure Case) (1952)
The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794
Deborah Pearlstein, “Lawyering the Presidency,” The Georgetown Law Journal (2022)
Deborah Pearlstein, “The Executive Branch Anticanon,” Fordham Law Review (2020)
Matthew C. Waxman, “War Powers Reform: A Skeptical View,” Yale L. J. Forum (2024)
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.
You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. -
Recapping the Supreme Court’s 2023-24 Term
As the Supreme Court term nears its end, the Court has issued a series of decisions in many blockbuster cases, including overturning Chevron deference, upholding a law disarming domestic violence offenders and applying obstruction laws to January 6 prosecutions. Sarah Isgur of The Dispatch and Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal join Jeffrey Rosen to review the Supreme Court’s most important decisions from this term so far.
Resources:
Fischer v. United States (2024)
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)
United States v. Rahimi (2024)
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.
You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. -
The Interbellum Constitution
In this episode, political theorist William B. Allen, editor and translator of a new edition of Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, and Alison LaCroix, author of The Interbellum Constitution: Union, Commerce, and Slavery in the Age of Federalisms, join Jeffrey Rosen to explore the intellectual foundations—from Montesquieu and beyond—of constitutional interpretation from the founding to the Civil War. They also discuss historical practice and tradition in interpreting the Constitution throughout the interbellum period, and how this history applies to debates over constitutional interpretation today. This program was streamed live on June 17, 2024, as part of our America’s Town Hall series.
Resources:
• Alison LaCroix, The Interbellum Constitution: Union, Commerce, and Slavery in the Age of Federalisms, 2024
• Montesquieu, ‘The Spirit of the Laws’: A Critical Edition, edited and translated by W. B. Allen, 2024
• The Commerce Clause
• Alison LaCroix, “James Madison v. Originalism,” Project Syndicate (Aug. 26, 2022)
• 10th Amendment
• Andrew Jackson, Proclamation Regarding Nullification, (December 10, 1832)
• Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816)
• Preamble to the Constitution
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.
You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
Customer Reviews
More people need to seriously consider the constitution
Thank you for the discussions. I particularly enjoyed the discussion with Alison LaCroix and William B. Allen.
As an immigrant I understood the constitution better than most, but still don’t know enough. In recent years, it seems to me there are forces seeking to destroy this country. Keep in mind that we have a Supreme Court justice who does not know what a Woman is. If you can redefine Woman, you can redefine freedom, patriotism, honesty, integrity, or any other word.
With regard to succession, we had better hope that is an option. Do not look to the constitution or the civil war to decide this issue, but rather the Declaration of Independence. With the insanity of the authoritarian left, a total collapse of America is a very real possibility.
Guest Selectivity- Platforming Conservative Hacks
Many non-partisan media shows suffer from this issue, but you can’t platform right wing hacks and pretend you are unbiased.
Putting them on as if they speak in good faith is in itself a form of bias.
Sarah Isgur is a right wing hack and has no credibility on the law or in any legitimate legal circle.
On almost any issue Sarah debates and equivocates in bad faith. As per usual, her conservative method of analysis is to accept what the court says as fact, despite the obvious holes, and then say “look, it must be right, they wouldn’t spin or lie and they have no agenda.”
People understand that it is very difficult to get a reasonably mature or “normal” conservative to speak outside their bubble, but that shouldn’t mean you lower the bar for them.
Don’t platform people who are fail to critically assess legal opinions and instead only see them through their political bias. Sarah Isgur cannot remove her conservative colored glasses. Amplifying that viewpoint injured the show’s nonpartisan stance.
Will SCOTUS overturn CHEVRON EPISODE
Hi, I am listening to Tim rebut Chris’s point about public accountability. He says that agencies do not allow for accountability to the voters and that is simply not true. Agencies have a very strict administrative rule making process that REQUIRES NOTICE AND COMMENT from the public and only that after that process can the agency begin to write the rules for the legislation. So what is he talking about? There is a process already built in for accountability to the voters. I took an Administrative Law class in grad school and the APA IS SUPER STRICT.
Q: for Tim: Using your logic about the constitutionality of Chevron, do you think judicial review (Marbury v. Madison) should be overturned? This case gave SCOTUS their judicial review power, not the Constitution.