Discover
We the People
We the People
Author: National Constitution Center
Subscribed: 4,407Played: 143,097Subscribe
Share
© 2025 National Constitution Center. All Rights Reserved.
Description
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.
591 Episodes
Reverse
In this episode, Samuel Estreicher of the NYU School of Law and John Yoo of the UC Berkeley School of Law join to recap the oral arguments from the pair of challenges to President Trump’s tariffs and discuss whether International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the president to impose extensive tariffs on nearly all goods imported into the United States. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.
Resources
Samuel Estreicher et al., “Brief of Professors of Administrative Law, Separation of Powers, Foreign Relations Law, Legislation and the Regulatory State, and Trade Law” (10/24/2025)
Sam Estreicher and Andrew Babbit, “The Case Against Unbounded Delegation in Trump v. VOS Selections,” Lawfare (10/30/2025)
John Yoo, “What Could the Supreme Court Rule About Trump’s Tariffs,” Civitas Institute (9/8/2025)
Biden v. Nebraska (2023)
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. (2001)
Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981)
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1953)
United States v. Yoshida International, Inc. (CCPA, 1975)
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)
In our new podcast, Pursuit: The Founders’ to Guide to Happiness Jeffrey Rosen explores the founders’ lives with the historians who know them best. Plus, filmmaker Ken Burns shares his daily practice of self-reflection.
Listen to episodes of Pursuit on Apple Podcast and Spotify.
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr
Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube
Support our important work:
Donate
This episode is a two-part show on Alexander Hamilton. First, in a new episode of the podcast Pursuit: The Founders’ Guide to Happiness, Jeffrey Rosen, historian Stephen Knott, and filmmaker Ken Burns unpack Hamilton’s life and legacy to see what lessons he can teach us about restraint. Then, Jeffrey Rosen and acclaimed historian and biographer Ron Chernow further explore the meteoric rise, inspiring life, and tragic death of Hamilton in a conversation from the NCC’s 2025 Liberty Medal Ceremony.
Resources
Pursuit: The Founders’ Guide to Happiness
Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton (2005)
Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Liberty: How Hamilton vs. Jefferson Ignited the Lasting Battle Over Power in America (2025)
The National Constitution Center’s 37th annual Liberty Medal
Pursuit of Happiness, Song Cycles by Jeffrey Rosen,CSPAN
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr
Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube
Support our important work:
Donate
Jeffrey Rosen launched his new book, The Pursuit of Liberty: How Hamilton vs. Jefferson Ignited the Lasting Battle Over Power in America, at the National Constitution Center in conversation with Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic. The book explores how the opposing constitutional visions of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton have defined the nation since its founding, shaped presidents from Washington to Trump, and continued to drive today’s debates over government power. This program was recorded live in Philadelphia on October 21, 2025, and presented in partnership with The Atlantic and the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History
Resources
Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Liberty: How Hamilton vs. Jefferson Ignited the Lasting Battle Over Power in America, (2025)
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr
Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube
Support our important work:
Donate
In this bonus episode, we’re sharing a live conversation with Jeffrey Rosen, Joanne Freeman, George F. Will, and Sean Wilentz exploring Rosen’s new book, which is out this week: The Pursuit of Liberty: How Hamilton vs. Jefferson Ignited the Lasting Battle Over Power in America. Their conversation explores how the opposing constitutional visions of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton have defined the nation since its founding and continued to drive today’s debates over the balance between liberty and power.
This conversation was originally recorded on February 22, 2025, as part of the NCC’s President’s Council Retreat in Miami, FL.
Resources
Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Liberty: How Hamilton vs. Jefferson Ignited the Lasting Battle Over Power in America, (2025)
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr
Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube
Support our important work:
Donate
In this episode, William Banks of Syracuse University College of Law and Laura Dickinson of the George Washington Law School join to discuss the history and meaning of the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the president to deploy the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement purposes. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.
Resources
Illinois v. Trump (N.D. Illinois, 2025)
United States v. Cruikshank (1875)
Martin v. Mott (1827)
William Banks and Stephen Dycus, Soldiers on the Home Front: The Domestic Role of the American Military (2016)
William Banks, “Providing ‘Supplemental Security’ – The Insurrection Act and the Military Role in Responding to Domestic Crises,” Journal of National Security Law & Policy (12/15/2009)
Laura Dickinson, “Protecting the U.S. National Security State from a Rogue President,” Harvard National Security Journal (1/9/2025)
Laura Dickinson, “How the Insurrection Act (Properly Understood) Limits Domestic Deployments of the U.S. Military,” Lawfare (9/12/2024)
In our new podcast, Pursuit: The Founders’ Guide to Happiness, Jeffrey Rosen explores the founders’ lives with the historians who know them best. Plus, filmmaker Ken Burns shares his daily practice of self-reflection.
Listen to episodes of Pursuit on Apple Podcast and Spotify.
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr
Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube
Support our important work:
Donate
In this episode, Stephanie Barclay of the Georgetown University Law Center and Erwin Chemerinsky of the UC Berkeley School of Law join to recap the oral arguments from Chiles v. Salazar and discuss whether Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy violates the First Amendment. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.
Resources
United States v. Skrmetti (2025)
Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025)
NIFLA v. Becerra (2018)
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (Cal. 1976)
Stephanie Barclay et al., “Brief amici curiae of First Amendment Scholars,” Chiles v. Salazar (6/13/2025)
Erwin Chemerinsky et al., “Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars,” Chiles v. Salazar (8/26/2025)
Cass Report (2024)
In our new podcast, Pursuit: The Founders’ Guide to Happiness, Jeffrey Rosen explores the founders’ lives with the historians who know them best. Plus, filmmaker Ken Burns shares his daily practice of self-reflection.
Listen to episodes of Pursuit on Apple Podcast and Spotify.
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr
Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube
Support our important work:
Donate
In this episode, Steve Vladeck of the Georgetown University Law Center and Sarah Isgur of SCOTUSblog join to discuss the legacy of the Roberts Court on its 20th anniversary and preview the important cases in the Supreme Court’s upcoming term, which begins on Monday, October 6. The National Constitution Center’s Griffin Richie guest hosts.
Resources
Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump
Trump v. Slaughter
Sarah Isgur and David French, Advisory Opinions
Steve Vladeck, “The Roberts Court Turns Twenty,” One First (9/29/2025)
Steve Vladeck, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (5/16/2023)
Caleb Nelson, “Special Feature: Must Administrative Officers Serve at the President’s Pleasure?,” Democracy Project (9/29/2025)
Joseph Copeland, “Favorable views of Supreme Court remain near historic low,” Pew Research (9/3/2025)
Brett M. Kavanaugh, “Separation of Powers During the Forty-Fourth Presidency and Beyond,” Minnesota Law Review (2009)
In our new podcast, Pursuit: The Founders’ Guide to Happiness, Jeffrey Rosen explores the founders’ lives with the historians who know them best. Plus, filmmaker Ken Burns shares his daily practice of self-reflection.
Listen to episodes of Pursuit on Apple Podcast and Spotify.
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr
Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube
Support our important work:
Donate
In this episode, Genevieve Lakier of the University of Chicago Law School and Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law join to discuss the recent suspension of Jimmy Kimmel by ABC and the broader history and constitutionality of jawboning, the practice of government officials pressuring private actors to stifle speech.
Resources
National Rifle Association v. Vullo (2024)
Murthy v. Missouri (2024)
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963)
Rust v. Sullivan (1991)
Genevieve Lakier, “Enforcing the First Amendment in an Era of Jawboning,” University of Chicago Law Review, Forthcoming 2026
Eugene Volokh, “Jimmy Kimmel, the NRA, and the First Amendment,” Volokh Conspiracy, September 18, 2025
In our new podcast, Pursuit: The Founders’ to Guide to Happiness Jeffrey Rosen explores the founders’ lives with the historians who know them best. Plus, filmmaker Ken Burns shares his daily practice of self-reflection.
Listen to episodes of Pursuit on Apple Podcast and Spotify.
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr
Explore theAmerica at 250 Civic Toolkit
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube
Support our important work:
Donate
On September 17, 2025, the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, joined Jeffrey Rosen for an America’s Town Hall program in celebration of Constitution Day 2025 and the release of her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution. Justice Barrett reflects on her journey to the Court and offers a glimpse into her role (and daily life) as a justice, including her deliberative process and approach to constitutional interpretation.
Resources
Amy Coney Barrett, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution, (2025)
National Constitution Center: America at 250 Civic Toolkit
National Constitution Center: Constitution Daily
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr
Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube
In our new podcast, Pursuit: The Founders’ Guide to Happiness, Jeffrey Rosen explores the founders’ lives with the historians who know them best. Plus, filmmaker Ken Burns shares his daily practice of self-reflection.
The “pursuit of happiness” is one of the most famous phrases in American history. When America’s founders wrote it in the Declaration of Independence, they intended it to mean happiness through lifelong learning and self-improvement.
To start our series, Jeffrey Rosen and Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, trace how the meaning of the pursuit of happiness has changed over time. Then, American filmmaker Ken Burns, who has spent his “entire life trying to figure out the United States,” shares how daily self-reflection has given him new perspectives on what the founders faced 250 years ago.
Follow Pursuit: The Founders’ Guide to Happiness on Apple Podcast and Spotify.
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr
Explore theAmerica at 250 Civic Toolkit
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube
Support our important work:
Donate
In this episode, Christine Chabot of Marquette University Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School join to discuss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook’s termination and the broader legal and constitutional issues it raises, such as the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve and the scope of the president’s removal power.
Resources
Trump v. Wilcox (2025)
Collins v. Yellin (2021)
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020)
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)
Christine Chabot, “Is the Federal Reserve Constitutional? An Originalist Argument for Independent Agencies,” Notre Dame Law Review (2020)
Michael McConnell, “Opinion: Save the Federal Reserve’s independence by splitting the agency,” Washington Post (September 3, 2025)
In our new podcast, Pursuit: The Founders’ Guide to Happiness, Jeffrey Rosen explores the founders’ lives with the historians who know them best. Plus, filmmaker Ken Burns shares his daily practice of self-reflection.
Listen to episodes of Pursuit on Apple Podcast and Spotify.
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr.
Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen.
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube.
Support our important work:
Donate
In this episode, Bradley Smith of Capital University Law School and Nicholas Stephanopoulos of Harvard Law School join to discuss the history and future of partisan gerrymandering, including the mid-decade redistricting battles of the Gilded Age and the ongoing mid-decade redistricting efforts in Texas and California.
Resources
Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)
Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Aligning Election Law (2024)
Nicholas Stephanopoulos & Eric McGhee, “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap,” Chicago Unbound (2014)
Bradley Smith, Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform (2001)
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen.
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube.
Support our important work.
Donate
In this episode, Sabrina Lynn Motley, director of the Smithsonian Folklife Festival at the Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage, and Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, discuss how their institutions are celebrating America’s 250th birthday. This conversation took place at Chautauqua Institution 2025 Summer Assembly.
Resources
Jeff Rosen, The Pursuit of Liberty: How Hamilton and Jefferson Ignited the Lasting Battle Over Power in America
Chautauqua Institution, Sabrina Lynn Motley and Jeffrey Rosen
National Constitution Center, America’s Town Hall
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen.
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube.
Support our important work.
Donate
In this episode, Bradley Smith of Capital University Law School and Nicholas Stephanopoulos of Harvard Law School join to discuss the history and future of racial gerrymandering, including how the Court’s upcoming decision in Louisiana v. Callais could affect the Voting Rights Act.
Resources
Louisiana v. Callais (2025)
Allen v. Milligan (2023)
Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Aligning Election Law (2024)
Bradley Smith, Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform (2001)
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen.
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube.
Support our important work.
Donate
In this episode, Richard Primus of the University of Michigan Law School and John Harrison of the University of Virginia School of Law join to discuss Primus’s new book The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power, which challenges the prevailing understanding of congressional power and argues that Congress is not limited to its textually enumerated powers. Their conversation traces how this fundamental disagreement has shaped key moments in American constitutional history, from the Founding Era to the New Deal, and why the debate remains unsettled today.
Resources
Richard Primus, The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power (2025)
Richard Primus, “’The Essential Characteristic’: Enumerated Powers and the Bank of the United States,” Michigan Law Review (2018)
John Harrison, “Enumerated Federal Power and the Necessary and Proper Clause (reviewingThe Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause by Gary Lawson, Geoffrey P. Miller, Robert G. Natelson, Guy I. Seidman),” The University of Chicago Law Review (2011)
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen.
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube.
Support our important work.
Donate
In this episode, Mary Ziegler of the UC Davis School of Law and Stephen Gilles of the Quinnipiac University School of Law join to discuss Ziegler’s new book Personhood: The New Civil War over Reproduction, which explores the history and goals of the anti-abortion movement in the United States.
Resources
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)
Mary Ziegler, Personhood: The New Civil War over Reproduction (2025)
Mary Ziegler, Abortion and Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present (2020)
Stephen Gilles, “What Does Dobbs Mean for the Constitutional Right to a Life-or-Health-Preserving Abortion,” Mississippi Law Journal (2023)
Stephen Gilles, “Why Fourteenth Amendment Personhood Requires Live Birth,” Notre Dame Journal of Ethics and Public Policy (2025)
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen.
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube.
Support our important work.
Donate
In this episode, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David Levering Lewis joins to unpack Du Bois’ life, legacy, and enduring impact on American history and discuss his new memoir, The Stained Glass Window.
Resources
David Levering Lewis, The Stained Glass Window: A Family History as the American Story, 1790–1958, (2025)
David Levering Lewis, W.E.B. Du Bois: A Biography 1868–1963, (2009)
American Historical Association, “W.E.B. Du Bois (1868–1963): Historian, Sociologist, Editor, Activist,” Perspectives on History, (2023)
W.E.B. Du Bois, The Talented Tenth, (1903)
W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk: Centennial Edition, (2003)
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen.
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube.
Support our important work.
Donate
In this episode, Derek Black of the University of South Carolina School of Law and Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute join to discuss this recent emergency docket decision and explore the history of federal involvement in education.
Resources
McMahon v. New York (2025)
Scott Harris with Derek Black, “Trump’s Targeting of Education Department Could Eliminate Dozens of Federal Programs for Millions of Students Nationwide,” Counterpoint (Feb. 10, 2025)
Derek Black, “Dangerous Learning: The South’s Long War on Black Literacy,” (2025)
Neal McCluskey, “Right Supreme Court Call on Downsizing the US Department of Education,” Cato at Liberty (July 14, 2025)
Neal McCluskey, Feds in the Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples, and Compromises American Education, (2007)
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen.
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube.
Support our important work.
Donate
In this episode, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Jan Crawford of CBS News, and Fred Smith Jr. of Stanford Law School join to explore polarization on the Court and the role of the media and the political branches in shaping public perceptions.
Resources
Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025)
Jess Bravin and Mariah Timms, “Supreme Court Limits Rulings Against Trump on Birthright Citizenship,” The Wall Street Journal (June 27, 2025)
Jan Crawford, Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for the Control of the United States Supreme Court (2007)
Fred O. Smith, Jr. and Peter O’Neill, “The Forgotten Face of ‘Our Federalism,’” The Yale Law Journal (forthcoming, 2026)
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen.
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube.
Support our important work.
Donate
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its final decisions of the 2024–25 term. In this episode, Steve Vladeck of the Georgetown University Law Center and Sarah Isgur of SCOTUSblog join to discuss the significant cases from this Supreme Court term.
Resources
Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025)
Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025)
DHS v. DVD (2025)
Steve Vladeck, “163: A New Kind of Judicial Supremacy,” One First (June 30, 2025)
Advisory Opinions podcast
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org
Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.
Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen.
Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube.
Support our important work.
Donate






a teacher, and a coach are not paid by the hour. They are salaried! They shouldn't be allowed to pray on school grounds.
E up
"A well regulated militia" is also included in the Amendment, but not discussed.
re: kennedy's dissenting opinion that once you share your cell phone data with your cell provider, you have forfeited privacy of that data, and basing that opinion on some sort of pre-tech precedent, i call bull. i used to pick up the big black at&t dial phone receiver on the wall and a couple neighbors might already be talking on our 'party line'. no one ever alleged that a party line imbued law enforcement or the government with the right to bug my phone without a warrant. before my time, the operator was on the line when you picked up your phone and you asked her to connect you to your party. her being on the line, with the ability to listen in on your call, was never a basis for government to also listen in without a warrant. your phone is not only a method for traditionally protected private communication, but is also the repository for modern day "papers and effects". "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searc
the text is very clear. that the court has watered it down in the past with 'exceptions' does not dilute the clear meaning of the amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." "unreasonable" is virtually defined in the text as being warrantless. a warrant is presupposed as the baseline for reasonable, by virtue of the word "and". our constitutional protections have been so sliced and diced that now we have this discussion of whether a government agent can literally walk into your house at will, without any articulated cause at all.
also, framing the fourth amendment protections as being more easily ignored as the seriousness of the criminal charge ~increases~ is utterly counter to the purpose and intent of this amendment, and all of the criminally accused amendments. the founders dedicated fully half of the bill of rights to rights only ever invoked upon accusation of a crime by government- if you are never accused, you never invoke those rights. thus, the founders established that our rightts when accused by government are extremely fundamental to our freedoms. the more serious the charge against you by the government, the more at stake becomes your freedom, and the more important your constitutional rights of the accused become. that is demonstrated daily in every courthouse in america, where we more closely follow full legal doctrine in the most serious of criminal cases, and we cut corners for the abundant petty offenses. if the police follow you home because they suspect you of a murder, your constitutiona
if police can walk into your house without a warrant anytime they could arrest you, and they can arrest you for felonies, misdemeanors, and even non-criminal municiple code violations, AND they can arrest you even if they wrongly believe that you violated any law or code, then there is no such thing as the fourth amendment.
Come on Jeff! Don't you see through these liberal BS'ers? I have been listening to this podcast for several years. I hear leftist adverbs and adjectives more and more frequently from you. I even took my family to the Constitution Center because of this podcast. This used to be balanced. Not so sure anymore.
Wow, crazy timing on this episode.
OMG (pun intended), there is hope for this country. Thank you for this episode "How Can We Be Our Best ''We the People" ", for this podcast, the NCC, and for Mr. Rosen's outstanding, informative, questions.
You have 2 people on essentially the same side re: impeachment. You should have had 2 on completely different sides. Another words, you stacked the deck. 😞
I'm so glad that in my version of the podcast, the citizens' vote was omitted. Because in spite of the partisanship there was some objective discussion and it wasn't completely just another opportunity to get back up on the soap box and restate the same arguments. And the judgement, the vote, totally distracts, and destroys, the learning experience, putting the whole show back into the realm of competitive one-upmanship.
episode #231: there is a huge constitutional and statutory difference between trump, or any president, declaring an emergency AND THEN reallocating funds to address the emergency, versus declaring an emergency IN ORDER TO reallocate the funds. also, the word 'emergency' might be defined as an unforeseen negative event requiring urgent action. no one can rationally say that any aspect of the southern border issue currently meets the definition of an 'emergency'. trump has been unchanging in his assessment of the border for three years. data clearly shows a decades-long downward trend in border crossings. so objectively, any issue with crossings at the border is not unforeseen, is decelerating, and is already being addressed by cbp in an orderly, effective way. lastly, whether or not emergency powers or the constitution itself authorizes the president to appropriate an emergency fund to build a military structure, and whether or not the the wall could be considered a military struct
Great debate on birthright citizenship in "We The People" podcast fm National Constitution Center! But how often does immigration position pre-determine belief in constitutionality of birthright citizenship? Post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias is the enemy here
Amazing podcast "We The People" episode on The AG and Constitutional Oversight from National Constitution Center. Very sad & scared important info like this doesnt get more interest
By far one of the best podcasts out there. I enjoy listening to their commentators who come from different views on how an issue/case should be approached and its constitutionality. Very informative, educational and entertaining at the same time!