As Meta—the parent company of Facebook and Instagram—surpassed 2 billion users in 2019, the company created an independent oversight board to review appeals of the company’s decisions involving content moderation. In this episode, members of Meta’s Oversight Board, Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School and Kenji Yoshino of New York University School of Law, join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the board’s structure, its key decisions, and its efforts to ensure free and fair elections in advance of the 2024 presidential election. This program was streamed live on April 29, 2024, as part of our America’s Town Hall series. Resources: Meta Oversight Board Former President Trump's suspension, Meta Oversight Board decision (2021) Meet the Board Brazilian general's speech, Meta Oversight Board decision (2023) Altered Video of President Biden, Meta Oversight Board decision (2023) Oversight Board Announces New Cases on Israel-Hamas Conflict for Expedited Review (Dec. 2023) United States posts discussing abortion, Meta Oversight Board decision, (2023) Referring to Designated Dangerous Individuals as “Shaheed”, Meta Oversight Board decision, (2023) Cambodian prime minister, Meta Oversight Board decision (2023) Reporting on Pakistani Parliament Speech, Meta Oversight Board decision (2023) How to Appeal to the Oversight Board 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.
This week the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trump v. United States, a case that asks whether the former president is immune from criminal prosecution for conduct that occurred during his tenure in office. In this episode, Professor John Yoo of Berkeley Law School and Smita Ghosh of the Constitutional Accountability Center join Jeffrey Rosen to preview the arguments in the case, review the founders’ views on executive immunity, and discuss how the Court might decide this crucial case. Resources: Trump v. United States (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) Constitutional Accountability Center, Smita Ghosh, et al, Brief of Scholars of Constitutional Law in Support of Respondents, Trump v. United States Smita Ghosh, “The Founding Fathers Didn’t Think Trump Should Get Immunity Either,” Newsweek, Feb 8, 2024 John Yoo, “The Trump Immunity Case is Weak—But He Doesn’t Need it to Prevail,” Newsweek, Mar 6, 2024 Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) Blassingame v. Trump (D.C. Cir. 2023) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast 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.
Michael Gerhardt, author of the new book FDR’s Mentors: Navigating the Path to Greatness, and Andrew Busch, author of Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right, join Jeffrey Rosen to explore the pivotal elections of 1932 and 1980. They compare the transformative presidencies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, and trace how founding-era debates between Hamilton and Jefferson over the scope of federal and executive power re-emerged during the New Deal and Reagan Revolution. This program originally streamed live on April 16, 2024. Resources: Michael J. Gerhardt, FDR’s Mentors: Navigating the Path to Greatness (2024) Andrew E. Busch, Ronald Reagan and the Politics of Freedom (2001) Andrew E. Busch, Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right (2005) Andrew E. Busch, The Constitution on the Campaign Trail: The Surprising Political Career of America’s Founding Document (2007) Friedrich Hayek, “The Road to Serfdom,” Teaching American History (May 21, 2020) Ronald Reagan, Remarks to Commonwealth Club members on March 4, 1983, Reagan Library (July 19, 2018) Franklin D. Roosevelt, Undelivered Address Prepared for Jefferson Day, The American Presidency Project 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.
In this episode of We the People, Jeffrey Rosen has a special one-on-one conversation with the historian Allen Guelzo on his new book Our Ancient Faith: Lincoln, Democracy, and the American Experiment. They discuss Lincoln’s powerful vision of democracy, revisit his approach to tackling slavery and preserving the Union, and explain how Lincoln remains relevant as a political thinker today. Resources Allen Guelzo, Our Ancient Faith: Lincoln, Democracy, and the American Experiment (2024) “Lincoln’s Speeches and the Refounding of America,” NCC America’s Town Hall program (Nov. 2021) William H. Herndon, Herndon on Lincoln: Letters (2016) Abraham Lincoln, “Speech to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield,” (1838) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. 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.
On November 7, 2023, historians Carol Berkin, author of A Sovereign People: The Crises of the 1790s and the Birth of American Nationalism, and H.W. Brands, author of Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and the Brawling Birth of American Politics, joined Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation on political partisanship and nationalism in early America, and how, despite the founders’ fear of factionalism, deep partisan divisions emerged almost immediately after the Revolution. They discuss the election of 1800, the first hotly contested partisan election in American history, and trace the history of American partisanship to the present day. Resources: H.W. Brands, Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and the Brawling Birth of American Politics (2023) Carol Berkin, A Sovereign People: The Crises of the 1790s and the Birth of American Nationalism (2017) “Genet Affair,” Mount Vernon The Alien and Sedition Acts, NCC Founders’ Library Virginia Resolutions, NCC Founders’ Library Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. 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.
On Thursday March 28 at the NCC, Jeffrey Rosen sat down with Justice Stephen Breyer to discuss his new book, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism. Justice Breyer deconstructs the textualist philosophy of the current Supreme Court’s majority and makes the case for a better way to interpret the Constitution based on pragmatism. Resources Justice Stephen Breyer, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism (2024) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. 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.
On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri and NRA v. Vullo—two cases in which government officials allegedly pressured private companies to target disfavored viewpoints. Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute and David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation join Jeffrey Rosen to break down both cases. Together they discuss the state action doctrine, explore the line between coercion and persuasion, and interrogate the tension between government speech and private speech. Resources: Murthy v. Missouri (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) NRA v. Vullo (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) Alex Abdo, Brief in Support of Neither Party, Murthy v. Missouri David Greene, Brief in Support of Neither Party, Murthy v. Missouri David Greene and Karen Gullo, “Lawmakers: Ban TikTok to Stop Election Misinformation! Same Lawmakers: Restrict How Government Addresses Election Misinformation!,” EFF (March 15, 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.
Three political scientists join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss democratic instability, backsliding, and demagogues from a historical and global perspective. Guests included Harvard’s Steven Levitsky, author of Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point, the University of Texas-Austin’s Kurt Weyland, author of Democracy’s Resilience to Populism’s Threat, and Princeton University’s Frances Lee. This program originally aired on November 27, 2023. Resources: Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point Frances Lee, “Populism and the American Party System: Opportunities and Constraints” Kurt Weyland, Democracy’s Resilience to Populism's Threat: Countering Global Alarmism Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. 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.
On Monday March 4th, the Supreme Court reversed Colorado’s decision to remove President Trump from the ballot. The Court unanimously held that individual states cannot bar insurrectionists from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Five Justices went further, ruling that Congress alone may enforce Section 3. In this episode, constitutional scholars Mark Graber of the University of Maryland Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the Court’s 9-0 decision to avoid a chaotic “patchwork” of state-level ballot eligibility decisions and the 5-4 majority’s view that Section 3 requires Congress to act before an insurrectionist may be disqualified from office. Resources: Trump v. Anderson (2024) Mark Graber, “Trump’s apologists say it doesn’t matter if he’s guilty of insurrection. That’s not true”, The Guardian, (March 5, 2024) Mark Graber, The Forgotten Fourteenth Amendment: Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty (2023) Michael McConnell, “Is Donald Trump Disqualified from the Presidency? A Response to Matthew J. Franck”, Public Discourse, (Jan. 18, 2024) Prof. Michael McConnell, Responding About the Fourteenth Amendment, “Insurrection,” and Trump, Volokh Conspiracy, (Aug. 2023) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. 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.
This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, which involved challenges to attempts by Texas and Florida to prevent social media sites from banning viewpoint discrimination. The challenges were brought by NetChoice, which argues that the laws’ content-moderation restrictions and must-carry provisions violate the First Amendment. The case could determine the future of our most important platforms, from Facebook to X to YouTube. Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute and Larry Lessig of Harvard Law School recap the key issues in both cases; discuss the ideas raised in oral arguments; and preview the wide-ranging impacts these cases may bring. Resources: Moody v. NetChoice (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) NetChoice v. Paxton (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) Larry Lessig, Amicus Brief in Support of Respondents Alex Abdo, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party Lochner v. New York (1905) PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) Zauderer v. Office of Disc. Counsel (1985) Rumsfeld v. FAIR (2006) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast. 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.
On Presidents Day 2024, NCC President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen launched his new book at the NCC in conversation with Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic. They discuss The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America. This program was recorded live on February 19, 2024, and presented in partnership with The Atlantic. Resources: Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024) Cicero, The Tusculan Disputations (ca. 45 BC) The Quill Project The King James Bible (1611) Pythagoras, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Webster-Hayne Debates Trump v. Anderson “Should President Trump Be Allowed on the 2024 Ballot?,” We the People podcast (Jan. 11, 2024) “Rhetoric of Freedom,” The Atlantic (Sept. 1999) 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.
Jeffrey Rosen talks about his new book, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America, followed by a panel discussion on the influence of classical writers and thinkers on the founding generation. Panelists include University of Chicago Professor Eric Slauter, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist George Will; and Melody Barnes, executive director of UVA’s Karsh Institute of Democracy. This program was recorded live on February 9, 2024. Resources: Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024) Cicero, The Tusculan Disputations Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics Melody Barnes, et al, ed., Community Wealth Building and the Reconstruction of American Democracy (2020) Karsh Institute of Democracy, University of Virginia Eric Slauter, The State as a Work of Art: The Cultural Origins of the Constitution (2009) Thomas Jefferson’s Recommended Reading George Will, Statecraft as Soulcraft: What Government Does (1984) George Will, The Conservative Sensibility (2019) 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.
In this week’s episode, we are sharing audio from a program hosted live from Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and presented in partnership with ASU’s Center for Constitution Design. The program centered around a discussion of the National Constitution Center’s landmark Constitution Drafting Project, and featured members from each project team— Georgetown Law’s Caroline Fredrickson of Team Progressive, the Goldwater Institute’s Timothy Sandefur of Team Libertarian, and ASU’s Ilan Wurman of Team Conservative. They discuss their approaches to constitution drafting, review points of consensus and disagreement, and reflect on the importance of cross-partisan dialogue in today’s constitutional environment. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was presented live on February 1, 2024. Resources: National Constitution Center, Constitution Drafting Project National Constitution Center, Constitution Drafting Project, “The Proposed Amendments” (PDF) Center for Constitutional Design at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, 2024 Model Constitutional Convention NCC America’s Town Hall program, Justice Stephen Breyer on the Importance of Civics Education (Oct. 6, 2022) Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024) Erwin Chemerinsky, We the People: A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century (2018) The Preamble to the Constitution The Declaration of Independence Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 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.
Called “a degenerate son of science” by Thomas Jefferson and a “bungling lawgiver” by James Madison, Scottish philosopher David Hume was cited so often at the Constitutional Convention that delegates seemed to have committed his essays to memory. In this episode, we are sharing audio from a recent America’s Town Hall program featuring Angela Coventry, author of Hume: A Guide for the Perplexed; Dennis Rasmussen, author of The Infidel and the Professor: David Hume, Adam Smith, and the Friendship That Shaped Modern Thought; and Aaron Alexander Zubia, author of The Political Thought of David Hume, who discuss Hume’s philosophical legacy and its profound impact on the shaping of America. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was streamed live on January 29, 2024. Resources: Angela Coventry, ed., A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects Dennis Rasmussen, The Infidel and the Professor: David Hume, Adam Smith, and the Friendship That Shaped Modern Thought Aaron Alexander Zubia, The Political Thought of David Hume: The Origins of Liberalism and the Modern Political Imagination National Constitution Center Town Hall program, Montesquieu and the Constitution Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024) Hume Texts Online, https://davidhume.org/ Federalist No. 10 Alexander Hamilton, The Continentalist Federalist No. 85 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.
Several recent cases before the Supreme Court have raised important questions at the intersection of technology and law. In this episode, Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute, Clay Calvert of the American Enterprise Institute, and David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, join Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation exploring key tech cases, including Netchoice v Paxton, Murthy v. Missouri, Lindke v. Freed, and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier. This program was streamed live on January 16, 2024. Resources: Knight Institute amicus brief (in support of neither party) Moody v. NetChoice & NetChoice v. Paxton Clay Calvert, “Friends of the Court, Friends of the First Amendment: Exploring Amicus Brief Support for Platforms’ Editorial Independence,” AEI (Dec. 22, 2023) Knight Institute amicus brief in Murthy v. Missouri (in support of neither party) Clay Calvert, “Persuasion or Coercion? Understanding the Government’s Position in Murthy v. Missouri, Part I,” AEI (Jan. 8, 2024) David Greene, “In Jawboning Cases, there’s no getting away from textual analysis,” Knight First Amendment Institute (Nov. 7, 2023) David Greene, EFF Amicus Brief in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed (in support of Lindke and Garnier) Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo (1974) 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.
On January 17, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce—two cases that ask whether the Court should overturn the landmark Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council case. In this episode, guests Christopher Walker of Michigan Law School and Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institue join to recap the arguments in both cases and to explore the future of Chevron and the administrative state. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) Relentless v. Department of Commerce (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) Christopher Walker, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo Timothy Sandefur, Amicus Brief of Goldwater Institute in Support of Petitioners, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo Chevron U.S.A. Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) 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.
Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State determined that President Trump “engaged in an insurrection” after taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and that he is therefore disqualified from serving as president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In this episode, professors Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston and Gerard Magliocca of the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law dive into the meaning and purpose of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the arguments for and against Trump’s eligibility to run for a second term this fall. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources: Jeffrey Rosen, “The Supreme Court’s Election Dilemma,” WSJ (Jan. 5, 2024) Gerard Magliocca, “Background as Foreground: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and January Sixth,” (Dec. 21, 2022) Gerard Magliocca, “Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” (July 20, 2021) Gerard Magliocca, “What the Supreme Court Should Not Do in Trump’s Disqualification Case,” NY Times (Jan. 5, 2024) Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section Three,” (Sept. 19, 2023) Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Is the President an ‘Officer of the United States’ for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?” (Dec. 20, 2021) Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, Amicus Brief in Support of Trump in Trump v. Anderson Griffin’s Case (1869) The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) 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.
In this episode: The Espionage Act of 1917, one of the most contentious statutes relating to the First Amendment, is back in the news following the indictment of President Donald Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents. What is the Espionage Act and how has it been used over time? Legal scholar Heidi Kitrosser, author of Reclaiming Accountability: Transparency, Executive Power, and the U.S. Constitution, and political historian Sam Lebovic, author of State of Silence: The Espionage Act and the Rise of America’s Secrecy Regime, explore the origins, history, and constitutional legacy of this World War I-era law. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was streamed live on December 4, 2023. Resources: · Sam Lebovic, State of Silence: The Espionage Act and the Rise of America's Secrecy Regime · Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 (1917-1918) · Defense Secrets Act of 1911 · The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) · Schenck v. United States (1919) · Heidi Kitrosser, Reclaiming Accountability: Transparency, Executive Power, and the U.S. Constitution · Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1941) · Heidi Kitrosser and David Schulz, “A House Built on Sand: The Constitutional Infirmity of Espionage Act Prosecutions for Leaking to the Press” · United States v. Morison (4th Cir. 1988) · Heidi Kitrosser, “The Espionage Act After the Mar-a-Lago Indictment,” Lawfare · United States v. Morison (4th Cir. 1988) 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.
In this episode, Joyce Lee Malcolm, author of The Times That Try Men’s Souls: The Adams, the Quincys, and the Families Divided by the American Revolution—and How They Shaped a New Nation, and Eli Merritt, author of Disunion Among Ourselves: The Perilous Politics of the American Revolution, explore the origins and clashing ideologies during the American Revolution, how loyalists and patriots feared civil war, and how the founders’ fears of demaguges influenced their approach to constitutional design and politics. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was streamed live on December 13, 2023. Resources: Eli Merritt, Disunion Among Ourselves: The Perilous Politics of the American Revolution Joyce Lee Malcolm, The Times That Try Men's Souls: The Adams, the Quincys, and the Battle for Loyalty in the American Revolution The Declaration of Independence Eli Merrit, "Why demagogues were the Founding Fathers' greatest fear," LA Times 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.
In this episode, Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, talks with C-SPAN’s Peter Slen about the life and career of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The conversation is part of C-SPAN’s Books That Shaped America series, which explores key works from American history that have had a major impact on society. This discussion features Holmes’ The Common Law, written in 1881. You can find all segments from the C-SPAN series at c-span.org/booksthatshapedamerica. Resources: Oliver Wendell Holmes, “The Common Law,” (1881) 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.
Pam
a teacher, and a coach are not paid by the hour. They are salaried! They shouldn't be allowed to pray on school grounds.
Douglas Hart
E up
Pam
"A well regulated militia" is also included in the Amendment, but not discussed.
Nonya Bizness
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
Nonya Bizness
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.