DiscoverWe the People
We the People
Claim Ownership

We the People

Author: National Constitution Center

Subscribed: 4,167Played: 126,536
Share

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.

523 Episodes
Reverse
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’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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In this episode, AEI’s Yuval Levin, author of American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again, and Aziz Rana, professor at Boston College Law and author of The Constitutional Bind: How Americans Came to Idolize a Document That Fails Them, join Jeffrey Rosen for a discussion about whether the Constitution has failed us or can serve as a document of national unity.     Resources:  Yuval Levin, American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again (2024)  Aziz Rana, The Constitutional Bind: How Americans Came to Idolize a Document That Fails Them (2024)  “The Modern History of Originalism,” NCC’s We the People  podcast, (Aug 2023) Article V, Interactive 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.
On May 30, former President Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments made during the 2016 election, making him the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime. In this episode, two leading historians of the presidency—Stephen Knott of the United States Naval War College, and bestselling and author and attorney David O. Stewart—join Jeffrey Rosen to explore presidential attacks on the judicial system and rule of law throughout American history. They also discuss what this history can teach us in the wake of the Trump criminal verdict.    Resources:   “The Trump Manhattan Criminal Verdict, Count By Count,” The New York Times (May 30, 2024)   The Indictment of Former President Trump, NCC’s We the People podcast (April 6, 2023)    History of Impeachment from Andrew Johnson to Today, NCC’s We the People podcast (February 1, 2018)  David O. Stewart, Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy (2009)   David O. Stewart, American Emperor: Aaron Burr’s Challenge to Jefferson’s America (2011)  Stephen Knott, The Lost Soul of the American Presidency: The Decline into Demagoguery and the Prospects for Renewal (2019)  Myers v. United States (1926)  United States v. Cruikshank (1875)        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 May 23, the Supreme Court issued its opinion upholding a South Carolina congressional map against a challenge from the NAACP. In Alexander v South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Court found that the South Carolina legislature had conducted a partisan gerrymander, permissible under the Court’s precedents, and not an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In this episode, two leading election and voting rights scholars, Joshua Douglas of the University of Kentucky College of Law, and Derek Muller of the University of Notre Dame Law School, join Jeffrey Rosento discuss the Alexander v. NAACP majority opinion, as well as the concurrence and dissent, and review what this decision means for the future of racial gerrymandering cases.   Resources: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024) Joshua Douglas, The Court v. The Voters: The Troubling Story of How the Supreme Court Has Undermined Voting Rights (2024) Joshua Douglas, “Today’s Supreme Court is Anti-Voter,” Washington Monthly (May 28, 2024) Derek Muller, “The Long Shadow of the Elections Clause,” Election Law Blog (May 29, 2024)  Derek Muller, “Faith in Elections,” 36 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol’y 641 (2022)   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, two acclaimed Lincoln historians—Sidney Blumenthal, author of the three-volume The Political Life of Abraham Lincoln, and Harold Holzer, author of the new book Brought Forth on This Continent: Abraham Lincoln and American Immigration, join Jeffrey Rosen to assess Lincoln’s life and legacy to explore similarities between the 19th century and today. This program was streamed live on March 27, 2024, as part of our America’s Town Hall series.    Resources:  Harold Holzer, Brought Forth on This Continent: Abraham Lincoln and American Immigration  Sidney Blumenthal, Wrestling With His Angel: The Political Life of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, 1849-1856  Abraham Lincoln, Cooper Union Address (February 27, 1860)  Harold Holzer, Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President    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.
Over the past few weeks, protests on college campuses over the war in Gaza have sparked debate about the extent and limits of student and faculty free speech rights. In this episode, two leading First Amendment scholars, Keith Whittington of Princeton University and Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago, join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the current debates over free speech on campus. They also discuss Whittington’s new book, You Can’t Teach That!: The Battle Over University Classrooms.  Resources:  Keith Whittington, You Can’t Teach That!: The Battle Over University Classrooms (2024)   Keith Whittington, Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech (2019)   Keith Whittington, “Civil Disobedience Has Consequences,” The Daily Princetonian (May 10, 2024)  Keith Whittington, “What Can Professors Say in Public? Extramural Speech and the First Amendment,” Case Western L. Rev (2023)   University of Chicago, Kalven Committee: Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action   University of Chicago, “Report on the Committee on Freedom of Expression” (2014)  “UChicago Says Free Speech Is Sacred. Some Students See Hypocrisy,” NYTimes (May 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.
Richard Hasen, author of A Real Right to Vote, Sarah Isgur, senior editor of The Dispatch, and Lawrence Lessig, author of How to Steal a Presidential Election, join Jeffrey Rosen for a health check on the state of American democracy. They look ahead to potential areas of vulnerability in the run-up to the 2024 election, and identify ways to strengthen our democratic processes in response. This program was streamed live on March 21, 2024, as part of our America’s Town Hall series. Resources:  Richard L. Hasen, A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy (2024) Lawrence Lessig and Matthew Seligman, How to Steal a Presidential Election (2024) National Constitution Center’s We the People podcast, “The Supreme Court Says States Can’t Keep Trump Off the Ballot," (March 7, 2024) Sarah Isgur and David French, “Indictment Watch: The Supreme Court Decides Whether States Can Disqualify Trump,” Advisory Opinions, The Dispatch (March 5, 2024) Richard L. Hasen, “The Supreme Court Just Delivered a Rare Self-Own for John Roberts,” Slate (March 5, 2024) Conference Report, “Carter-Baker Commission: 16 Years Later” (2021) Amicus brief of Richard L. Hasen, Edward Foley and Ben Ginsburg, Trump v. Anderson 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.
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.
loading
Comments (18)

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.

Jul 5th
Reply

Douglas Hart

E up

Jan 21st
Reply

Pam

"A well regulated militia" is also included in the Amendment, but not discussed.

Nov 6th
Reply (2)

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

Mar 12th
Reply

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.

Mar 12th
Reply

Nonya Bizness

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

Mar 12th
Reply

Nonya Bizness

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.

Mar 12th
Reply

Brad

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.

Jan 29th
Reply

John Hansen

Wow, crazy timing on this episode.

Sep 20th
Reply

JW Boots

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.

Feb 14th
Reply

Linda Susan Erickson

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. 😞

Feb 14th
Reply

JW Boots

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.

Dec 19th
Reply

Nonya Bizness

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

Jan 26th
Reply

Jeffery H

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

Nov 26th
Reply

Jeffery H

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

Nov 26th
Reply

Debora Aquino

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!

Feb 2nd
Reply
loading