Amarica's Constitution

We are approaching our 200th episode and completing our 4th year of “Amarica’s Constitution,” and it seems appropriate to take stock. By coincidence, the Yale Law School is celebrating its own anniversary, and these things come together as Akhil is part of a big event and presents a “big idea” that sounds like a strange saying: “the Constitution is a thing.” We explain, elaborate, and celebrate a little bit. We look back, and we look ahead to some real excitement over the next few months (besides the election, that is). CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

In Trump v. United States, we have said that the Court went far astray from the Constitution and from its duty, endangering the nation in the short and long terms. Many have shared this opinion and these fears, and reaction has been profound. In the New York Times, two law professors take up the pen and offer a number of suggestions that purport to restrain and direct the Court towards Congress’ will, assuming that Congress agrees with the authors, that is. Senator Schumer in a recent bill took a similar though not as extreme direction. We identify the flaws with these approaches, and offer an alternative that would be constitutional, and has an actual chance of being effective, based upon history and constitutional structure. We also take up some fascinating readers’ questions, including one which might matter for some overseas voters. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The Supreme Court has, through its recent follies, managed to bring the status of ex-presidents into the spotlight. How appropriate, then, that perhaps America’s greatest ex-president reaches a milestone this past week: Happy Birthday, President Carter. The ex-presidents, it turns out, have told a myriad of stories through the centuries. America largely avoided succession crises until recently, but as far back as Alexander Hamilton, the potential for mischief was seen and feared. Professor Amar, one of the few who have studied ex-presidents in any detail, treats us to a master class in this unusual but suddenly vital group of Americans. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Donald Trump continues to spout inflammatory rhetoric; he has compounded his talk of being “a dictator on day one” with an intention to conduct a “purge” with extreme violence allowed, again allegedly for one day. All this makes one expect that he will not back off his first-term tendency to take an authoritarian posture regarding the Justice Department. The New York Times ran an article presenting new and thorough look at Trump and the Dept in his prior term, and we analyze. We also take more of your election-related constitutional questions. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Nebraska is no flyover state; its unusual electoral vote structure puts Omaha’s one electoral vote up for grabs - both as a contest for votes, and a legislative battle to possibly restructure Nebraska’s election law. We tell an originalist story form the early Republic that surprisingly echoes some of the issues in today’s situation. Meanwhile, other types of blue dots, and how the right to travel and to reside where one wishes can play a role in the election. We also try to proactively refute the inevitable accusations to come from predictable sources on these matters. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The New York Times looks at the Constitution as an allegedly anti-democratic, divisive, secession-promoting document. They bring authority to bolster their case in the person of the Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky. We take a close look at this article and the arguments it employs. This takes us to the center of the Constitution’s purposes, of course to questions of originalism, as well as an analysis of what sort of democracy the Constitution protects, and what sort it might protect against. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

It’s time for your questions, and having a great audience means there are so many fascinating directions to go. A Canadian listener tells of how a non-originalist purpose-oriented approach to constitutional law works for them - why not in the US? We go in a different direction when we consider the wisdom of increasing the size of the House of Representatives. Still another asks about whether the presidential immunity decision has undermined some fundamental aspects of criminal law, not to mention one of the Court’s greatest moments - the Nixon tapes case. Keep those questions coming! CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

RFK Jr. has withdrawn from the race and endorsed Trump. This meeting of an estranged Kennedy and an indicted Trump, is laced not only with strangeness but also constitutional themes, as we explore. Meanwhile, backlash after the Trump immunity opinion continues, and Senate Majority Leader Schumer has introduced legislation in response. The great Washington Post columnist, Ruth Marcus, returns to our podcast to comment on this legislation and the many serious implications it would have if adopted, as well as the issues it raises for consideration even if it fails, as it seems likely to do. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has been overruled by the Supreme Court more often, and more forcefully, than any other circuit during the past term. Why? What are the consequences for the judges of the Fifth Circuit, if any? Is this a problem for our judicial system, and if so, are there any remedies available? Listeners to Amarica’s Constitution will not be surprised to learn that Professor Amar has some ideas on this topic. He also grounds the problems and the solutions in history and structure, and lest one think this is a partisan attack on a conservative court, he tells of his past criticism of the then-ultra-liberal ninth circuit for analogous behavior.

Court reform is in the air. Having presented the problems with the 18 year term proposals before the House and Senate, Professor Amar’s plan deserves its own scrutiny. We therefore present the plan in detail, explaining the problems that it attempts to solve, the principles it attempts to uphold, and the criticisms it might attract. Since it is a proposal and not yet a statute, it is subject to modification and hopefully improvement, so we invite the audience to chime in with your own critiques and suggestions. Let’s keep the conversation going. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The 2021 Biden Commission on the Court has now led - with a big “assistance” from the Court itself - to President Biden’s own plan for Court reform. It is sketchy in many ways, but is entirely consistent with Professor Amar’s long-held views on 18 year active terms for Supreme Court justices, though the President’s proposal lacks the detail of that plan. This is unsurprising in a way since Prof. Amar testified before that Commission. There are other related plans in proposed statutes that lie in committees of the House and Senate. We consider the features of all, the flaws we have diagnosed, and we also have some commentary on some other aspects of the President’s proposals, including a possible constitutional amendment. Lots to consider this week! CLE credit is available for judges and lawyers from podcast.njsba.com.

President Biden has stepped aside as a candidate, and as promised, we look at what’s next from a variety of points of view. Some Republicans, notably the Speaker, are claiming that the President should actually resign or step back under the 25th amendment. What would this mean? Meanwhile, we have a lot more in this early episode, including a reader’s question on Barack Obama; another on Edmund Burke; a preview of an amazing EverScholar program; a preview of Biden’s Supreme Court proposed reform; and more. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Resignations are in the air, and our discussion - recorded before President Biden’s actions - offers surprising resonances in its wake. Meanwhile, our guest, Professor Vik Amar, provides not just a condemnation of Judge Cannon’s recent dismissal of the Trump documents case, but a refutation of the arguments she made, and a recitation of those crucial points, cases, and reasonings which she ignored. Plus we finally have the details on the EverScholar announcements we have been teasing; 18 year terms are back in the news; and more. We will be back, possibly early this week depending on developments, with a special episode on President Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

President Biden is hearing calls from many quarters to step down as a candidate. Donald Trump is shot. Questions of presidential succession and/or resignation abound. While it may seem these are unique and strange situations which the American republic has never faced, in fact, resignation has been a key American issue for centuries. Episodes well-known, and others rarely taught, are reviewed on our podcast this week, providing context and counsel for our listeners, and hopefully for the candidates themselves. The path to Mount Rushmore may take a turn away from the Oval Office, it turns out. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The Court’s opinion in the presidential immunity case Trump v. US, has sunk in. On reflection it is even worse that on first impression, and that is saying something. But just to condemn the opinion is not enough. Professor Amar distills the Court’s argument to its essence and explains why it completely collapses under any kind of rigorous scrutiny. Its abandonment of originalism and of the constitution’s own terms is laid bare. How could the Court go so astray? We also take a stab at this, and speculate on various forms of rot that it may reveal. CLE credit is available from visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.

In an exhausting week, the Court released a number of long-awaited cases, and we had a consequential presidential debate. We look at several cases that many believe have profound implications for the administrative state; the opinions in SEC v. Jarkesy, and Loper Bright v. Raimondo clearly have the effect of increasing the role of courts and juries, among other things. We look at the opinions, the underlying themes, and the impact. Meanwhile, following the debate, questions of presidential succession of several types, and of the vice president, are everywhere; these happen to be areas of Prof. Amar’s expertise, and so we address them. NOTE: The Presidential Immunity case, Trump v. US, came down after we taped this episode; we have some early but important resources for you on this as well. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

As the end of the term approaches the deluge of major cases has begun. Two big cases - the eagerly awaited sequel to the Bruen case - Rahimi - features an orgy of originalist theorizing and opining. Meanwhile, in Moore v. US - a case where Professor Amar and his team had an amicus brief - the tax power was upheld, but reading the opinion one might wonder if the same Court had sat for this case. We take a look at the opinions and give our own take on these impactful cases, even as we brace ourselves for many more in the week or so to come.

Akhil is in Boston this week and reminds us that the history of the American Revolution, where Boston is so pivotal, contains myriad lessons that provide insight into the student protests of today - so we look at this subject in some detail. Meanwhile, the Court issued opinions in two prominent cases, and Akhil seems to be reluctant to take “yes” for an answer in one of them, so we take another look at issues of standing. Does Akhil convince you of the correctness of his approach? Finally, the bump stock gun case, a statutory interpretation case, is lamented by many; we take a quick look at why it doesn’t have to be the last word on this matter. CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com.

The Court is taking its time on major opinion, which gives us a moment to turn to other matters. Ethics remain in the news; the Court’s annual financial disclosures contain a number of surprises - maybe not so surprising. There’s a lot to say there, and we have some proposals to improve the situation. President Biden takes a position on a pardon, and we take a position on that. Our listeners continue to provide great input on an ongoing conversation, and we take it seriously. CLE is available after listening from podcast.njsba.com.

The verdict is in: guilty x 34. A jury of Trump’s peers had its say, but the ex-president couldn’t leave it at that, of course. On the legitimate side, the appeals are expected to begin soon. On the Trump bombastic side, he blasted every institution in the legal system for having the audacity to do their duty. Particularly in the case of the ordinary citizens of the jury, this bears examination, and so we do. We also preview some of the likely appellate issues, lay out the expected path through the courts, and take some interesting listener’s questions. CLE is available after listening at podcast.njsba.com.

The nation has been riled by campus unrest surrounding events in the Middle East. Terms like “freedom of speech,” “academic freedom,” “right to protest,” “conduct vs. speech,” and issues of hate speech, offensive speech, safety, and more have arisen. We start our look at this situation where we always begin: with the Constitution. This episode aims to lay out the history, background, constitutional provisions, interpretations, cases, and overall approach to these matters, so we can then look at what is actually happening and be in a position to offer opinions and possible prescriptions. CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com.

More than three years after the January 6, 2021 disastrous events, we remarkably are just now first learning of a complex series of events with profound ethical implications for Justice Alito. Like his fellow justice, Clarence Thomas, Justice Alito’s wife’s actions, possibly political in nature, have placed the Justice in a position where his own actions are being widely questioned. We take it one step at a time and offer our analysis, even if we don’t entirely agree with each other on this one.

Donald Trump’s New York trial - where a conviction would be federal pardon-proof - has proceeded apace. we are pleased to bring a report to you from the trial itself, introducing you to one of Professor Amar’s star students in the process. Are there constitutional issues stemming from the trial? You bet, and we address some of them. Meanwhile, a number of listeners have asked similar questions recently, so we take that family of questions on, and sure enough, there’s a lot to discuss there as well. CLE credit is available from pdcast.njsba.com after listening.

This week we continue with clips from the oral argument in the immunity case (Trump v. United States). Most of this week’s clips come from attorney Dreeben (representing the Special Counsel, and therefore the people of the United States), and some of the Justices have at him, sometimes in way Professor Amar finds wrong-headed or worse. Our own argument is brought to bear upon these controversies, and a consistent way of addressing these questions emerges. Clarity on the argument emerges. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The nine Justices heard arguments on ex-president Trump’s attempt to claim a sweeping immunity from criminal liability and prosecution. We present clips from the argument and our commentary, including some historical analysis of claims that Benjamin Franklin spoke in favor of such a thing (spoiler: NO), and many other claims which we had predicted in recent weeks. There is clear acceptance of some of the arguments we have made by many of the Justices, but questions remain to be sure, and we begin to address them in this first part of a planned two-episode arc of clip and comment. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

As we close in on oral argument in the Trump v. United States case wherein Trump asserts some sort of permanent presidential immunity, we close out our preparatory analysis. Impeachment’s relationship to criminal prosecution is explored. Some founding-era conversations involving, for example, John Adams, inform our discussion. Does the concept of double jeopardy play a role? Our hope is that these episodes prepare you for the oral argument with a comprehensive theory of how no one is held above the law even as a powerful executive sits high in We the People’s government. CLE credit is available after listening from podcast.njsba.com.

As oral argument in the Trump immunity case draws closer, we continue our discussion of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Do so-called “official acts” during a president’s tenure in office raise special considerations? Constitutional text seems to offer an easy way out of the case - but does it, really - and historical precedents enter the conversation. Ultimately, some basic principles of immunity emerge, which leaves us with a much richer understanding of the many issues than a bland look the text alone would Meanwhile, a listener’s question takes us abroad for a change, and developments in Arizona remind us of several of our podcast’s recurring themes. CLE credit is available by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.

Former President Trump is making an extraordinary claim to the Supreme Court: that he is immune from criminal prosecution for crimes he may have committed while president. The Court has agreed to hear arguments on this proposition on April 25. We begin the preparation by posing the questions and taking them on. Professor Amar is an expert on Presidential immunities. Our analysis goes through originalism as well as precedent. This and subsequent episodes form an oral amicus brief of sorts - another “master class,” if you will. We also take a listener’s question seriously as we address the Comstock Act and related issues. CLE credit is available at podcast.njsba.com.

The Supreme Court heard the case on the legality of FDA regulation of Mifepristone. Issues of standing seemed to dominate, so Professor Amar treats us to a master class on standing - in this case, and its recent evolution. He also suggests that at least one Justice might benefit by attending. In a wide-ranging episode, we also share excitement and some new scholarly insights that emerged from the recent EverScholar program led by Akhil and others; and the Trump gag order gives rise to some musings as well. There’s a lot for everyone in this episode, including CLE available from podcast.njsba.com.

We round up our analysis of the opinion in Trump v. Anderson with Justice Barrett’s concurrence. All of this has raised many questions, particularly in light of the Court’s errant reasoning and other shenanigans. And it turns out that many of the best questions come from you, our audience! So we turn to those as well, both about Section 3, and other matters as well. We also look at the news media’s latest interesting directions, including takes on Justice Breyer’s new book and seeds planted by Professor Amar bearing fruit. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com

The Trump v. Anderson lead balloon continues to smolder. This episode looks at the areas wherein the concurring Justices took issue with the per curiam, and they are many. Indeed, the three Justices who concurred only in the judgment disagree with the scope of the per curiam as well as its particulars, and their concurrence reads more like a dissent. Can we find areas of agreement with ourselves and the concurrences? What can we learn from all this? CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The concurrence by three Justices (as opposed to that of Justice Barrett) in Trump v. Anderson concurs only in the judgment. We look at different types of concurrences and why a Justice might choose one type or the other; and as for this one, we find much to dissent with. We dissect the arguments and now with the benefit of a week since the opinion, we “slow it down” and take you carefully through the logic and illogic we find. Can we locate common ground among justices who claim to be unanimous but in fact significantly diverge? And how do we address our own position, which seems to lie firmly opposed to the entire Court? CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The Court has ruled in Trump v. Anderson, and a strange day it was. An announcement on a Sunday of opinion on Monday; no justices present; metadata weirdness, and worst of all, a unanimous opinion that is unanimously wrong. Concurrences that are dissents. A nearly 250 year old electoral college system that somehow escaped the Justices. Notorious cases cited with approval. The opinion is a veritable patchwork of error. The autopsy begins.

We’re back, and still waiting for the opinion in Trump v. Anderson, which gives us a chance to highlight important new evidence that has come to light - thanks in large part to Professor Amar’s great law student team. It fatally undermines what seemed likely to be the reasoning the opinion was going to take. Will it matter? This is related to the role amici play in the Court ecosystem, and we look at how another case we had a brief in, Moore v. US, seemed to be possibly influenced by our brief by beginning our long-promised clip-based analysis of that oral argument. So a whole lot in a compact episode. CLE is available from podcast.njsba.com.

As promised, we return in very short order with the completion of our analysis and response to the oral argument in Trump v. Anderson - before the Court has ruled. Again, key clips from the argument are played and dissected. The previous Part I episode concentrated on arguments concerning self-execution of Section Three; this episode reviews many of the other issues addressed by the Court, from questions of the nature of the Presidential Election and the closely related Electoral College, to the persistent irritant of "officer" and "office" questions. As in the prior episode, Professor Amar “slows everything down” to allow you and hopefully the Court avoid sweet-sounding but flawed paths. This episode is posted 8 days early for this reason. Continuing legal education credit is available; visit podcast.njsba.com after listening.

EARLY UPLOAD - The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson on Thursday, and we were so alarmed by the errant direction they took that we decided to take to the air early. Here are key clips from the argument dissected - exposed, really - to reveal the mistaken representations of the meaning of certain cases; the ignoring of key facts which then distort others; the absence of key lines of argument; and the danger that the Court may be headed for another debacle on the scale of Bush v. Gore. Professor Amar “slows everything down” so the sometimes subtle misdirection that a fast-paced oral argument can induce is neutralized, creating clarity that we can only hope some Justice or some clerk sees in time. This episode is posted 4 days early for this reason, and next week’s will follow later this week as well. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com beginning Monday, February 12.

Oral arguments are scheduled for this Thursday in the Trump v. Anderson case, concerning the possible disqualification of former President Trump from the ballot in Colorado, and with a myriad of questions surrounding Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment at stake. We have something new to offer, as the distinguished historian, Professor Ted Widmer, joins us to add his considerable expertise to the oh-so-timely topics of John B. Floyd and the conspiracy to prevent the certification of Abraham Lincoln’s election with the aim to prevent his inauguration and otherwise cripple the Union during the Secession Winter. This was of course integral to our amicus brief in the case, and this podcast offers additional support for its theses. We also review the promised “20 questions” that the brief explored - the perfect review or reference as the Court faces this vital case that has gripped the nation. CLE Credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Oral arguments are approaching in the Trump v. Anderson case, and the nation is talking about little else. At the Harvard Law School, Professor Amar is invited to debate a former US Attorney General and Federal Judge, Michael Mukasey, who also submitted an amicus brief in the case together with Bill Barr and Ed Meese, among others. We analyze the debate - and the brief. And in that brief, Akhil identifies what he considers to be an egregious error, which is telling not only in its fatal weakening of the particular argument, but in the way it calls into question the entirety of their brief, and how it points the way to needed reforms in the legal ecosystem as a whole. This is an indispensable episode. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The legal world is abuzz with the impending oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson in a couple of weeks. In the forefront are the powerful arguments and compelling history that are introduced in the amicus brief from the Professors Amar. We continue to delve into the principal lines of reasoning in the brief, and how they take the starch out for some of the tropes that were found in the media. When you take the history one step at a time it is hard to escape the obvious parallels with the actions and inactions of ex-President Trump, and how they precisely align with the concerns the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had that prompted them to advocate for and ultimately author, pass, and successfully ratify Section Three. Will the Court see it this way? Time will tell, but follow the discussion as we take you through it. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The “brothers-in-law” Vik and Akhil Amar have filed an amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson et al. The brief contains a dramatic historic episode that you almost certainly knew nothing about, and which is highly relevant - perhaps decisive - to the case. Prepare to be amazed by this story of the “First Insurrection,” which preceded and was distinguishable from the Civil War itself, and which makes clear the certain intent of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment - and the course the Supreme Court should take in this case. This, and the episodes to follow, may be the most important episodes we have offered in the more than three years of this podcast. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The months of discussion of Section Three on Amarica's Constitution now make their way to Washington, as cert has been granted in Trump v. Anderson. Amicus briefs will pour in - including the brothers Amar's brief. We present some of the approach the brief will take, and we look at the nine Justices, taking account of their jurisprudential history and styles, and discuss how an intellectually honest brief-writer can make their best arguments even better by considering how their readers will read them, and what might be most useful to provide to those readers. It's not quite "handicapping" but it is insightful, as all America is wondering if this case might actually result in the removal of Donald Trump from Colorado's primary ballot, and eventually possibly more states' ballots as well. It has come to this.

The nation awaits the Supreme Court’s seemingly inevitable review of the Section Three case from Colorado, and perhaps Maine as well. Media around the world is weighing in with editorials and op-Ed’s; a smorgasbord of legal, political, and predictive arguments from professors, editors, elected officials, and others with their own range of expertise. We continue our attempt to help you make sense of these by choosing pieces that make the range of arguments out there. We do our best to present their argument and respond to it, bringing Professor Amar’s considerable armamentarium to bear for your benefit. And this week, Akhil has at least two - maybe three - major new ideas he brings to the national discussion. They can be found here first. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The Colorado Supreme Court opinion on disqualifying Donald Trump, though long anticipated, landed like a tornado. Op-eds, pundits, academics, officials - all are weighing in. It’s a victory for democracy - no, it’s antidemocratic. Section Three is a dead letter - no, it’s self-executing. Trump is out - no, this helps him. America is reaffirmed - no, there will be violence in the streets. Liberals are split; conservatives are split. What will the Supreme Court do? Spend some time with Amarica’s Constitution and we will help you make sense of it, and we will present the best and worst arguments out there. And - get some CLE for your trouble! Visit podcast.njsba.com after listening.

The administrative state is up for grabs, some say, in the case of SEC v. Jarkesy, which was argued before the Supreme Court recently. We have another “clip” episode, with Akhil weighing in on attorneys and justices alike. It’s particularly appropriate in this case, because so much of the case concerns juries and the 7th amendment - which, by the way, Akhil has written extensively on. That’s probably why he’s cited in so many of the briefs. We also heard some noise out of Colorado, by the way. CLE credit is available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.

The question of Donald Trump's disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is before the courts. Last week the Colorado Supreme Court heard appeals of the District Court rulings. As they consider their decision, we have the privilege of hearing from the nation's two leading experts on the subject, the author of The Sweep and Force of Section Three - the universally acknowledged definitive article. (Note: this episode is uploaded a day early because of the timing of the case.) They respond to the arguments made in court, as well as those that have been put forth in media and elsewhere - and we also consider the two other cases, in Michigan and Minnesota. The previous appearance by Profs. Baude and Paulsen were the highest rated episodes in Amarica's Constitution's 3 years, and this may be even more important for clerks, judges, and citizens to hear and consider.

There is no shortage of tributes to the just passed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and rightly so, and this first female Justice richly deserves praise and memory. We aim to offer a tribute by taking her seriously as a Justice of ideas as well as the frequently mentioned deeply human remarkable woman she was. Fortunately, Akhil’s career has been intertwined with Justice O’Connor’s in a remarkable back-and-forth of ideas, cases, refinement, and legal innovation, so our perspective is a deeply informative one. Among other things, we look at the 10 most significant areas of jurisprudential impact in this remarkable but somehow underestimated to the end titan. CLE credit available after listening from podcast.njsba.com.

Donald Trump’s disqualification for the Presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is on the docket for the Colorado Supreme Court next week. We have brought the two leading experts on the history of this clause to our podcast. They have written extensively on the 38th-40th Congresses who passed and first acted under the amendment; on John Bingham, the “James Madison” of the Fourteenth; and they continue to provide pertinent historical details on almost a daily basis. Professor Magliocca testified in the District Court hearing on this. Suffice it to say, then, that the best arguments on both sides will be aired here first, before they are heard in Colorado, and you will be the judge today. CLE credit available at podcast.njsba.com.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in US v. Rahimi, a significant gun case, and we get to work. We have pulled clips from the argument so you can hear the justices and advocates in their own words, and Akhil comments after each clip. The case is important in itself, with wide implications regarding permissible gun regulation, and it also touches on a number of key methodological points that teach about originalism - properly done, and perhaps at times, improperly done. CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com

The Amars’ amicus brief in Moore vs. United States is the talk of the legal ecosphere. Akhil’s co-author, Professor Vik Amar, joins us for analysis of the precedents that followed Hylton - faithful and otherwise. This tour de force of legal analysis is perfectly suited for your CLE credit. We also look at recent comments from the Supreme Court on Moore’s issues, and survey the reactions to the brief’s release. Various arguments that purport to address some of the brief’s claims have emerged: in support, in conflict, and complementary; we analyze and respond to them.

In our 150th episode, we present the amicus brief in Moore v. United States, authored by Professor Amar with his brother, Professor Vikram Amar. Reminder: CLE credit is available after listening by going to podcast.njsba.com. The brief begins with the provocative statement that most other briefs in the case have missed the point? What is the point that they missed? We explain how their focus on the 16th amendment misses the basic constitutional questions which the Court answered back in 1796 in the Hylton v. US case. Who says so? Some guys named Washington and Hamilton, to start. And this Lincoln fellow agreed later. But everyone seems to have missed this. You won’t.