We the People

This week, NCC President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen moderated a panel live from the Aspen Ideas Festival featuring three of America’s leading legal scholars: former deputy solicitor general and Georgetown Law Professor Neal Katyal, Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan, and Clark Neily of the Cato Institute. During the program, they discussed the major decisions from the Supreme Court’s most recent term, including Allen v. Milligan, in which the Court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; Moore v Harper, where the Court rejected the independent state legislature theory; Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, in which the Court struck down affirmative action programs in higher education as violating equal protection; and more. Resources: Aspen Ideas Festival 2023: Supreme Court Review Moore v. Harper (2023) Allen v. Milligan (2023) Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 handed down a major decision relating to elections in America in the Moore v. Harper case. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court rejected the independent state legislature theory, finding that the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures exclusive power over elections, and upholding the power of judicial review in electoral cases, including redistricting decisions. In this episode of We the People, guests Judge Michael Luttig and Professor Evan Bernick join to break down the Moore decision – including why the Court decided to reject the independent state legislature theory; why conservative Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented; and what this means for the future of judicial review of election laws. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Resources: Moore v. Harper (2023) Judge Michael Luttig, “The Court Is Likely to Reject the Independent State Legislature Theory: And that offers hope for American democracy”, The Atlantic, April 13, 2023 Judge Michael Luttig, “There Is Absolutely Nothing to Support the ‘Independent State Legislature’ Theory”, The Atlantic, October 3, 2022 J. Michael Luttig, et al, Brief for Non-State Respondents, Moore v. Harper Brief of Professor Evan Bernick in support of respondents in Harper v. Moore Check out previous We the People episodes on the Moore v. Harper case: Part 1 (March 2022) and Part 2 from (July 2022), and Part 3 (Dec. 2022) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court handed down a major voting rights decision in the Allen v. Milligan case. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and found that Alabama’s 2022 congressional map likely violated Section 2. This comes as a surprising victory for voting rights and the Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) test after a series of other Supreme Court cases that have narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act, including the Brnovich v. DNC case in 2021 and Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. The decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh along with the liberal justices. In this episode, Jason Torchinsky of Holtzman Vogel and Rick Hasen of UCLA School of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to break down the Allen decision; discuss why Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh voted with the liberal justices to uphold the Gingles framework; what other conservative justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wrote in dissent; and what this means for redistricting and voting rights in 2024 and beyond. Resources: Allen v. Milligan (June 2023) Jason Torchinsky, Amicus Brief on Behalf of the National Republican Redistricting Trust Rick Hasen, “John Roberts Throws a Curveball,” NYT (June 8, 2023) Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (1965) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 week, former President Donald Trump was indicted by the U.S. government for allegedly retaining, mishandling, and concealing classified documents after he left office. Charged with 37 criminal counts—including many that stem from the Espionage Act—Trump appeared in a Miami federal court on Tuesday and pled not guilty to the charges brought against him. In this episode, legal experts Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School and Jamil Jaffer of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University join to break down the legal and constitutional significance of the federal indictment. They also discuss potential outcomes of the prosecution, including effects on the upcoming 2024 presidential election; how these charges intersect with other charges being brought against President Trump in other courts including charges brought by the Manhattan district attorney in New York for allegedly falsifying business documents; how other countries around the world deal with heads of state who have been charged with breaking national and international laws; and how the decision to prosecute a president affects rule of law and the future of constitutional democracy. Resources: United States v. Donald Trump and Waltine Nauta (indictment) Espionage Act: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) The Presidential Records Act (PRA) Oona Hathaway, “What Donald Trump and Reality Winner Have in Common” NY Times, June 11, 2023 Oona Hathaway on Classification of Government Documents, Washington Journal Interview, January 24, 2023 Jamil Jaffer, on “The Lead with Jake Tapper”, June 12th, 2023, Complete Transcript Scott Bomboy, “The question of president immunity back in the spotlight” National Constitution Center, July 24, 2017 Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 ChatGPT and other generative AI platforms have taken off, they’ve demonstrated exciting possibilities about the potential benefits of artificial intelligence; while at the same time, have raised a myriad of open questions and complexities, from how to regulate the pace of AI’s growth, to whether AI companies can be held liable for any misinformation reported or generated through the platforms. Earlier this week, the first ever AI defamation lawsuit was filed, by a Georgia radio host who claims that ChatGPT falsely accused him of embezzling money. The case presents new and never-before answered legal questions, including what happens if AI reports false and damaging information about a real person? Should that person be able to sue the AI’s creator for defamation? In this episode two leading First Amendment scholars—Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law and Lyrissa Lidsky of the University of Florida Law School—join to explore the emerging legal issues surrounding artificial intelligence and the First Amendment. They discuss whether AI has constitutional rights; who if anyone can be sued when AI makes up or mistakes information; whether artificial intelligence might lead to new doctrines regarding regulation of online speech; and more. Resources: Eugene Volokh, Volokh Conspiracy, “First (?) Libel-by-AI (ChatGPT) Lawsuit Filed” (June 6, 2023) Walters v. OpenAI L.L.C., No. 23-A-04860-2 Eugene Volokh, Large Libel Models? Liability for AI Output Eugene Volokh, Volokh Conspiracy, “The Great Success of Artificial Intelligence” (June 7, 2023) Lyrissa Lidsky, “Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Discourse in Cyberspace”, Duke Law Journal (2000) Lyrissa Lidsky, “Of Reasonable Readers and Unreasonable Speakers: Libel Law in a Networked World” (2016) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

Earlier this year, the National Constitution Center hosted an event in Miami, Florida, featuring a series of meaningful conversations about the Constitution with speakers of diverse perspectives. In this episode, we’re sharing one of those programs with you: A conversation with four leading constitutional experts about the NCC’s Constitution Drafting Project, the amendment process, Article V, and the future of constitutional reform. The four scholars are: Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, Caroline Fredrickson of Georgetown Law, David French of the New York Times, and Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Additional Resources National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

The Supreme Court’s “shadow docket”—cases in which the Court issues emergency orders and summary decisions without oral argument—has been subject to growing scrutiny. Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak of The New York Times and Jennifer Mascott of the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School join Stephen Vladeck of The University of Texas School of Law for a conversation on Vladeck’s new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic, exploring the history and role of the shadow docket and the current debates surrounding the Court’s emergency rulings. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Additional Resources Stephen Vladeck, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic Stephen Vladeck, “Texas’s Unconstitutional Abortion Ban and the Role of the Shadow Docket,” Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee National Constitution Center, “The Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket’,” We the People podcast Jennifer Mascott, “Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court’s Orders Docket,” George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper Adam Liptak, “Alito Responds to Critics of the Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket,” The New York Times Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

The National Constitution Center and Khan Academy are partnering to create a free online Constitution 101 course premised on a simple, radical act: bringing together genuine experts who genuinely disagree about the most important constitutional issues facing our nation today; and use their examples to model thoughtful, respectful civil dialogue. In this special episode of We the People, host Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Khan Academy founder and CEO Sal Khan, in a one-on-one conversation to discuss the state of civics in America today, in light of the recent Nation’s Report Card data showing a nationwide decline in civics and history scores; explain how the NCC and Khan Academy partnership and the Constitution 101 course can improve outcomes in civics education nationwide; the role of AI like Khanmigo in education and teaching about the Constitution and civil dialogue; and much more. Resources: Jeffrey Rosen and Sal Khan, TIME, “How We Can Repair Our Democracy and Build a More Perfect Union” NCC/Khan Academy partnership announcement, press release National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Report Card NCC’s Constitution 101 course Sal Khan, TED Talk, “How AI could save (not destroy) education” Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently weighing two cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina that could end affirmative action in higher education. The National Constitution Center hosted a live program on May 4, 2023, featuring a conversation between constitutional law experts William B. Allen of Michigan State University and Hasan Kwame Jeffries of The Ohio State University. They discuss the history of affirmative action, the current cases before the Court, how the Court might rule in them, and how the outcome of the two cases could affect the future of affirmative action programs across the country. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Resources: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (Oral Argument Transcript; audio hosted by C-SPAN) Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (Oral Argument Transcript; audio hosted by C-SPAN) William B. Allen, “End of Affirmative Action 2023” Interview with Hasan Kwame Jeffries, “Why Conservatives want the Supreme Court to take up Affirmative Action Case,” Yahoo!News National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 1,” We the People podcast National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 2,” We the People podcast Fisher v. University of Texas (2013) Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) Slaughter-House Cases (1873) Shelby County v. Holder (2013) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 year's Supreme Court term was one of the most significant in recent history with landmark decisions and cases about abortion, guns, religious liberty, the administrative state, and more. In this episode, veteran Supreme Court reporter and CNN Legal Analyst, Joan Biskupic, joins to unpack these recent developments and to discuss her new book, Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and its Historic Consequences. She and host Jeffrey Rosen have a reporter's chat and compare notes to discuss the evolution of the Court over the past 30 years, from the Reagan years through the Rehnquist Court, up to the Robert’s Court and what lies ahead. Resources: - Joan Biskupic, Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and its Historic Consequences (2023) - Jeffrey Rosen, “Big Chief,” The New Republic (July 2012) - Jeffrey Rosen, “Disgrace,” The New Republic (Dec. 23, 2004) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, atbit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard a case about a Colorado man, Billy Ray Counterman, who was sentenced to over four years in prison for stalking due to threatening Facebook messages that he sent to a singer named C.W. Counterman argued that the charges violated his speech rights and that his messages were not “true threats,” which is a kind of speech not protected under the First Amendment. The issue in the case is whether or not his messages actually constituted under “true threats” (or if conduct like stalking should be distinguished); and if so, how should courts determine what a “true threat” is? In this episode, we dive into the facts and issues in the Counterman v. Colorado case, the history of “true threats” doctrine under the First Amendment, and recap the oral arguments, including whether the justices might decide that “true threats” should be determined by an objective test, such as if a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence; or whether they might find that it depends on the speaker’s specific intent. Genevieve Lakier of the University of Chicago and Gabe Walters of FIRE join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss. Resources: Brief of Amicus Curiae Foundation for Individuals Rights and Expression in Support of Petitioner and Reversal, Counterman v. Colorado Brief of First Amendment Scholars Evelyn Douek, Genevieve Lakier, and Eugene Volokh in Support of Respondent, Counterman v. Colorado Oral argument in Counterman v. Colorado, April 19, 2023 (Audio by C-SPAN; transcript) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

Earlier this year, the National Constitution Center hosted an event in Miami, Florida, featuring a series of meaningful conversations about the Constitution with speakers of diverse perspectives. In this episode, we’re sharing one of those conversations with you. During an evening keynote program, five great constitutional experts were asked an important question: Should we break up with the founders? In other words, should we still look to the drafters of the Declaration and Constitution—from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison to George Washington—despite their moral and philosophical hypocrisies, such as ownership of enslaved people, or do they still have something to teach us? And was the original Constitution a flawed but meaningful attempt to realize the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, one made more perfect by Reconstruction—or is the original Constitution so fatally flawed by the original sin of slavery that it does not deserve respect? The five scholars you’ll hear discuss and debate this question are: Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, Caroline Fredrickson of Georgetown Law, Kermit Roosevelt of Penn Law, Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times, and Charles Cooke of the National Review. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Resources: Kermit Roosevelt III, The Nation That Never Was: Reconstructing America’s Story (2022) Akhil Reed Amar, The Words That Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation, 1760–1840 (2021) Caroline Fredrickson, “A Constitution of Our Own Making,” Washington Monthly (2021) Jamelle Bouie, “We Had to Force the Constitution to Accommodate Democracy, and It Shows” New York Times (Oct. 2022) Charles C. W. Cooke, National Review, “America’s Founding Changed Human History Forever” (July 4, 2016) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 Friday, judges in Texas and Washington state handed down conflicting decisions on the legality of abortion medication pills. In Texas, a district judge invalidated the FDA’s decades-old approval of the widely used drug mifepristone. Late this Wednesday, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partially overruled that decision by allowing mifepristone to remain available, but temporarily prevented it from being sent to by mail and limited its approved use to the first seven weeks of pregnancy. Meanwhile, in Washington state, a district judge ordered the FDA to not rollback mifepristone’s approval while litigation over the drug is ongoing. Together, the two cases create a legal debacle for the FDA, which the Justice Department has asked the Washington court to provide guidance on. Eventually, the cases may go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thomas Jipping of The Heritage Foundation and Rachel Rebouché of the Temple University Beasley School of Law join to discuss whether mailing mifepristone violates the Comstock Act; if the FDA’s approval of the drug violated the Administrative Procedure Act; and if the district courts had jurisdiction to rule on these cases in the first place. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Resources Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Washington v. FDA (E.D. Wa., Apr. 7, 2023) Memorandum Opinion and Order, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA (N.D. TX., Apr. 7, 2023) Order, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA (5th Cir., Apr. 13, 2023) Thomas Jipping, “The Justice Department Is Wrong: Federal Law Does Prohibit Mailing Abortion Drugs,” Heritage Foundation Report (Feb. 2023) Rachel Rebouche (with David Cohen and Greer Donley), “The Plaintiffs Trying to Ban the Abortion Pill Admitted They Have No Case,” Slate (March 2023) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday, April 4, former President Donald Trump was indicted in a Manhattan court on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. President Trump pleaded not guilty. This indictment is legally and constitutionally significant as it is the first indictment of a president in American history. In this episode, David French, an opinion columnist at The New York Times and co-host of Advisory Opinions, and Kimberly Wehle, professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a legal analyst at ABC News, join to help break down the legal charges against former president Trump as well as the broader legal significance of this case. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Resources “District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump,” (Apr. 4,2023) People v. Trump, Indictment People v. Trump, Statement of Facts David French, “What You Need to Know About the Trump Charges,” NYT (Apr. 4, 2023) Kim Wehle, “The Case Against Trump: The Charges and the Facts Behind Them,” The Bulwark (Apr. 4, 2032) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 January 2023, the Israeli government under newly re-elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposed a series of legal reforms that set off a wave of protests and calls of a constitutional crisis. The reforms seek to empower the Israeli legislature, known as the Knesset, to override decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel as well as to control the appointment of justices to the Court, and to limit the power of the Court to review administrative acts. Large-scale rallies and protests across Israel ensued; the protestors and critics, including many lawyers and academics, argue that the reforms undermine judicial independence and threaten Israeli democracy. In this week’s episode, Professor Yuval Shany of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Professor Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago join to explain the current situation in Israel and unpack the debate over the proposed reforms; discuss the similarities and differences between the American and Israeli constitutional systems; and how and why the reforms if passed, and taken as a whole, could lead to democratic backsliding. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Resources Yuval Shany and Amichai Cohen, “The Israeli President’s Plan to End the Constitutional Crisis,” Lawfare (March 27, 2023) Yuval Shany and Amichai Cohen, “The New Israeli Government’s ‘Constitutional Law Reforms’: Why now? What do they mean? And what will happen next?,” Lawfare (Feb. 14, 2023) “A law professor worries Israel could become the next Hungary,” Jerusalem Post (Jan. 9, 2023) Comparative Constitutions Project Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 week, the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed to re-hear a case that found the state’s redistricting maps unconstitutional under the state’s constitution. The outcome of this decision could affect another case already before the U.S. Supreme Court, Moore v. Harper—a challenge to a decision striking down North Carolina’s redistricting that involves the “independent state legislature” doctrine. Why did the North Carolina Supreme Court strike down the maps in the first place, and why is it revisiting that decision now? Will the U.S. Supreme Court still decide the Moore case and rule on the independent state legislature theory? And what standards should be used to decide whether redistricting maps are politically gerrymandered? To discuss these questions and address the latest developments in these crucial gerrymandering cases, Misha Tseytlin of the law firm Troutman Pepper and Guy-Uriel Charles of Harvard Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen. Resources Moore v. Harper, (oral argument: video via C-SPAN; transcript) Amicus Brief by Misha Tsyetlin filed on behalf group of New York Voters, Moore v. Harper Amicus Brief by Misha Tsyetlin filed on behalf of members of Congress from the North Carolina delegation, Rucho v. Common Cause Amicus Brief by Guy-Uriel Charles and Deepak Gupta on behalf of Mathematicians, Students and Professors, Rucho v. Common Cause Gill v. Whitford (2018) Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

Earlier this month, in United States v. Rahimi, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down as unconstitutional a decades-old law barring people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The ruling comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen last term, which held that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry guns outside the home. Bruen also created a new history-and-tradition test for determining whether gun-control regulations are constitutional, which has led some lower courts to now rule differently on challenges to gun laws—including the Fifth Circuit. In this episode, two scholars and experts on the Second Amendment— Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation and Adam Winkler of UCLA School of Law—join to break down the Rahimi decision, which the U.S. Supreme Court may review in a future term, and explore the new landscape of Second Amendment law after Bruen. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Resources United States v. Rahimi (5th Cir. 2023) NY State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen (2022) “Senate hears about legal fallout from Supreme Court gun decision,” RollCall (Mar. 2023) “The Essential Second Amendment,” Heritage Foundation ebook Adam Winkler, Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America (2013) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

March is women’s history month—and in commemoration of the celebration, this week we hosted a conversation exploring the story of the pursuit of women’s rights in early America. Sara Chatfield, assistant professor of political science at the University of Denver and author of Her Own Name: The Politics of Women’s Rights Before Suffrage, and Nicole Evelina, bestselling novelist, biographer, and poet, and author of America’s Forgotten Suffragists: Virginia and Francis Minor, join to explore the different aspects and dimensions of the fight for women’s rights in the 19th and 20th centuries—from economic and property rights, to women’s suffrage and the right to vote. They dig into the origins and consequences of laws guaranteeing married women’s property rights and how and why these laws changed over time, as well as the story of married couple Virginia and Francis Minor, which exemplified a partnership devoted to securing broader rights for women—from property rights to suffrage, through a case brought by the Minors that took the issue of voting rights for women to the Supreme Court for the first and only time in 1875. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Resources Sara Chatfield, In Her Own Name: The Politics of Women’s Rights Before Suffrage (2023) Nicole Evelina, America’s Forgotten Suffragists: Virginia and Francis Minor (2023) Minor v. Happersett (1875) Emily Zackin, Looking for Rights in All the Wrong Places: Why State Constitutions Contain America's Positive Rights (2013) Chloe Thurston, At the Boundaries of Homeownership: Credit, Discrimination, and the American State (2018) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 heard two separate legal challenges to a student loan forgiveness program proposed by the Biden administration: Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown. The plan aims to cancel up to $20,000 of student debt for low-to middle-income families, and was rolled out last August during the tail end of the COVID-19 pandemic. It relied on the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (or the HEROES Act), a law passed after 9/11 that gives the secretary of education the power to make changes to student loan programs during a national emergency. At the heart of the challenges to the plan are major questions surrounding the scope of presidential power; the doctrine of “standing”—or who can bring a lawsuit in court; and whether certain issues are of such “vast economic and political significance” that they should be left to the legislative branch and not decisions of federal agencies. William Araiza of Brooklyn Law School and Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute join to unpack the arguments on both sides of the cases. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 decades ago, in the fledgling days of the internet, Congress amended Section V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to grant broader legal protections to websites who host information from third parties. Part of Section 230 of that law (known as the Communications Decency Act) has been referred to as “the 26 words that created the internet,” due to the burgeoning effect it had on online content as internet companies were protected from lawsuits. Two current Supreme Court cases—Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh—ask whether algorithms created by companies like Google or Twitter, which might promote and recommend terroristic or other harmful material, result in the companies being held liable for aiding and abetting the terrorists; or whether, as in the Google case, Section 230 applies to grant immunity to the platforms. In this episode, guests Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami School of Law and Kate Klonick of St. John’s University of Law School break down the arguments in each case before the court. They also discuss the history and purpose of Section 230, why Congress enacted it, and how it’s been interpreted over the years. They also look forward to how this case could impact platforms like Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter and the future of the Internet itself. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 1873, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling decided The Slaughterhouse Cases, which narrowly interpreted the new Privileges and Immunities Clause of the recently ratified 14th Amendment. With this year marking the 150th anniversary of the decision, we’re joined today by two leading scholars to understand what The Slaughterhouse Cases were about, and why some scholars and judges–including current Supreme Court justices like Justice Clarence Thomas–have criticized the decision and its effect on constitutional law doctrines; while others have agreed with its interpretation. Guests Kurt Lash, professor at the University of Richmond Law School, and Kermit Roosevelt, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, join to discuss the history and story of the case; what happened after it was decided; and what would happen in constitutional law today if the case was overturned. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

Nelson Mandela—born in South Africa in 1918—was an international freedom fighter and Nobel Peace Prize winner who helped overturn the apartheid system of racial segregation and usher in democracy for his nation. After being convicted of sabotage and serving 27 years in prison, Mandela was released, and soon after was elected president, becoming the country's first black head of state and the first elected in a fully representative democratic election. He served as president from 1994 to 1999, overseeing the enactment of a new democratic constitution in 1996. After stepping down from power, he continued work on social justice issues. He died in Johannesburg in 2013. In this episode, Richard Stengel—former president of the National Constitution Center, and former editor of Time Magazine—joins to discuss his new podcast, Mandela: The Lost Tapes, which is available on Audible. These never-before-heard audio tapes come from Stengel’s years-long conversations with Mandela while collaborating with him on his remarkable memoir, Long Walk to Freedom. From the tapes, we learn about what democracy meant to Mandela, how his upbringing and inspirations led him to becoming a force for justice, and what lessons Mandela’s story holds for us today. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

The Public Debt Clause of the 14th Amendment states: “The Validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law …. shall not be questioned.” Recent debates—including the most recent standoff between President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy over the debt ceiling—have raised the question as to whether this clause can be invoked to overcome the crisis. In today’s episode, we drill down on why the public debt clause was written, how it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court, and how things might play out today if it were used by President Biden. Guests Pulitzer-Prize winning historian Eric Foner, author of The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution, and law professor Gerard Magliocca, author of American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment, discuss this often-overlooked section of the 14th Amendment written at the end of the Civil War. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 January marked the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the seminal and contentious decision recognizing abortion rights, which the Supreme Court overturned last June in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In this episode, scholars Mary Ziegler, author of the new book Roe: The History of a National Obsession, and O. Carter Snead, author of What It Means to be Human: The Case for the Body in Public Bioethics, discuss the Roe decision in historical and constitutional context. They also explore how Roe v. Wade raised questions beyond abortion rights—including about the scope of the judicial role, religious liberty, the role of science in politics, and much more; and how the abortion landscape has changed since Dobbs overturned Roe. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 honor of Martin Luther King Day, January 16, 2023, we pay tribute to Dr. King by discussing his historical legacy and constitutional and moral philosophy through his key writings, speeches, and intellectual and moral inspirations and influences. Guests Christopher Brooks, professor of history at East Stroudsburg University, and Hasan Kwame Jeffries, associate professor of history at Ohio State University, discuss some of Dr. King’s most seminal writings and speeches and talk about the key texts, ideas, and writers that influenced Dr. King’s life and work, from Christianity and the Bible, to civil rights figures like Howard Thurmond. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Read and listen to the primary texts discussed: Dr. Martin Luther King, “Address Before the New York State Civil War Centennial Commission,” Sept. 12, 1962 (Video | Transcript | Draft) Dr. Martin Luther King, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” April 16, 1963 Dr. Martin Luther King, “I Have a Dream” speech, August 28, 1963 Dr. Martin Luther King, “Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break Silence,” April 4, 1967 Dr. Martin Luther King, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community (1967) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 week, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California became the Speaker of the House, after 15 rounds of voting. It was the first time since 1923 that a Speaker was not elected on the first ballot. In this episode, we are joined by scholars Matthew Green, author of The Speaker of the House: A Study of Leadership, and Josh Chafetz, author of Congress’s Constitution: Legislative Authority and the Separation of Powers, to discuss the role and the history of this powerful constitutional office. They also discuss some of the most notable Speakers throughout history, from Henry Clay to Joe Cannon to Nancy Pelosi, and how their legacies helped shaped the House and Congress as we know it. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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, Professor Vincent Phillip Muñoz of Notre Dame Law discusses his newest book, Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses. He is joined by Professor Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School to discuss the book, what freedom of religion meant at the founding, and what it means today. They also evaluate the reasoning behind some of the Supreme Court’s major religion decisions and how they comport with history and the founders’ understandings of religious liberty. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

How did Marcus Tullius Cicero, a Roman statesman and philosopher, influence the Founding generation, the Constitution, and American political thought? Join Scott Nelson, author of Cicero, Politics, and the 21st Century; Benjamin Straumann, author of Crisis and Constitutionalism: Roman Political Thought from the Fall of the Republic to the Age of Revolution; and Caroline Winterer, author of The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American Intellectual Life, 1780-1910, for a conversation exploring the political ideas of Cicero, his impact on America, and what we can learn from him today. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 month, we hosted a conversation about FDR and the Transformation of the Supreme Court. Legal historian Laura Kalman, author of FDR’s Gambit: The Court Packing Fight and the Rise of Legal Liberalism; Ken Kersch, professor of political science at Boston College and author of Conservatives and the Constitution; and Jeff Shesol, author of Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court, joined Jeffrey Rosen to discuss Franklin D. Roosevelt’s constitutional legacy, the court packing fight, and how his Supreme Court appointees transformed America. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 December 7, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore v. Harper, a case out of North Carolina about the power of state courts to review election regulations set by state legislatures. At the heart of the case is the “independent state legislature” theory, an interpretation of the Constitution that would give state legislatures essentially the sole power to regulate federal elections and would restrict the involvement from state courts in reviewing those decisions. Joining us to recap the oral arguments in Moore v. Harper is Vikram Amar, dean of Illinois College of Law; and Jason Torchinsky, partner at Holtzman Vogel. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Check out What is the “Independent State Legislature Doctrine”? – Part 1 and Part 2 from March 2022 and July 2022, respectively. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 Monday, December 5, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case. The petitioner, Lorie Smith, is an artist and website designer in Colorado, who says creating wedding websites for same-sex couples against her personal beliefs would violate her First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religions, because is would require her to create messages inconsistent with her religious beliefs, and bar her from posting those beliefs on her website. A Colorado public accommodations law states that businesses open to the public can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or state an intent to do so. Smith brought a lawsuit challenging the law. Colorado counters that the law does not require or bar any speech, and exempting Smith from the law would “upend antidiscrimination law—and other laws too.” Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law and Joshua Matz of Kaplan Hecker & Fink join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap the arguments and discuss the issues at stake. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

The Honorable Jeffrey Sutton, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, joins the Honorable M. Margaret McKeown, senior judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, for a discussion on McKeown’s new book, Citizen Justice: The Environmental Legacy of William O. Douglas—Public Advocate and Conservation Champion, and the constitutional legacy of U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, one of the court’s longest serving justices. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 Wednesday, November 9, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Haaland v. Brackeen, a case challenging the Indian Child Welfare Act. Opponents of ICWA say that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, discriminating against non-Native foster parents. Defenders of ICWA say that tribal sovereignty means the relationship of Native people to the US government is political, not racial. Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation and Elizabeth Reese of Stanford Law join Jeffrey Rosen to recap the arguments in the case and discuss the future of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

For Native American Heritage Month, the National Constitution Center hotsed a discussion with historians H.W. Brands, author of The Last Campaign: Sherman, Geronimo and the War for America; Lori Daggar, author of Cultivating Empire: Capitalism, Philanthropy, and the Negotiation of American Imperialism in Indian Country; and Lindsay Robertson, author of Conquest by Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of Their Lands, for a historical overview of U.S. westward expansion, manifest destiny, and the impact on native peoples and tribes. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

Historians Andrew Browning, author of Schools for Statesmen: The Divergent Educations of the Constitutional Framers; Nancy Isenberg, author of Madison and Jefferson; and Thomas Kidd, author of Thomas Jefferson: A Biography of Spirit and Flesh, explore Thomas Jefferson’s life and legacy through the lens of his own education and what he read—and how those influences shaped the American idea. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Stay Connected and Learn More Continue the 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. Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. To watch National Constitution Center Town Hall programs live, check out our schedule of upcoming programs. Register through Zoom to ask your constitutional questions in the Q&A or watch live on YouTube.

On Monday, October 31, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for more than five hours in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard. In this pair of cases, the Supreme Court will assess whether the schools are violating the Equal Protection Clause by using race as a factor in admissions. Ted Shaw of the UNC Center for Civil Rights and David Bernstein of Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University join Jeffrey Rosen to recap the arguments in the case—including the specific questions asked by each of the justices; to discuss how the court will rule next year when it decides the cases; and what the ruling might mean for the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and equality and diversity in high education and American society going forward. · Listen to “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 1” Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 Monday, October 31, 2022, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard. In this pair of cases, the Supreme Court will assess whether the schools are violating the Equal Protection Clause by using race as a factor in admissions. Ted Shaw of the UNC Center for Civil Rights and David Bernstein of Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University join Jeffrey Rosen to examine the text, history, and original understanding of the 14th Amendment and how it relates to affirmative action. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in National Pork Producers v. Ross. The case is about a 2018 California ballot initiative, in which voters decided that the state should prohibit the in-state sale of pork from animals confined in a manner inconsistent with California standards. Opponents of the amendment argue that it violates dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Today on We the People, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law join host Jeffrey Rosen discuss whether the Interstate Commerce Clause restricts states from regulating in-state conduct that has a substantial impact on mostly out-of-state producers. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Merrill v. Milligan. The Court will determine whether Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits racially discriminatory voting practices and procedures. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss whether Section 2 and the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution require or forbids congressional districting plans to account for race are Rick Hasen of UCLA and Jason Torchinsky of Holtzman Vogel. Listen to “Redistricting in Alabama and the Voting Rights Act – Part 1” here. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

To conclude our week-long celebration of Constitution Day and to celebrate the launch of our Constitution 101 course, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (ret.) joined Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the NCC, for a private conversation with middle and high school students about the importance of civics education in America. Justice Breyer recently joined Justice Neil Gorsuch as honorary co-chair of the National Constitution Center. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

After a few months of summer break, the Supreme Court will begin its next term on Monday, October 3. And it could be another historic term. Some of the cases on the docket involve affirmative action, voting rights, free speech and religious liberty, and the Indian Child Welfare Act. Caroline Fredrickson of Georgetown Law and Adam White of George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the key cases and potential themes, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s arrival, of this term. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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 summer, as a continuation of the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project, teams of leading conservative, libertarian, and progressive scholars convened for a virtual constitutional convention. After debating and deliberating together, they drafted and proposed a series of amendments to the Constitution. In this episode, we share the presentation that the team leaders made on Monday, discussing the five amendments they all agreed upon. Caroline Fredrickson, senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice represented team progressive, Ilan Wurman, associate professor at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, represented team conservative, and Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, represented team libertarian. Other convention “delegates” included team progressive’s Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School; team libertarian’s Christina Mulligan of Brooklyn Law School and Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute; and team conservative’s Robert George of Princeton University, Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School, and Colleen Sheehan of Arizona State University. Read the amendments along with introductions by the team leaders here. This program is presented in conjunction with the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

September 17 is Constitution Day in the United States, celebrating the day that members of the Constitutional Convention signed the document in Philadelphia in 1787. As a part of the National Constitution Center’s 2022 celebrations, we hosted a panel live at the NCC in Philadelphia called “Originalism: A Matter of Interpretation.” Emily Bazelon of The New York Times Magazine, Rich Lowry of the National Review, Steven Mazie of The Economist, and Ilan Wurman of Arizona State University joined host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss whether the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original meaning, and if the Supreme Court is consistent in applying principles of originalism in its decisions. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

We have just launched an exciting project on the NCC’s website: The Founders’ Library. In it, you can read primary texts that span American constitutional history—from the philosophical works that influenced the Founding generation, to the most important speeches, essays, books, pamphlets, petitions, letters, court cases, landmark statutes, and state constitutions that have shaped the American constitutional tradition. To ensure nonpartisan rigor and ideological diversity, we assembled a group of leading scholars from diverse perspectives to help choose the sources included in the document library. Two of those scholars—Paul Rahe of Hillsdale College and Jonathan Gienapp from Stanford University—join host Jeffrey Rosen today to discuss some of the early texts from the Founders’ Library. Read Professor Rahe’s picks from the Intellectual Foundations of the American Founding (Before 1750): Thucydides — Thucydides, The War between the Athenians and the Peloponnesians (ca. 431-400 BC) Bacon & Hobbes (together) — Francis Bacon, “Selected Excerpts” (1620) and Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiastical and Civil (1651) James Harrington — James Harrington, The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656) Locke – religious toleration, right to revolution — John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) and Two Treatises on Government (1690) Hume & Adam Smith — David Hume, Essays Moral, Political and Literary (1741-58) and Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) Montesquieu — Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (1748) Read Professor Gienapp’s picks from the Founding Era (1750-1790): John Dickinson, Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies (1768) William Cushing, Instructions to the Jury in the Quock Walker Case, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Nathaniel Jennison (1783) James Iredell, To the Public (1786) George Mason, Objections to the Constitution of Government formed by the Convention (1787) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

On August 24th, the White House announced a plan to forgive $20,000 in student loan debt for borrowers who received Pell Grants, and $10,000 for other borrowers—all of whom must meet certain income qualifications. The Biden administration says the plan falls under The HEROES Act of 2003. Those in opposition of the plan say it’s presidential overreach, and unfair to those who didn’t go to college or already paid back their loans. Fred Lawrence of the Phi Beta Kappa Society and Charles C. W. Cooke of the National Review join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the legal issues on all sides of the loan forgiveness plan. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

Today on We the People, we’re sharing a conversation from a private event hosted by the National Constitution Center this May in Coral Gables, Florida, recorded with permission from the speakers. The question we asked of our panelists was, “Is the First Amendment Enough?” In today’s world of Twitter mobs, disinformation, and polarized media, should we be looking for a new standard when it comes to regulating speech—or not? Journalists Kimberly Atkins Stohr of The Boston Globe, David French of The Dispatch, Ali Velshi of MSNBC, and legal scholar Larry Kramer of the William Flora Hewlett Foundation join NCC president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for the conversation. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

On August 8, the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, former President Donald Trump’s home in Palm Beach, Florida. They seized 11 sets of documents, some of which were labeled “top secret.” Later in the week, a federal judge unsealed the search warrant, which stated that Trump was being investigated for possibly violating the Espionage Act and two other criminal statutes. John Yoo of the University of California at Berkeley and Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen to talk about the raid, the investigation, and the constitutional questions that arise out of it. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

The Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas, opened a new exhibit this summer called We the People: The Radical Notion of Democracy. It features an original print of the U.S. Constitution—one of only 11 in the world—as well as original prints of the Declaration of Independence, the proposed Bill of Rights, and the Articles of Confederation. To celebrate the opening, the museum invited Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, to host a conversation centered around the text and impact of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. His guest was Eric Slauter, deputy dean of the humanities at the University of Chicago and the author of The State as a Work of Art: The Cultural Origins of the Constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 is the law that dictates the congressional procedure for certifying Electoral College results in a presidential election. Congress passed it in response to the presidential election of 1876, where Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but lost the presidency to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes because of contested results in three states. The law is also implicated in the attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. Now, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Susan Collins of Maine have introduced a bill they say will fix the Electoral Count Act. Rick Pildes of NYU Law and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law co-authored a piece for the Election Law Blog called “Why Congress should swiftly enact the Senate’s bipartisan ECA reform bill,” and today they joinhost Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the pros and cons of the bill. Listen to our first episode on the Electoral Count Act with Ned Foley and Brad Smith from January 2022. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade and found no constitutional basis for a right to choose abortion. Teresa Stanton Collett of the University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota), David French of The Dispatch, Katherine Mayall of the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Mary Ziegler of UC Davis School of Law and author of Dollars for Life: The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican Establishment, join for a conversation exploring the role of the Supreme Court in shaping abortion rights under the Constitution, how U.S. abortion law compares to that of other countries after Roe, and what lessons the United States can learn from how abortion is treated by law in other nations. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program is presented in partnership and generously sponsored by the Center for Constitutional Design at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. 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.