Podcasts about Akhil Amar

Could Republicans in the House conspire with a 2025 President Trump to manufacture a forced Senate recess in an effort to bypass the advise and consent appointments process?  The much-anticipated article in The Atlantic has been published, to widespread approval.  We proudly present all three co-authors of this article in a wide-ranging, nuanced, fascinating discussion, as Professors Josh Chafetz, Tom Schmidt, and of course Akhil Amar reunite to take us from Restoration England to the chambers of the Supreme Court where Professor Schmidt clerked for Justice Breyer, the author of the principal case on recess appointments, NLRB v. Noel Canning, in 2014.  We hear how that case has lessons, and yet is distinguished, from the scenario here, and what might happen if the contemplated maneuvers, deemed grossly unconstitutional by our experts, try it anyway.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Today we discuss what a president is, what a president does, and what a president "should be."  To quote Professor Amar, it can be hard to find someone to fill those shoes because they were designed for Washington's feet.Our guests are Akhil Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, and Andy Lipka, president of EverScholar.Akhil and Andy co-host Amarica's Constitution, a podcast that explores the constitutional issues of our day. It is a perfect companion show to Civics 101, and one we endorse wholeheartedly. Here is where you can listen to our episode on the Executive Branch, here is a link to our episode on the Presidential Veto, and here is where you can learn about the President and the Price of Gas. CLICK HERE: Visit our website to donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more!

After discussing SCOTUS voting blocs and public perception, in part two of our discussion Adam Feldman rounds up the 2023-2024 term. We cover:SEC v. Jarkesy, holding that 7th Amendment procedural rights apply in agency proceedings, and whether Adam is surprised at the voting alignment (conservatives pro, liberals con).Loper Bright v. Raimondo, overruling Chevron, and what to make of the liberal bloc joining the government in both these administrative state cases.CFPB v. Comm. Fin. Svcs Assn, holding that CFPB funding fits with history and tradition, and whether Adam was surprised that Justice Thomas broke with the conservative group to join.Trump v. Anderson, holding the 14th Amendment did not disqualify Trump from the ballot, and whether Adam was surprised it was 9-0.Fischer v. U.S., holding 18 USC 1512 (prohibiting congressional obstruction) does not apply to Jan. 6, and whether Adam was surprised that Justice Jackson joined, and Justice Barrett dissented.Rahimi, holding the text, history, and tradition test supports civil restraining order disarmament, and whether Adam was surprised the court even took this case, and surprised that the court only issued GVRs on companion cases, despite there being so many Rahimi concurrences. (Akhil Amar, renowned constitutional scholar and an originalist of a liberal variety, has an interesting take on Rahimi at his podcast here.)Adam Feldman biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Empirical SCOTUS, https://empiricalscotus.com/Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.Legal Data Analytics | Optimized Legal Solutions (feldyfied.wixsite.com)

Akhil Amar, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale University, joins Sarah and David to read between the lines of the Constitution to find and define unenumerated rights. Be sure to check out his books, America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By and The Words that Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840. And stick around after the interview for a brief Alito flag update. —Akhil Amar's two-tier theory of jurisdictions —AO episode with Judge Newsom mentioning unenumerated rights —Ezra Klein's article on the Second Amendment —District of Columbia v. Heller —McDonald v. City of Chicago —New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen —Akhil Amar's podcast —NRA v. Vullo decision —Casey Mattox's tweet on NRA v. Vullo —SCOTUS clears the way for Louisiana to use a new congressional map Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Eleventh Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom takes over the role as professor to teach Sarah and David the implications of jurisdiction stripping and the balance of power between the branches of government. We'll sum the lesson up as … Congress, do your job. The Agenda: —Judges say they won't hire from Columbia Law School —Explaining the exceptions clause —Constraints over jurisdiction stripping by Congress —Marbury powers —Congress taking a more active role in constitutional interpretations Show Notes: —David for the NYT: The Magic Constitutionalism of Donald Trump —Felker v. Turpin —Sheldon v. Sill —Judge Newsom's mention of Bruen in the AO episode from June 2022 —Judiciary Act of 1979 —Akhil Amar's two-tier theory of jurisdictions —Daniel Epps' article in Columbia Law Review —Monday's AO podcast —Henry Hart's dialogue with self in the Harvard Law Review Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tonight on The Last Word: Donald Trump lies about presidential immunity after his court loss. Also, a new amicus brief on Trump's ballot disqualification calls for the Supreme Court to use a “50-state solution.” Plus, Republicans block a bipartisan border bill after Trump criticizes the deal. And Democrats probe potential ethics and tax violations by Justice Clarence Thomas. Barbara McQuade, Glenn Kirschner, Akhil Amar, Sen. Jon Tester, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse join Lawrence O'Donnell.

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.

In this week's episode, Jeremi and Zachary are joined by Sanford Levinson to discuss the 2000 election, the Supreme Court decision that finalized it, and how this decision has had ramifications throughout modern history. Zachary sets the scene with his poem entitled, "The Court Has Stopped the Count" Sanford Levinson, who holds the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, joined the University of Texas Law School in 1980. Previously a member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, he is also a Professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas. Levinson is the author of approximately 400 articles, book reviews, or commentaries in professional and popular journals--and a regular contributor to the popular blog Balkinization. He has also written six books: Constitutional Faith (1988, winner of the Scribes Award, 2d edition 2011); Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (1998); Wrestling With Diversity (2003); Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It)(2006); Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (2012); An Argument Open to All: Reading the Federalist in the 21st Century (2015); and, with Cynthia Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and teh Flaws that Affect Us Today (forthcoming, September 2017). Edited or co-edited books include a leading constitutional law casebook, Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking (6th ed. 2015, with Paul Brest, Jack Balkin, Akhil Amar, and Reva Siegel); Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (2016); Reading Law and Literature: A Hermeneutic Reader (1988, with Steven Mallioux); Responding to Imperfection: The Theory and Practice of Constitutional Amendment (1995); Constitutional Stupidities, Constitutional Tragedies (1998, with William Eskridge); Legal Canons (2000, with Jack Balkin); The Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion (2005, with Batholomew Sparrow); Torture: A Collection (2004, revised paperback edition, 2006); and The Oxford Handbook on the United States Constitution (with Mark Tushnet and Mark Graber, 2015). He received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Law and Courts Section of the American Political Science Association in 2010. He has been a visiting faculty member of the Boston University, Georgetown, Harvard, New York University, and Yale law schools in the United States and has taught abroad in programs of law in London; Paris; Jerusalem; Auckland, New Zealand; and Melbourne, Australia. He was a Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton in 1985-86 and a Member of the Ethics in the Professions Program at Harvard in 1991-92. He is also affiliated with the Shalom Hartman Institute of Jewish Philosophy in Jerusalem. A member of the American Law Institute, Levinson was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001. He is married to Cynthia Y. Levinson, a writer of children's literature, and has two daughters and four grandchildren.

On Tuesday, December 4, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Moore v. United States. The case concerns a challenge to the “mandatory repatriation tax,” and asks whether the Constitution allows Congress to tax American shareholders for the unrealized earnings of a foreign corporation. In this episode, Akhil Amar of Yale Law School and Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute join Jeffrey Rosen to break down the arguments on both sides of the case. The conversation touches on the history of taxation in the Founding era, the extent of Congressional power, and the very meaning of the word “taxation.”   Resources: Anastasia Boden, Amicus Brief for Petitioners, Moore v. United States Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar, Amicus Brief for Respondents, Moore v. United States   Moore v. United States (oral argument via C-SPAN)   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

The "constitutional scholar" Akhil Amar wants us to forget Thomas Jefferson. You know who else thinks this is a good idea? National Review. Amar is a well-known leftist and "conservative" National Review decided his attack on Jefferson was too good to pass up. https://mcclanahanacademy.com https://brionmcclanahan.com/support http://learntruehistory.com --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/brion-mcclanahan/support

In a special Independence Day episode, scholars Akhil Amar of Yale Law School and Peter Onuf of the University of Virginia join host Jeffrey Rosen for a discussion on the historical legacy of founding father Thomas Jefferson, America's third president and principal author of the Declaration of Independence. In a National Constitution Center event a few months ago, Professor Amar announced his intention to “break up with” Thomas Jefferson; and in this episode of We the People, we explore why he's decided to break up with Jefferson—including his actions and views on slavery—and what aspects of Jefferson's legacy deserve defense. Professors Amar and Onuf also explore the positive and negative aspects of his legacy and influence on the country, as well as recommendations on how to understand and study Jefferson today.   Resources: Akhil Amar, The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840 (2021) Peter Onuf, The Mind of Thomas Jefferson (2007) Peter Onuf and Annette Gordon-Reed, “Most Blessed of the Patriarchs”: Thomas Jefferson and the Empire of the Imagination (2017) Peter Onuf, Jefferson and the Virginians: Democracy, Constitutions, and Empire (2018) Should We Break up with the Founders?, We the People episode (April 2023) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

In this season of college commencements, our eyes were caught by an honorary degree given to Yale Professor, Federal Judge, and scholar Guido Calabresi. This episode will review his many contributions to America's constitutional landscape, and to Professor Amar in particular. Prepare for a Paper Chase-like journey through the world of Guido Calabresi as seen through the eyes of Akhil Amar.

The recent brief in the ISL case, Moore v. Harper, was notable in part because it was co-authored not only by our own Professor Amar and his brother, Dean Vik Amar, both well-known Democrats, but also by one of America's best-known conservatives, Professor Steven Calabresi.  Steve is a co-founder and national chair of the Federalist Society, and importantly, this is not the first time he has crossed the aisle in matters of national import.  He joins our podcast and engages with his close friend, Akhil Amar, on a conversation that spans decades and gives insight in the founding, development, and present of this iconic conservative organization.  Characters from Ed Meese to Guido Calabresi take the stage.  You may be surprised as you learn the inside story from a consummate insider and scholar.

On this episode I am joined by Professor Daniel Farber to discuss originalism, its flaws, and the role "history and tradition" plays in constitutional adjudication. Professor Farber explains why "foundationalists," including originalists, frequently get constitutional interpretation wrong.  In Desperately Seeking Certainty: The Misguided Quest for Constitutional Foundations, he and his co-author, Professor Suzanna Sherry, don't pull any punches: "We believe that foundationalism is doomed to failure no matter how brilliant the theorist or how important the foundational idea."In the book, the Professors critique the constitutional theories espoused by Robert Bork, Justice Antonin Scalia, Richard Epstein, Akhil Amar, Bruce Ackerman, and Ronald Dworkin. Professor Farber is the Sho Sato Professor of Law at the UC Berkeley School of Law.  He has authored more than 20 books and more than 100 articles on topics ranging from Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Environmental Law, and Presidential Power.Listen. Enjoy. Share.E-mail your questions, comments, and suggestions to summarilypod@gmail.com.  

David and Sarah return to discussions they had with their last guest, professor Akhil Amar, including living constitutionalism and the question of whether to let voters or jurists decide issues of justice. Then our hosts dive into the University of Pennsylvania controversy concerning the limits of academic freedom at the private Ivy League institution. Plus: the Biden administration's bid to clarify abortion protections in the Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act. Show Notes:-AO: Akhil Amar Talks Liberal Originalism-University of Pennsylvania Law Dean's Report Regarding Amy Wax-Biden admin looks to protect doctors providing emergency abortions, and warn those who don't

Sarah and David kick off the week with an exciting discussion of liberal constitutional originalism with Akhil Amar, author of The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, and constitutional law professor at Yale University. Our guest gives a dynamic perspective of the decision in Roe v. Wade, as well as dives into the nitty-gritty of the varying modes of constitutional interpretation. Who gets to decide what the common good is? Are philosophers really as smart as they think they are? Show Notes:-The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation-Amarica's Constitution-Eradicating Bush-League Arguments Root and Branch: The Article III Independent-State-Legislature Notion and Related Rubbish-Time: Why Liberal Justices Need to Start Thinking Like Conservatives-New York Times: The Constitution Is More Than a Document—It's a Conversation

In 1987 the Senate rejected President Reagan's nominee for the Supreme Court, Robert Bork, because his views were considered dangerously outside the mainstream. Among other things, Bork believed the Constitution did not contain a right to privacy. Today, some of Bork's ideas have been validated by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. By striking down Roe v Wade, the court killed the notion that any implied right to privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment or elsewhere in the Constitution protects access to abortion. In this episode, esteemed Yale constitutional scholar Akhil Amar traces the history of the right to privacy in the law from colonial times to the 1973 landmark ruling that the Roberts court has relegated to history.

Jennifer Senior was a long-time staff writer at New York magazine and a daily book critic for the NYT. Her own book is the bestseller, All Joy and No Fun: The Paradox of Modern Parenthood. She’s now a staff writer at The Atlantic, where she won the 2022 Pulitzer for “What Bobby McIlvaine Left Behind,” a story about 9/11. But in this episode we primarily focus on her essay, “It’s Your Friends Who Break Your Heart.”You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or click the dropdown menu to add the Dishcast to your podcast feed). For two clips of our convo — on why friends with different politics are increasingly rare, on how Jesus died for his friends — pop over to our YouTube page. A new transcript is up in honor of what we are still learning about Trump’s attempted violent coup: Bob Woodward and Robert Costa on the perpetual peril of Trump. Below is a segment of that convo — probably the most significant one we’ve had on the Dishcast yet:Turning to the debate over abortion in the ashes of Roe, a reader dissents:I’m having a hard time understanding why you’re so misleading about abortion rights in the US compared to other nations, and naive about protection of the other rights under the 14th Amendment. Germany allows abortions up to 12 weeks for any reason, but what’s remarkable about Germany is not the 12-week mark, but that Germany offers pre-natal care, child care, employment guarantees, etc. that make it much easier for a woman if she chooses to go through with her pregnancy. The US doesn’t have anything like this. And even with the new right in America pretending to hop on board the social insurance train, passing any laws in a conservative-majority Congress that would provide more social services to pregnant women would deliberately NOT address or protect the right of a woman to control her own fertility — that is, to decide to have a child or not. In other words, the interests of a woman’s bodily autonomy and reproductive control would be denied. That makes women, on the whole, unable to live freely in society. But we don’t have to hop over to Europe to run a comparison. Canada protects abortion rights for any reason, with most clinics providing the procedure up to 23 weeks. This aligns with the (previous) fetal viability cutoff that Roe protected. And recently Mexico decriminalized abortion entirely, which paves the way for full, legal abortion rights.The US is now the regressive anomaly, not the progressive outlier you insist we are. And your idea that abortion can just be decided via democracy is cute — maybe that would’ve been true in the past — but SCOTUS could care less about the legislative process. You only have to look at their recent gun decision to realize that. You should make these things clear when you discuss abortion, instead of conveniently obfuscating the context and facts.As far as your confidence that the other rights under the 14th Amendment — gay marriage, access to contraception, etc. — will stand firm, I’m not sure why. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett evoked stare decisis in their confirmation hearings, and this turned out to be a shameless lie from all of them. With the conservative majority in place, they could then take up the Dobbs case and use it to overturn Roe entirely — stare decisis be damned.Alito left the door open to address Obergefell, etc. in his draft opinion, so why would you think Thomas taking it a step further is just him “trolling”? The majority of Americans wanted Roe left in place; its provisions were the compromise that balanced the interests of the woman with that of the fetus that you incorrectly thought was lacking. (Listen to Ezra Klein’s podcast with court expert Dahlia Lithwick to understand why that is). Yet despite its popularity, Roe was struck down. The majority of Americans support gay marriage. But the conservative court has publicly stated now that they don't care about what Americans want or think. Alito and Thomas have clearly said what they're willing to go after next. Kavanaugh playing footsie with the idea that those other rights are safe is just another lie that you are too willing to fall for, as I was too willing to think they wouldn't, in the end, touch Roe.As far as healthcare access in Germany, Katie Herzog made that point during our “Real Time” appearance last Friday:From a “Real Time” watcher:I disagree with you on quite a few issues, but appreciated your level-headed commentary on Bill Maher’s show. You’re one of the only people I saw today who forcefully made the point that the SCOTUS decision still allows for action by Congress — it’s a crucial point that has been totally lost in this discussion.From another fan of Bill’s show:I appreciated your take pointing out that the US is the only country that has made abortion rights a constitutional right, and I do understand your argument that this is something that needs to be decided through the democratic process. But I’m wondering if perhaps, on a deeper level, you’re shooting yourself in the foot. Your attitude has been for a long time that America is unique, exceptional, in its supposed commitment to individual freedom, as reflected in its constitution. Doesn’t that imply that enshrining personal rights in its constitution is in fact a perfect evocation to our country’s exceptionalism, what sets it apart from the cynical bickering and proceduralism of European parliamentary systems?I believe in democracy, tempered by constitutional restraints. So the kind of judicial supremacy you seem to be advocating seems outside that. I repeat that I would not have repealed Roe, for stare decisis and social stability reasons. But for the same reason, I wouldn’t have voted for it in 1973. I also believe that the Court could approximate your vision, in defending minority rights. But women are hardly a minority, and many women — at about the same rate as men — want abortion to be illegal.Many more dissents, and other reader comments on abortion, here. That roundup addressed the concern over stare decisis that readers keep bringing up. As I wrote then:Yes, I worry about stare decisis — but it is not an absolute bar to changing precedents. Akhil Amar, the renowned constitutional scholar at Yale, rebuts the same argument. Amar also just appeared on Bari’s podcast, in an episode titled, “The Yale Law Professor Who Is Anti-Roe But Pro-Choice” — a great listen.Bari addressed the Dobbs decision in her new piece, “The Post-Roe Era Begins.” Another reader looks at the legislative route:I think President Biden and the Democrats as a whole would be in a far better position with voters today if over the past 18 months they had taken that same “small bites” approach on a variety of other issues: border security, election reform and just about any other challenge where they now have nothing to show the American voters because they approached those issues if they had significant majorities in each house. They could even take this “small bites” approach right now on the abortion issue, given (as you’ve documented) that the vast majority of Americans favor access to abortions with reasonable restrictions. Instead, Chuck Schumer runs a bill that’s even more permissive than Roe.I know it’s naïve to think we can take politics out of policymaking, but maybe, given the election hand they were dealt, it would have been good politics to pursue progress over progressivism. Right now they’d be running on a far different record (one of being the adults in the room) and could present a much stronger claim for leading our nation. Instead, they wasted a lot of time and opportunity pretending they had the clout to adopt the entire far-left progressive agenda.Another reader delves into the Court precedents that Democrats are wringing their hands over:You wrote about Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell: “Thomas also concedes that there could be other constitutional defenses for these previous decisions beyond ‘substantive due process.’”There is one defense, at least. The 14th Amendment has a due process clause and an equal protection clause. When Casey upheld Roe, the right to abortion was based upon due process, not equal protection. Dobbs found that due process did not guarantee the right to abortion. Equal protection of the laws is different. If a state allows an opposite-sex couple to marry or have sex, but bans a similarly situated same-sex couple from doing so, then equal protection of the laws is denied based upon sex, in violation of the 14th Amendment. If there were a state where females were banned from obtaining abortions but males were specifically permitted to have abortions, then that would be a denial of equal protection, based upon sex. But there is, of course, no world in which that would happen, and if there were, the state could simply ban males from having abortions as well and cure the equal-protection problem. Obergefell was based upon both due process and equal protection, so if due process is removed we still have equal protection. Lawrence was decided on due process alone, but it easily could be upheld based upon equal protection. (Justice O’Connor, in concurring in the ruling, said she would have relied upon equal protection instead of due process.) So Lawrence and Obergefell seem safe. Griswold does not seem safe under equal protection, but it may be safe under other provisions, although no state is currently seriously trying to ban the sale of contraceptives. Although Bostock was a decision based upon the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and not on the Constitution, Gorsuch ruled that the law that banned sex discrimination in employment applied to gays and transgender people. His reasoning was that if you fire a female employee for being married to a women but don’t fire a male employee for being married to a woman, then you are discriminating based upon the employee’s sex. There is a very strong argument that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause works similarly. I broadly agree with this. Speaking of the transgender debate, a parent writes:While I generally agree with your balanced approach, I think you are still missing what is fueling the alarm on the right. As a parent of a 14 year old, I’m very aware of the extraordinary confusion that some teens now face because of the mainstream promotion of gender identities. For many kids, all this is harmless and ridiculous, and they tune it out. For a very tiny number of kids, this information may be extremely necessary, and perhaps even lifesaving, so they don’t feel so alone.  But unfortunately, I believe there is a quite significant number of kids that have come to believe that all their teen problems will be solved if they simply lop off a few body parts. A few days ago I caught up with a friend who is a wreck because her 14-year-old daughter asked if she could cut off her breasts. This girl has some issues with body anxiety and acceptance, like the majority of teen girls, and has now decided she can avoid all the bad aspects of maturing into a woman by simply becoming a man, which in her mind is closer to remaining a girl, which is what she really wants. The mother is trying to help every way she can, and is about as caring and progressive as a parent can possibly be. But you have to understand how parents today are simply helpless to combat the flood of bizarre, foolish, and/or utterly toxic information that their kids find on the internet, or in social media with their classmates. We entirely ban our 14-year-old from all social media, and from all internet sites except for those needed for school, because we have seen time and time again how kids’ lives are getting wrecked from all that sludge. Most parents are simply not equipped to handle it. Many aren’t able to police their child as thoroughly as we do, and for those on the right with kids, I believe this very real damage has caused some to turn to any platform such as QAnon or other fringe groups that can make sense of this real trauma and harm to their kids. If you don’t have kids, it’s very easy to dismiss this as hysteria. But if you are aware of what's happening to kids nowadays, it’s truly terrifying.Lisa Selin Davis would agree; her new piece on Substack is titled, “It’s a Terrifying Time to Have a Gender-Questioning Kid.” And I completely understand where the reader is coming from. I find the relentless promotion of concepts derived from critical gender and critical queer theory to be destabilizing to kids’ identities, lives and happiness. These woke fanatics are taking the real experience of less than a half percent of the population and imposing it as if it is some kind of choice for everyone else. This is called “inclusion.” It is actually “indoctrination.”Telling an impressionable gay boy he might be a girl throws a wrench into his psychological development, adding confusion, possible generating bodily mutilation. Making all of this as cool as possible — as so many teachers and schools now do — is downright disturbing. The whole idea that all children can choose their pronouns because the tiniest proportion have gender dysphoria is a form of insanity. But it’s an insanity based on critical theory whose goal is the dismantling of all norms, and deconstruction of objective reality by calling it a function of “white supremacy.” This next reader has “a theory I’ve wanted to float by you”:I’m increasingly becoming of the opinion that the modern trans/gender movement is the twisted offspring of something in the gay rights movement that we thought was a good thing but actually wasn’t: the notion that someone is “born that way.” Today, we increasingly feel the need to diagnose children who were “born a certain way” and then provide medical interventions for something that is aggressively conflating the physical and the mental. (I’m using the historical Abrahamic distinction between the two here, sure there’s a philosophical debate about whether or not this distinction exists.) And that makes perfect sense if you think that the foundation of acceptability for these immutable identities is determined at birth — we have medicine in service of zeitgeist.I think the original sin here is going with “what we could get done” in the gay rights movement and stopping before we finished the job — of letting everyone know that these are preferences, and you need to respect and love people regardless of the choices they make and not just because they “can’t help it” because they were “born that way.” If we were to do away with this biological imperative driving identity, we’d end up with what we should really be striving for: radical acceptance of personal choices, and deconstruction of gender roles and stereotypes without engaging in pseudoscience.The trouble with this argument, I think, is that it doesn’t reflect the experience of most gay people. We do not “choose” our orientation. That is the key point — whether that lack of choice is due to biology or early childhood or something else is irrelevant. And genuinely trans people do not choose to be trans either. It’s a profound disjunction between the sex they feel they are and the sex they actually are. It also may be caused by any number of things. But it is involuntary.The queer left rejects this view entirely — because, in their view, there is no underlying reality to human beings, biological or psychological. It’s all about “narratives” driven by “systems of power,” and being gay or trans is infinitely malleable. That’s why they continuously use a slur word for gays — “queer” — to deconstruct homosexuality itself, and turn it merely into one of many ways in which to dismantle liberal society. I regard the “queer left” as dangerous as the far right in its belief that involuntary homosexual orientation doesn’t exist. Lastly, a listener “would like to make a couple of suggestions for Dishcast guests”:1) Razib Khan — he has been blogging for 20 years on genetics, particularly ancient population movements (e.g. Denisovans and Yamnaya). His Unsupervised Learning is currently the second-highest-paid science substack after Scott Alexander. To give you a flavour, his post on the genetic history of Ashkenazi Jews was very popular. Khan also does culture war stuff, mostly because he is a scientist and believes in truth and science. He has subsequently been the subject of controversy, as you can see from his Wikipedia page — which isn’t really fair, but gives you a flavor. His post “Applying IQ to IQ: Selecting for smarts is important” is the kind of thing that gets him in trouble. He is my favourite public intellectual, in large part because he combines actual hardcore science information with anti-woke skepticism. And he is just generally a very smart and interesting guy. Though I’m a fan of his substack, I’d like to hear him on your podcast because I’d like to find out more about Razib as a person, how he feels about the controversies, etc.2) Claire Fox — Baroness Fox of Buckley — is a former communist turned libertarian and Brexiteer, once a member of European Parliament and now a life peer in the House of Lords. Her Twitter feed gives a pretty good idea of her interests and views. Here are some clips on cancel culture in higher education; single-sex spaces for women; and a libertarian view on smoking. She broadly belongs to the British “TERF island” of gender-critical feminists. I know you’ve had Kathleen Stock on your podcast already, but Fox’s background, libertarian views and current membership in the House of Lords make her particularly interesting.I know Razib and deeply admire him and his intellectual courage. And it’s true that, in real life, he’s a hoot, a lively conversationalist, with an amazing life story. Because of his views about the science of genetics and human populations, he is, of course, anathema to the woke left. One good reason to invite him on. Get full access to The Weekly Dish at andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

The U.S. Supreme Court, one of our bedrock judicial institutions, has been on the wrong side of history time and again. But as the arbiter of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is indispensable to the functioning of democracy. In this episode, esteemed constitutional scholar Akhil Amar discusses some of the court's most notorious rulings, starting with Dred Scott in 1857. And as the current court appears poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, Amar draws parallels between Roe and Dred Scott that explain why the robed justices have never been beyond the reach of criticism for, in the eyes of the critics, botching the Constitution.

Would Ukraine actually agree to cede the Donbas to Russia? ... Bob: Xi Jinping could end the war ... Is Putin using madman theory to his advantage, or is he actually going nuts? ... The pros and cons of regime change in Russia ... Is Ukraine becoming Syria? ... How George W. Bush helped alienate Putin from the West ... Russia's new incentive to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal ... America's curious policy on Ukraine and NATO ... Mickey: There's no necessary link between populism and autocracy ... Parrot Room preview: Oren Cass's revisionist account of Adam Smith, a relatively wholesome sex scandal at the Southern border, Mickey takes issue with “sneering, overconfident” legal scholar Akhil Amar, new evidence concerning Bob Saget's death, old rumors concerning Natalie Wood's death, the American trucker convoy flops, Bob plays damning audio from Jake Tapper, the hospital bombing in Mariupol, complaints about Michael McFaul, Putin, a reader's question about Bob's OJ Simpson theory, and Facebook and Twitter's pro-Ukraine/anti-Russia stances ...

Would Ukraine actually agree to cede the Donbas to Russia? ... Bob: Xi Jinping could end the war ... Is Putin using madman theory to his advantage, or is he actually going nuts? ... The pros and cons of regime change in Russia ... Is Ukraine becoming Syria? ... How George W. Bush helped alienate Putin from the West ... Russia's new incentive to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal ... America's curious policy on Ukraine and NATO ... Mickey: There's no necessary link between populism and autocracy ... Parrot Room preview: Oren Cass's revisionist account of Adam Smith, a relatively wholesome sex scandal at the Southern border, Mickey takes issue with “sneering, overconfident” legal scholar Akhil Amar, new evidence concerning Bob Saget's death, old rumors concerning Natalie Wood's death, the American trucker convoy flops, Bob plays damning audio from Jake Tapper, the hospital bombing in Mariupol, complaints about Michael McFaul, Putin, a reader's question about Bob's OJ Simpson theory, and Facebook and Twitter's pro-Ukraine/anti-Russia stances ...

On this week's episode, we're sharing the audio from one of the Center's weekly constitutional classes. The conversation features Akhil Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University and one of America's foremost teachers of the Constitution. Professor Amar joins National Constitution Center president Jeffrey Rosen to examine the key ideas at the heart of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—including natural rights, the rule of law, and popular sovereignty—as well as how those ideas took shape and who pioneered them. This conversation is part of the National Constitution Center's schedule of 2021-2022 live classes on the Constitution and other course offerings for middle school, high school, and college students. Each week during the school year, the Center offers three constitutional classes: Wednesdays at noon (Introductory Sessions) and at 2 p.m. (Advanced Sessions), and Fridays at 1 p.m. (All-Ages Sessions with Distinguished Guest Scholars). These public, 30-minute-long classes take place on Zoom, are streamed live on YouTube, and are recorded, captioned, and posted on our website. You can register for an upcoming class at constitutioncenter.org/learn or watch past classes in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Historian Gordon Wood unveiled his new book Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution at the National Constitution Center earlier this fall. He was joined in person by Professor Edward Larson, author of Franklin and Washington: The Founding Partnership; and virtually by Professor Emily Pears, author of the forthcoming book Chords of Affection: Constructing Constitutional Union in Early American History, as well as Professor Lucas Morel, author of Lincoln and the American Founding. The panel discussed America's earliest constitutional ideas, principles, and debates—from roots in the United Kingdom to the American Revolution through the Constitutional Convention and beyond. This conversation was held in person and streamed live on Constitution Day—September 17, 2021. This interview was edited for length and clarity. If you'd like to check out more content about the American Revolution, check out our constitutional class on the principles and ideas of the American revolution featuring renowned scholar Akhil Amar: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/educational-video/principles-of-the-american-revolution-with-akhil-reed-amar

September 25 was First Amendment Day in America — the anniversary of the date in 1789 when Congress approved 12 amendments to our Constitution, including what we today call the Bill of Rights.  On today's episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we discuss the origin story and history of America's First Amendment and its five freedoms. To do so, host Nico Perrino is joined by Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University Akhil Reed Amar. Amar is the author of “The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840” and the host of the podcast “Amarica's Constitution.” Show notes: “The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840” by Akhil Reed Amar “The First Amendment's Firstness” by Akhil Reed Amar “How America's Constitution Affirmed Freedom of Speech Even Before the First Amendment” by Akhil Reed Amar www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

On March 1-2, 1991, the Federalist Society's Yale Law School student chapter hosted the annual National Student Symposium in New Haven, Connecticut. The topic of the conference was "The Bill of Rights After 200 Years." The conference's third panel discussed "The Bill of Rights and Governmental Structure."Featuring:Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale Law SchoolWalter Berns, Professor Emeritus, Georgetown UniversityProf. Kate Stith, Yale Law SchoolProf. John Langbein, Yale Law SchoolModerator: Judge Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On March 10-11, 1989, the Federalist Society's University of Michigan student chapter hosted the eighth annual National Student Symposium in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The topic of the conference was "Property: The Founding, The Welfare State, and Beyond." The second day of the conference commenced with a discussion on "Property and the Constitution."Featuring:Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale Law SchoolCharles Fried, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Jeremy Rabkin, Cornell UniversityProf. Frederick Schauer, University of Michigan Law SchoolModerator: Judge Stephen F. Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Yale law professor Akhil Amar discusses his new book The Words that Made US: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840

In this 2016 conversation from our archives, leading constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School shares foundational lessons about the Constitution. He discusses his book The Constitution Today: Timeless Lessons for the Issues of Our Era with National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Will Trump Give up the Election Contestation Grift of Donations That Go Into his Pocket? | What Today's Early Voting in Georgia Reveals | After Unequal Covid Treatment, Will the Vaccine be Fairly Distributed? backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

On today's episode, Andrew talks with Alan Hirsch, professor and author of A Short History of Presidential Election Crises, about why this current moment is not the fifth presidential election crisis. Alan Hirsch, Instructor in the Humanities and Chair of the Justice and Law Studies program at Williams College, is the author of a number of books including Impeaching the President: Past, Present, and Future (City Lights) and For the People: What the Constitution Really Says About Your Rights (Free Press) (coauthored with Akhil Amar). He received a J.D. from Yale Law School and B.A. from Amherst College. His work has appeared in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, Newsday, and the Village Voice. Hirsch also serves as a trial consultant and expert witness on interrogations and criminal confessions, testifying around the nation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the first episode of The Legal Academy, a new show about law professors hosted by Professor Orin Kerr of UC Berkeley Law School. The guest is Akhil Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University. Music: www.bensound.com

On March 4-5, 1988, The Federalist Society's University of Virginia student chapter hosted the National Student Symposium in Charlottesville, Virginia. The topic of the conference was "Are There Unenumerated Constitutional Rights? The final panel of the conference discussed "The Role and Relevance of the Amendment Process".Featuring:Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale University Law SchoolStephen Markman, U.S. Department of JusticeModerator: Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On March 4-5, 1988, The Federalist Society's University of Virginia student chapter hosted the National Student Symposium in Charlottesville, Virginia. The topic of the conference was "Are There Unenumerated Constitutional Rights? The final panel of the conference discussed "The Role and Relevance of the Amendment Process".Featuring:Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale University Law SchoolStephen Markman, U.S. Department of JusticeModerator: Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Akhil Amar, professor of law and political science at Yale University, and Eric Foner, professor emeritus of history at Columbia University and author of The Second Founding: How Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution, discuss constitutional changes and challenges throughout our nation’s history. Kenneth Mack, professor of law and history at Harvard University, moderates.  

On February 25, 2006, the Federalist Society student chapter at Columbia Law School hosted the 25th Annual National Student Symposium. The Symposium featured a panel on the question, "How Does International Law Limit the War on Terrorism?"Featuring:Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale Law SchoolProf. Catherine Powell, Fordham Law SchoolProf. Saikrishna B. Prakash, University of San Diego School of LawProf. John Yoo, Boalt Hall (UC Berkeley) School of LawModerator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC CircuitAs always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On February 25, 2006, the Federalist Society student chapter at Columbia Law School hosted the 25th Annual National Student Symposium. The Symposium featured a panel on the question, "How Does International Law Limit the War on Terrorism?"Featuring:Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale Law SchoolProf. Catherine Powell, Fordham Law SchoolProf. Saikrishna B. Prakash, University of San Diego School of LawProf. John Yoo, Boalt Hall (UC Berkeley) School of LawModerator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC CircuitAs always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Steve Vladeck rejoins us on the law of civilian-military separation, whether Marbury v. Madison was rightly decided, and how his recent oral argument before the Supreme Court went (spoiler: amazingly but weirdly). (Ignore Christian's use of the term "basises" (wtf?) and other misstatements and inanities ... you try recording ever week between classes....) This show’s links: Steve Vladeck’s faculty profile (https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/stephen-i-vladeck) and academic writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=362455) The National Security Law Podcast 54: Family Ties or Family Matters? (https://www.nationalsecuritylawpodcast.com/ep-54-family-ties-or-family-matters/) First Mondays OT2017 #12: False Idol (http://www.firstmondays.fm/episodes/2018/1/22/ot2017-12-false-idol) (guest Steve Vladeck) SCOTUSblog page for Dalmazzi v. United States (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dalmazzi-v-united-states/) (including links to all the briefs and more) The oral argument: Oyez version (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-961), SCOTUS downloads (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2017/16-961), and transcript (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-961_08l1.pdf) Oral Argument 137: Steve Vladeck Pincer Move (http://oralargument.org/137) (where we discussed Dalmazzi at the cert stage) Burns v. Wilson (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13501152442303513103) Marbury v. Madison (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9834052745083343188) William Baude, Exciting Developments in Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction: Some Would Call It the Second Coming of Marbury v. Madison (http://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/08/exciting-developments-in-supreme-court-a) United States v. Coe (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18289973798213960260) ex parte Bollman and Swartwout (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=891096754227370578) Akhil Amar, Marbury, Section 13, and the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2019&context=fss_papers) Louise Weinberg, Our Marbury (https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/uploads/publication_files/ourmarburypub.pdf) Felker v. Turpin (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11980829158634315619); see also Oral Argument 84: Felker's Chickens (http://oralargument.org/84) United States v. Gray (http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2017OctTerm/170525.pdf) Special Guest: Steve Vladeck.

On GPS, a full hour on the Las Vegas massacre and how to stop America's gun madness. What can the United States learn from other countries like Japan and Australia? What does America's 2nd Amendment REALLY say and how has it been interpreted over time? And is gun control really the answer? One of Fareed's guests says "No". GUESTS: David Frum, Tom Friedman, Leah Libresco, Akhil Amar, Tim Fischer

This week, we are excited to share with our community Dr. Akhil Amar’s presentation, “The Constitution at a Crossroads”. Dr. Akhil Amar is a leading legal scholar and Constitution expert. This week's podcast is an amazing opportunity for those who were not able to attend in person, to learn more about the significance of the Constitution, and a variety of issues and how they intersect.

Christian, Joe, and frequent co-host Sonja West dig into the mail and tweet bags and discuss nonsense, sense, and antisense. Topics include: Judge John Hodgman’s weighing in on speed trap law, podcast listening speeds, the Slate Supreme Court Breakfast Table, the insurable liability approach to the gun crisis, Joe sings (yes) a line from “The Externality Song” and (relatedly, obv) Hamilton vs. Upstream Color, price matching and the morality quiz, footnoting and in-text citation and madness, an argument over Guantanamo and rights, more on the culturally polarized gun debate and on rights generally, Posner’s skepticism of academia, and how things change and get better. This show’s links: Sonja West’s faculty profile and writing Oral Argument 1: Send Joe to Prison (guest Sonja West) Judge John Hodgman on flashing lights to warn of speed traps Slate: The Supreme Court Breakfast Table Oral Argument 101: Tug of War Oral Argument 100: A Few Minutes in the Rear-View Mirror Oral Argument 96: Students as Means Kedar Bhatia, Footnotes in Supreme Court Opinions David Foster Wallace, Tense Present (an earlier version of Authority and American Usage in Consider the Lobster and Other Essays) The brief Christian helped with in Rasul v. Bush, making the Mathews v. Eldridge argument the Court wound up adopting in the simultaneously decided Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (see pp. 17-21) Sonja West, The Second Amendment Is Not Absolute The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that confers immunity on gun manufacturers for most gun deaths; see also the wiki article on the act Oral Argument 102: Precautionary Federalism (guest Sarah Light) Dissent from denial of cert. in Stormans v. Wiesman Mark Graber, Alito (Religion) v. Alito (Abortion) Richard Posner, Entry 9: The Academy Is out of Its Depth Akhil Amar, Entry 10: Who Judges the Judges Richard Posner, Entry 11: The Immigration Decision Won’t Do Much Dawn Johnsen, Entry 12: How can a judge dismiss the importance of the Constitution? Richard Posner, Entry 27: Broad Interpretations Special Guest: Sonja West.

Shaking off the rust after a two-week break, we’re back to argue about the Supreme Court’s latest entry in the “Let Us Pray” genre. We are joined by law and religion scholar Nathan Chapman and focus on ancient Greece, where by Greece we mean Greece, New York, and by ancient we mean 1999. That’s when the town began to invite local clergy to its monthly Town Board meetings to deliver short prayers. For almost a decade, these prayers were uniformly Christian and almost always explicitly so. Government and prayer: what to do? We disagree. This show’s links: Nathan Chapman’s faculty profile and writing Nathan Chapman, Disentangling Conscience and Religion This Week in Law, Episode 258, featuring Christina Mulligan and recommending our show Oral Argument 18: Oral Argument, with Tom Goldstein Town of Greece v. Galloway, Supreme Court, pdf and html Town of Greece v. Galloway, Judge Calabresi’s opinion for the Second Circuit Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, a creche case that uses the “endorsement” test Marsh v. Chambers, the principle Supreme Court case on legislative prayer Lemon v. Kurtzman, origin of the so-called Lemon test for Establishment Clause challenges Lee v. Weisman, prohibiting prayers at public school graduation ceremonies McCreary County v. ACLU, finding a predominantly religious purpose in displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses and holding government must remain neutral between religious and non-religious viewpoints, with O’Connor’s concurrence decisive Nelson Tebbe and Micah Schwartzman, The Puzzle of Town of Greece v. Galloway Akhil Amar, The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction Marie Griffith, The Establishment Clause: An Interview with Judge Guido Calabresi Guido Calabresi, video of lecture, What about the Establishment Clause? (his remarks begin at 8:50) The entry gate to New Haven’s Grove Street Cemetery Special Guest: Nathan Chapman.

A live discussion with Yale Law School professor Akhil Amar about the future of American rights.

A live discussion with Yale Law School professor Akhil Amar about the future of American rights.

Perhaps more than at any other time in the history of the world, democracy is on the march. But the idea that people, individual citizens could engage in the practice of self government wasn't always so. In fact, it was only with the creation of our constitution, launched 225 years ago, that the idea was even appropriately articulated. But that constitution as brilliant and profound and clever as it was, was not the be all and end all of democracy. It was a starting point from which we would develop laws, establish precedent, and nourish institutions which would provide the foundations of self government. Those things have grown to become, what Akhil Amar, the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale, calls America's Unwritten Constitution.My conversation with Akhil Amar: var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); try { var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-6296941-2"); pageTracker._trackPageview(); } catch(err) {}

American Constitution Society sponsored debate with Peter Schuck and Akhil Amar discuss birthright citizenship.